Commons Sitting of 12 March 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    TRANSAS GROUP BILL (BY ORDER)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Wednesday 19 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Police Recruitment
    Rev. Martin Smyth: If he will make a statement on the Police Service of Northern Ireland recruiting patterns. [101440]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): Since February 2001, 644 recruits have been appointed to the Police Service of Northern Ireland on the statutory 50 per cent. Catholic, 50 per cent. non-Catholic basis. The fifth recruitment campaign was launched on 7 March.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that in competition three, for example, the training has been undersubscribed by about 70, that none of the targets has yet matched up to requirements, and that we are haemorrhaging more officers than we are getting in? Does she also agree that the Chief Constable's desire to have more bobbies out serving the people would be best achieved not by abolishing the PSNI band but by changing the 50:50 recruitment requirement?
    Jane Kennedy: No, I do not agree with that. The figure to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the third competition is not one that I recognise, although I will investigate what he has said. It remains true, however, that more than 530 recruits entered training in the first year. That is well in excess of the figure of 370 suggested by the independent policing commission—Patten's figure.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that the constitution of the new local policing partnership boards will have an effect locally on how recruitment will go? If the boards do their duty well, it
    272
    will improve the status of the police force in their area. Will she, however, take on board the fact that there is a great deal of concern in Northern Ireland about how the boards have been appointed? Is it the Government's rule that ex-members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary should not be appointed to them? A prominent former member of the RUC—an assistant chief constable—was banned, as was the former chairman of the Police Federation. [Interruptioni.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister can now reply.
    Jane Kennedy: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening comments about the importance of the establishment of the district policing partnerships. This is an important and positive step forward for policing in Northern Ireland, which will develop the accountability of the police to their local communities and improve the working relationships between them. It is impossible for me to comment on the individual cases that he raised about appointments to the DPPs, but if he cares to write to me on the subject, I will look into it.
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I was recently in Belfast, where we had discussions with Hugh Orde, the Chief Constable. He said that one great obstacle to better recruitment from the Catholic or nationalist community would be removed if Sinn Fein lifted its objections to joining the police force in Northern Ireland. What assessment has been made of the likelihood of that happening?
    Jane Kennedy: Obviously, the establishment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, with the support of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Catholic Church and, internationally, the Irish and US Governments, has transformed the nature of policing in Northern Ireland. As a result of that new beginning, the proportion of Catholics applying to the PSNI has been unprecedented. My hon. Friend is right, however: it is now time for all political parties and all community leaders to support policing and to encourage young Catholics to join the police service and take up a career in policing.
    Lembit Öpik: How successful have the policing action plans been in increasing the number of female applicants and recruits to the PSNI? Also, given that an almost exclusively Catholic and Protestant police service is little more representative of the whole community, would the Minister be willing to have at least a discussion about the prospect of action plans to encourage applications from those who do not categorise themselves as either Catholics or Protestants?
    Jane Kennedy: As the hon. Gentleman knows from the discussion in Standing Committee yesterday with the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), and myself, we have made it clear that we constantly review the success of recruitment arrangements, but the success of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in attracting women to join

    273
    the police service, not just to apply but to complete training successfully and start as regular police officers, has been phenomenal.

    Strategic Investment Programme
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on the strategic investment programme. [101441]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): The strategic investment programme is a key product of the reinvestment and reform initiative. It will provide the most radical infrastructure investment in Northern Ireland in a generation, backed by a major reform agenda. The programme will involve additional investment totalling about £2 billion over the next five years for new schools, hospitals, roads and improved water and public services.
    Dr. Iddon: That £2 billion of extra expenditure is certainly needed in Northern Ireland, but can my hon. Friend assure me that the money will be spent effectively and will benefit all the communities in Northern Ireland in improving the infrastructure that he mentioned?
    Mr. Pearson: Obtaining good value for money for public funds is obviously a key priority for the Government. That is why we decided to set up the Strategic Investment Board, which was formally constituted on 17 March. It will bring in a team of experts to advise on the delivery of the strategic investment programme and will add value to the whole process to ensure effective public procurement of badly needed investment in Northern Ireland's infrastructure.
    Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Minister will be aware of the strategic importance of the site of the former Maze prison in my constituency. I welcome the recent establishment of the advisory panel, but will he give me an assurance that the local community will be fully consulted before any final decision is made about the development of the Maze site?
    Mr. Pearson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the advisory panel. It is very much the right way to go, and decisions will be taken some time in the future about the Maze site which, as he knows, is of regional significance, so we need to ensure that there is wide involvement. The views of the local community are clearly important in that process, and I can certainly give him an assurance that they will be heard.
    Mr. Iain Luke: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the announcement last month of £70 million in investment in the Lame to Stranraer ferry, with new terminals in Northern Ireland and Scotland and improved crossing times, will indeed be of benefit to strategic investment in Northern Ireland. Hopefully, it will encourage more trading links between
    274
    Northern Ireland and Scotland and investment in the two countries, and will be the basis for further trading opportunities.
    Mr. Pearson: I very much welcome the recent announcement of improvements to the Lame to Stranraer line. Those links are important, as is air access to Northern Ireland. There is an agenda there that needs to be developed. In addition, we are having discussions with our colleagues in Scotland about the Ballycastle to Campbeltown ferry and what can be done to ensure that there is a ferry service over the summer.
    Mr. Gregory Campbell: Can the Minister confirm that while many people in Northern Ireland welcome the strategic investment programme, there is concern among ratepayers about the possibility of significant and substantial rate increases to pay for that programme?
    Mr. Pearson: Nobody likes to pay extra, whether in rates or income tax. I understand the concerns in Northern Ireland, and I want to confirm absolutely that the £2 billion strategic investment programme does not rely on any increase in the regional rates other than that previously agreed by the Executive. I also want to take the opportunity to say that some politicians in Northern Ireland are living on a fantasy island if they believe that they can get money from the GB taxpayer to invest in all Northern Ireland's future infrastructure requirements. The clear message is that if improvements in infrastructure are wanted by people in Northern Ireland they will have to go some little way themselves to pay for the cost of them.

    Decommissioning
    4. Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent progress has been made towards decommissioning terrorist weapons. [101442]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Loyalist Volunteer Force engaged in an act of decommissioning in 1998 and the Provisional IRA engaged in two acts of decommissioning in 2001 and 2002. However, no paramilitary organisations are currently in contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. It was clear to all involved in the discussions at Hillsborough last week that much more needs to be done to ensure that both republican and loyalist organisations complete the transition to exclusively peaceful means—real, total and permanent.
    Miss McIntosh: I wish the Secretary of State well at this crucial stage of the peace process. Does he agree that we need not just a verbal commitment—from the IRA in particular—but visible proof of decommissioning, and does he share my disappointment that the IRA has not even been in touch with the commission to prove that it has started decommissioning?
    Mr. Murphy: I thank the hon. Lady for her good wishes. It is indeed regrettable that no paramilitary organisation has been in contact with John de Chastelain's commission. I also agree that we must

    275
    ensure that whatever acts of decommissioning take place occur in such a way that people across Northern Ireland can trust and have confidence in the process.
    Mr. Eddie McCrady: Does the Secretary of State agree that the continued existence of paramilitary groups, armed and organised, is an affront to basic democracy in Ireland and the legitimate Governments of Ireland, north and south? Is not the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons by all those groups an essential factor in the current negotiations if the current political impasse is to be broken, progress made and trust re—established? Will not a drip-feed of decommissioning for purely party political gain destroy any remnant of trust between the parties in Northern Ireland, destroy our devolutionary institutions and destroy political progress?
    Mr. Murphy: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend will know, because both he and I were involved in the run-up to the Good Friday agreement in 1998, that decommissioning is very much part of that Belfast agreement, and that it is a vital element of the means by which trust and the institutions can be restored. Illegal weapons have no place in a modern democratic and peaceful society.
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: Does the Secretary of State agree that more mere statements and stunts from the IRA will do nothing to increase the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland that the IRA is committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means? Will he now give details of the paper published for the Hillsborough parties but denied to the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives in the House—details, that is, of the concessions now on offer to IRA—Sinn Fein and approved between the Government and the pro—agreement parties, in return for IRA—Sinn Fein's doing what they should have done years ago and for which they should receive no reward?
    Mr. Murphy: Of course it is important for us to tackle the whole issue of paramilitary activity, in whatever form. The Prime Minister has said, the Taoiseach has said, all of us who are involved in these issues have said, that it must end. As for the other issue, I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient. It is pretty clear that he has only a few weeks to wait before the papers are published for everyone in Northern Ireland, and indeed everyone in the House, to consider.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that the parties that drew up the agreement at Hillsborough wanted time to reflect on the details of the proposals, along with the membership. That is why next week we will consider postponing the election for a few weeks, so that discussions with the membership—including members of his party—can take place.
    Kevin Brennan: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of loyalist efforts towards decommissioning—and, in particular, of the recent announcement of a ceasefire by the UDA and the handing over of pipe bombs?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree that we must address the decommissioning issue across the board, and that
    276
    includes loyalist paramilitaries. We welcome the UDA's statement as far as it goes. I am also glad that over the past few weeks there has been relative peace on the streets of Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, those groups, together with all the other paramilitary groups, must engage with the international commission.
    David Burnside: The Secretary of State is right to say that decommissioning is not enough to restore confidence in the peace process. Will he comment on his answer to me yesterday to a question about the break-in at Castlereagh police station, which was investigated by Sir John Chilcott? The Secretary of State said that he would inform the House when he has received the Chilcott report. According to my information, he has received the report—which incriminates Adams, McGuinness and Bobby Storey, the IRA's head of information and intelligence in Belfast—and it appears to me that there is a cover—up.
    Mr. Murphy: There certainly is no cover—up, and I shall, of course, issue that report in due course, when it has been given to me. My office and my predecessor decided to commission it, and it will be made directly to me. I will inform the House at the appropriate time. There will be an opportunity in the coming weeks to consider all the issues, including paramilitary activity. In due course, I will inform the House when the report is ready.
    Mr. Tom Harris: What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the threat posed to the peace process by terrorist groups such as Continuity IRA and the Real IRA, and what impact will that assessment have on the Government's plans for a reduction in the number of British troops in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Murphy: We in no way underestimate the difficulties posed by the continuing activity of so—called dissident republican groups. A fortnight ago, I visited Mr. Michael McDowell, the Minister for Justice in the Republic of Ireland, to see how we can co—operate to deal with dissident republicans. There is no place in Northern Ireland for dissident republicanism, and there is no place for violence. We shall certainly engage in ensuring that we work together with the Irish Government to do our best to overcome those difficulties.
    Mr. John Taylor: Will the Secretary of State confirm that decommissioning must indeed be visible, verified and complete before all parties can have the confidence to re—join the Executive in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Murphy: I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh): the importance of decommissioning is the political process is that it is an essential part of restoring trust and confidence in the politics of Northern Ireland across the board. [Interruption.] It is a hugely important issue, and it was part of the Belfast agreement. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.

    Peace Process
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If he will make a statement on the peace process. [101443]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): As a result of talks with the parties last week in Hillsborough, we believe that there is now a large measure of shared understanding among pro—agreement parties on the way forward in the restoration of stable and inclusive devolved Government. However, I repeat that this can be realised only in the context of a complete cessation of paramilitary activity. We need to give these developments every chance of success. To provide time for parties to reflect and to take soundings among their organisations, we propose to defer elections to the Assembly to Thursday 29 May, and we will introduce a Bill tomorrow to that effect. I am optimistic that these developments can deliver a breakthrough in the search for a lasting and stable settlement.
    Mr. Carmichael: The little of last week's talks that is in the public domain is generally welcomed by Liberal Democrats, but what assurances has the Secretary of State been given that any acts of completion by paramilitary groups will include a statement to the effect that those who have been exiled from their homes will be free to return, without fear of threat or intimidation from such groups?
    Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his party's support in this matter. The question of exiles was discussed at Hillsborough last week, and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), is dealing with these issues with groups such as Maranatha. The fact that he is also the Minister with responsibility for victims shows that we see a correlation between these different issues. [Interruption.] This is a hugely important matter, and the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we have been discussing it.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that special arrangements for on-the-run terrorists can—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chamber is far too noisy, and it is unfair to those who are in for Northern Ireland questions. No private conversations should be taking place in the Chamber.
    Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that special arrangements for on-the-run terrorists can be considered only in the context of the completion of decommissioning and disbandment by the relevant paramilitary organisations, and a judicial process? That process would involve a guilty plea before a court or a determination of the facts by a court, and a verdict.
    Mr. Murphy: I agree. The act of completion on the part of the IRA is an essential precondition in relation to OTRs. I also agree that the matter should be dealt with in a judicial fashion rather than by way of amnesty.
    Mr. Davies: That is very welcome confirmation that the Secretary of State now supports a judicial process.
    278
    Will he have the grace to acknowledge that it is a thoroughly good thing that the Opposition were able successfully to oppose the unilateral offer of an amnesty made by the Government at Weston Park, as that would not have involved judicial process? The Opposition's action means that that important card remains in the Government's hands, and there is a chance of getting the judicial process that both he and I want.
    Mr. Murphy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we agree.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: On 10 April 1998, the Prime Minister wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, in the following terms:
    "Dear David,
    I understand your problem with paragraph 25 of Strand 1 is that it requires decisions on those who should be excluded or removed from office in the Northern Ireland Executive to be taken on a cross-community basis.
    This letter is to let you know that if, during the course of the first six months of the shadow Assembly or the Assembly itself, these provisions have been shown to be ineffective we will support changes to these provisions to enable them to be made properly effective in preventing such people from holding office."
    Is the Prime Minister any nearer to delivering on his promises? When can we expect action to be taken to ensure that the Assembly will be effective if it comes together again?
    Mr. Murphy: Of course, the issue of sanctions is very important. We discussed it last week at Hillsborough, and it is an important part of any agreement that might have to be forged in the weeks ahead. The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spent nearly 32 hours at Hillsborough last week and is deeply committed to the peace process in Northern Ireland.
    Mrs. Iris Robinson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no more tinkering with the date for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections, which are set for 29 May? Will he further confirm that he will ignore parties that will try, for selfish reasons, to get those elections postponed?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Lady will know that the elections in Northern Ireland will be held on 29 May, as long as the House agrees to that next week. However, the elections were postponed for 28 days to allow all parties to reflect on the proposals and papers that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will give to the people of Northern Ireland sometime at the beginning of April.

    Terrorist Activity
    Andrew Selous: What recent representations he has received about (a) punishment beatings and (b) forced exiles in Northern Ireland. [101444]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): Both the Secretary of State and I hold regular meetings with our senior security advisers, and with

    279
    elected representatives and those with influence within their communities, to discuss a wide range of security issues, including paramilitary attacks.
    Andrew Selous: What steps is the Minister prepared to take to make the ending of all forced exiles and exclusions a condition of any future agreement with the paramilitaries?
    Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman will have heard the replies to that question given just now by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In many cases, these vicious attacks have left victims physically and mentally scarred for life. They are the exact opposite of what the Belfast agreement is all about. Those who sanction and carry out the attacks are the enemies of the transition to a peaceful society in Northern Ireland, which is what we are seeking to establish.

    Bill of Rights
    Lady Hermon: If he will make a statement on progress on a future Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. [101445]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): As set out in the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is undertaking work with a view to making recommendations to the Government on the scope for a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland. At this stage, the Government's position is only to encourage broad participation in the process. To that end, I welcome the engagement of the Northern Ireland political parties in response to the request of the chief commissioner and would urge those who have not yet done so to become actively involved.
    Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Minister's response, but may I encourage him to go further and tell the House whether the Government intend to include the controversial issue of Drumcree and other parades in Northern Ireland in any future Bill of Rights?
    Mr. Browne: It would be entirely inappropriate for the Government to anticipate the advice that we will be given by the Human Rights Commission, but the hon. Lady can rest assured that the Government's position is that all issues of relevance to the people of Northern Ireland that could be broadly covered by the description of being within the scope of a Bill of Rights, taking into account the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, are issues that ought to be discussed in the context of the process.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Peter Bradley: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Peter Bradley: Which is the lesser threat to global security: allowing more time for Iraq's disarmament or, in disarming Iraq—particularly in view of the French President's commitment to exercise his veto—dividing the international community? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance to the House that so long as there is a prospect of rebuilding an international coalition under the authority of the United Nations, he will resist US pressure for precipitate action?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly do everything I can to make sure that the international community stays united at this time and that we achieve a second UN resolution. The reason why we should have such a resolution, as my hon. Friend's question implies, is that, for many months now, we have been waiting for Saddam Hussein to come fully into compliance with the resolution that was passed unanimously by the UN. It is time that he did so. If he does, even now conflict can be averted. But the worst thing that could happen is for the will of the UN to be expressed so clearly, for him to defy that will and for no action to follow at all.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Can the Prime Minister guarantee what he said to me last week: that there will be a vote in the UN on a second resolution?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is our intention to put a vote to the UN on a second resolution. We continue to work for that, flat out, and we will do that in a way that most upholds the authority of the UN.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: If such a vote takes place, it may not be carried or it may even be vetoed. The House of Commons and the British people have a right to know now where the Government stand in that event. Is it now the case that if there is no second resolution, the United States will go to war without the UK?
    The Prime Minister: In respect of the latter part, where the right hon. Gentleman asks about the United States going it alone, let me say this to him and to the House. It is true that the United States could go alone and, of course, this country should not take military action unless it is in our interests to do so. It is the British national interest that must be upheld at all times. But I believe that it is important that we hold firm to the course that we have set out because what is at stake is not whether the United States goes alone or not, but whether the international community is prepared to

    281
    back up the clear instruction it gave to Saddam Hussein with the necessary action. That is why I am determined to hold firm to the course that we have set out.
    Mr. Duncan Smith:The Prime Minister will therefore be aware that, particularly overnight, there has been some confusion among our allies and among various parties including his own. To clear up that confusion, will he confirm today that he could commit British forces to a war without the backing of a second resolution, although he still intends to go for that, and we agree with him?
    The Prime Minister: I have set out on many occasions the circumstances in which we would take action. At the moment, however, the best thing is to go flat out for that second UN resolution. I am trying to do so, and it might help if I were to tell the House the types of things that we are discussing with other partners in the UN at the moment. What we are looking at is whether we can set out a clear set of tests for Iraq to meet to demonstrate that it is in full compliance—not partial compliance but full compliance. For example, based on what the inspectors have already found, it should produce either the thousands of litres of anthrax unaccounted for or the documentation showing that it is destroyed. For example, given that, since the last resolution in November, not one Iraqi scientist has been interviewed outside Iraq, where they and their families can be guaranteed safety, we should make sure that Iraq is allowing those interviews to take place. For example, Iraq should produce the unmanned aerial vehicles, which can spray chemical and biological poison, or, again, produce the documentation showing that they are destroyed. If we set out those conditions clearly, and back them with the will of a united UN, we have a chance, even now, of averting conflict. What we must show, however, is the determination to act if Saddam will not comply fully.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I agree with the Prime Minister, and he has confirmed in that answer that he keeps the option of committing British troops to war with or without a second resolution. Does the doctrine of Cabinet collective responsibility therefore apply to that position?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course it does.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State for International Development said that she would not support military action without a second resolution. I remind the Prime Minister that, amazingly, she called him "reckless". The Prime Minister can either have Cabinet collective responsibility or his Secretary of State for International Development. Which will it be?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that it is an embarrassment to find myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, or him in agreement with me, on the issue of Iraq, but we are agreed. Rather than scoring points, which are perfectly acceptable and which I
    282
    understand, at this point, when we are facing momentous decisions for the country, it is probably better that we discuss the substance.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister knows that we agree about the principles of what he has been trying to do. I must remind him, however, of exactly what the Secretary of State for International Development said. It is remarkable. She said that
    "the current situation is deeply reckless; reckless for the world, reckless for the undermining of the UN … reckless with our government, reckless with his own future".
    Surely if the right hon. Gentleman cannot convince his Cabinet, it will be very difficult to convince the British people. Surely the Prime Minister's big tent is not big enough to include both the Secretary of State for International Development and Donald Rumsfeld. It is time for him to choose: which will it be?
    The Prime Minister: The one thing that I have found in the last few weeks is that I have not been short of advice from anyone on this issue. The most important thing for us to do as a House, never mind as a Government or a country, especially with our armed forces facing the potential of action, is to come together, to work hard in the United Nations to secure the second resolution and to try to make sure that we send the strongest possible signal to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm or face the consequences. I say again to the right hon. Gentleman that it is better to concentrate on that than on the points that he has just made.
    Tony Wright: The whole House will want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his tireless efforts to resolve the present crisis through the United Nations. But may I take him back for a moment to January 1998, more than five years ago, and to a letter written by several members of the Republican right in the United States, including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, to President Clinton? In one sentence of that letter, having said that American interests in the Gulf now require military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein and to produce regime change, they say:
    "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council".
    It says nothing about disarmament, nothing about human rights and nothing about terrorism. Is not that the smoking gun?
    The Prime Minister: Again, one of the things that I have found is that I cannot actually answer for the comments of every member of every Administration around the world—including, occasionally, even my own, as has just been pointed out. I would say to my hon. Friend simply this. Rather than debate the wealth of conspiracy theories and comments from the Republican right or the Democrat left, or this part or that part, why do we not just work out what is the right thing to do and do it? We should work out the right thing to do, whatever anyone else may say. We went through the United Nations because we believe in it, but I said at the beginning—when we went down the UN route in September last year—the UN must be the way of dealing with this, not the way of avoiding dealing with it. That is why it is important now, four and a bit months

    283
    on when Saddam is not fully complying, that we come to the crunch and take a decision. We have tried to provide, within the UN framework, a set of conditions that allow us to test clearly, based on what the UN inspectors have said, whether he is fully in co-operation or not. What I urge, even at this stage, is for countries to get behind that and help us with it, because that is the best way to achieve disarmament peacefully.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Has the Attorney-General advised the Prime Minister that a war on Iraq in the absence of a second United Nations resolution authorising force would be legal? What advice has the Attorney-General given?
    The Prime Minister: I have said on many occasions that we as a country would not do anything that did not have a proper legal basis to it.
    Mr. Kennedy: This week UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that in the absence of a second UN resolution we would be acting in a way that breached the UN charter. Is Kofi Annan wrong?
    The Prime Minister: No. what Kofi Annan has been saying—and I agree with him—is that it is important that the UN comes together. That is why we are trying to provide a basis, a compromise even at this stage, that allows us to resolve the matter properly. I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that it is complicated to get that agreement at the UN when one nation is saying that whatever the circumstances it will veto a resolution. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would accept that we cannot have such a situation and that we have to ensure that we deal with the issue in the terms of resolution 1441, which we all—including the right hon. Gentleman—agreed upon.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: While the attention of the world is understandably focused on Iraq, the everyday crisis in Israel and Palestine continues and worsens, particularly for millions of Palestinians but also for many Israeli citizens. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps he is taking to keep alive what faint hope exists in the middle east peace process, and in particular, will he call on the new Israeli Government not to take the opportunity of the focus on Iraq to further undermine the already precarious position of Palestinians and their society?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says and I emphasise to him that we remain firmly committed to taking forward the middle east peace process. I welcome the decision to appoint Abu Mazen as Prime Minister for the Palestinian Authority. That is a good, forward and progressive move, and I hope that it will get an echo from the Israeli side. I believe that there will be very few people in the middle east and the Arab world who shed tears for Saddam
    284
    Hussein, but people everywhere—not just in the Arab and Muslim world—genuinely want to see the middle east peace process back on its feet and going forward.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: What was the legal basis in international law for war against Yugoslavia, and if that did not require a UN resolution why does the Iraqi situation require one?
    The Prime Minister: As the Foreign Secretary has pointed out, resolul ion 1441 gives the legal basis for this. The reason we have been seeking a second resolution is, as I said to the Liaison Committee when I appeared before it, that it is highly desirable to demonstrate the unified will of the international community.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us believe that he has done the right thing over many months in restraining the American President from taking precipitate action, and in working instead through the United Nations? Is it not important, as the hours and days tick by, that he use all his efforts to tell President Bush that we need another UN resolution and that there is no need for an unseemly haste to war?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in saying that it is important that we do everything that we can to achieve that second UN resolution. To be frank, many people thought thai we might be in action even now, but we are not. We have delayed precisely in order to try to bring the international community back round the position that we set out in 1441. I go back to that the whole time. It was at the heart of the agreement that the United States take the multilateral path of the United Nations. The agreement was very simple. The United States had to agree to go through the United Nations, and to resolve this through the United Nations, but the other partners inside the United Nations agreed that, if Saddam did not fully comply and was in material breach, serious consequences and action would follow. The fact is, he has not complied. Four and a half months on—indeed, 12 years on—he has not complied. That it why it is important that we bring this issue to a head now and get it resolved. I remain, as I say, working flat out to get it resolved through the United Nations. That is easily the best thing. It will be a tragedy for the UN, when faced with this challenge, if it fails to meet it. However, we have to ensure that the unified will, as set out in 1441, is implemented.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: May I bring the Prime Minister to matters domestic, and in particular education, education, education? Is he aware that Leicestershire is the worst funded education authority in the country under the new education formula spending shares? Last week, I had a meeting with some 30 governors, all of whom will have to set deficit budgets because their funding from the Government this year is 1 per cent. less in real terms than it was last year. The governors are talking about redundancies. Will the Prime Minister address this matter, and is he surprised that people in Leicestershire believe very little that he says?
    The Prime Minister: We have increased education spending by a massive amount. All authorities have

    285
    received an above-inflation allocation in their grant. As we are, for a moment, discussing domestic issues, the other point to make is that, while the hon. Gentleman is getting to his feet and calling for even more money for our education service, he appears not to be aware that his Front Bench is calling for 20 per cent. less money.
    Mr. Colin Challen: Given that, tomorrow, there will be a day of action across the European Union opposing the general agreement on trade in services; and given that the EU's requests for the liberalisation of services under the current GATS negotiations have recently been published, does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for a moratorium on the negotiations until we in the developed world can carry out detailed and thorough impact assessments—of the environmental impact, for example—that wit; result from a liberalisation of services?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend and some non-governmental organisations on GATS. When we talk to the developing countries, they tell us that they are keen for things to move forward. Whatever we do, it is important to put their interests first, because they are desperate to get the markets liberalised.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: When will this House have a vote on whether to commit troops to war in Iraq? Does the Prime Minister agree with his defence Minister, who said yesterday that war was "pretty damn inevitable"? If so, why?
    The Prime Minister: I think that what my hon. Friend said was that, if Saddam Hussein refuses to disarm voluntarily, conflict becomes inevitable. That is the position that we have set out throughout.
    I have made it clear on many occasions, as has the Foreign Secretary, that—subject to the security and safety of our troops, which must come first—we believe that it is right that this House has a say on this issue. People will then be able to see the stand that we take, and people will then have to make up their minds as to the stand that they take.

    Indonesia
    Mr. Win Griffiths: What plans he has to visit Indonesia to discuss with the President of Indonesia the campaign against international terrorism.
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans at present to visit Indonesia but I have been in contact with President Megawati. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed counter-terrorism with President Megawati when he visited Indonesia in January.
    Mr. Griffiths: I recognise my right hon. Friend's desire for a peaceful outcome to Iraq's compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions, so will he accept that Indonesia—the largest Muslim nation in the world and emerging from dictatorship to take on the virtues of democracy and tolerance, but the victim of extremist Islamic international terrorism in Bali last October—desperately needs a peaceful outcome to the present
    286
    Iraqi crisis, and support from the United Kingdom Government for its reform programme and in combating extremist Islamic terrorists?
    The Prime Minister: First, I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done in this area and to the inter—faith work that he has carried out to promote greater understanding between the Muslim and Christian religions. I agree entirely with what he says about Indonesia. We are funding, to the tune of several million pounds, the transition of Indonesia to full democracy, helping it to develop the institutions that it needs and making sure that democratic participation in Indonesia is as full as it possibly can be. I agree with him entirely. Indonesia is a very important country for all sorts of reasons, not least because it has such a large Muslim population. It is important that we in the western world work closely with Indonesia to assist its progress.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). Will the Prime Minister accept that the key to stability and moderation in Indonesia and other similar Islamic states lies in the west—in particular, America and Britain—being seen to be even-handed in those situations in which Muslims are oppressed, especially those in Palestine and Kashmir?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that the even-handedness of our approach is essential. That is why we have worked as far as we can—it is obviously a bilateral dispute—to assist the parties to reach agreement in Kashmir. I can only repeat what I said earlier about the middle east process. The plight of the Palestinians—and, indeed, the plight of innocent Israelis blown up in terrorist attacks—is dire and requires our attention. It would be the best signal of even-handedness that we could give right across the Muslim world if we were prepared to show the right energy and commitment to the middle east peace process. I will do everything that I can to ensure that we and others do that.

    Engagements
    Kate Hoey: May I thank my right hon. Friend for taking two days last week out of his very busy schedule to spend in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that it is important that, when dealing with terrorism, we do not operate with double standards? Can he give me and the people of Northern Ireland an assurance that he will not allow any deal to be entered into with the Irish Republican Army that allows terrorists on the run to evade the criminal justice system?
    The Prime Minister: We have said that the issue of so-called on-the-runs has to be dealt with, and we have said that it should not be dealt with by way of an amnesty. We are looking at the right way of doing that. I hope that my hon. Friend will also agree that, for all the difficulties, the Northern Ireland peace process over the past few years has yielded enormous benefits. The fact that we are actually talking about a situation in which

    287
    we can have a permanent end to violence in Northern Ireland is a huge tribute to everyone who has been involved in the process since 1997.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the Prime Minister aware that, yesterday, the American Government issued invitations to five American corporations led by Mr. Cheney's Halliburton group to bid for the reconstruction of post-war Iraq and pointedly excluded British and foreign firms? Is the Prime Minister not embarrassed to have given such unstinting loyalty to an American President who regards international co-operation with such contempt and war as an opportunity to dish out contracts to his cronies?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree at all with the hon. Gentleman in relation to that. In respect of the American President and international co-operation, I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was as a result of many requests made to the US President that he went through the United Nations last year. I think that it is right, now, that the will of the UN is upheld. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that.
    Ms Dari Taylor: The contract for the aircraft carriers has been placed—the first stage—and offers great investment opportunities for our manufacturing industry. What advice would my right hon. Friend give to all involved so that we see maximum benefit from this contract in terms of new products and new markets and not just excellent employment opportunities but greater employment opportunities?
    The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says is right. There is an additional point to consider, too. As a result of what is happening in, for example, the shipbuilding industry generally, skills and technology are being developed in this country. The order has had an enormously beneficial productive impact on our manufacturing base, and I congratulate all my hon. Friend's constituents who have been involved in it.
    Mr. James Gray: The Prime Minister still commands majority support in his Cabinet, but does he feel that he needs support from the parliamentary Labour party, this House or, perhaps, the country as a whole before he commits us to war?
    The Prime Minister: I have said all the way through that it is important, as I said a moment or two ago, to have a vote in the House, subject to the caveat I have always entered. I hope that the hon. Gentleman also understands, however, that it is important that I set out, as Prime Minister, what I believe to be right in this country's national interest. I have tried to do that over the past few months and believe that I have set out my position. I think there is a real threat to this country from the twin sources of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and if we do not deal with them, our world and our country will be a less secure and more dangerous place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members will join us in that endeavour.
    Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that divisions in the UN, NATO, the European Union and, indeed, this House only give comfort and opportunity to Saddam? Does he also agree that a deadline receding into the summer heat haze is not a serious interpretation of "serious consequences" for incomplete compliance which were unanimously resolved by the Security Council last November? Given that Saddam has both motive and capacity to equip terrorists with chemical and biological weapons, does he further agree that it is an urgent necessity to disarm him whether or not there is another UN resolution?
    The Prime Minister: I think the point that my right hon. Friend makes is absolutely right and he sets out precisely why we need to take action. The idea that we could leave British and American troops down there for months on an indefinite time scale, without insisting clearly that Saddam disarms, would send not only a message of weakness out to Saddam, but a message of weakness right across the world. That is why it is important that it is dealt with. I hope that even now those countries that are saying they would use their veto no matter what the circumstances will reconsider and realise that by doing so they put at risk not just the disarmament of Saddam, but the unity of the United Nations.
    Mr. John Randall: Does the Prime Minister accept that I, and many of my constituents, would like to be convinced of and to believe his stance on Iraq? Does he also accept that it would greatly assist us if he published the legal advice that his Government have received?
    The Prime Minister: It is not the convention to publish legal advice, but it is the convention to state clearly that we have a legal base for whatever action we take, and of course we must have such a legal base. I understand the concern and the strong arguments on the other side, but the argument for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others is surely this: in circumstances in which we believe Saddam is a threat I think most people believe that—and in circumstances in which we demanded that he co-operate fully with the United Nations and he has not—and everyone accepts that—unless we act and enforce that co-operation, we are setting the will of the United Nations at naught and are also saying to Saddam, "You can carry on building these weapons of mass destruction and we will do nothing about it." If we send the message to Saddam that he can carry on and that we do not have the will to stop him, I ask the hon. Gentleman and his constituents what credibility the will of the United Nations will have the next time either he or another tyrant or dictator tries to arm themselves with such weapons? That is why we have to act.
    Mr. Derek Foster: In these momentous times, by his heroic efforts to seek a second resolution in the United Nations, I believe that the Prime Minister has the overwhelming support of

    289
    Members on both sides of the House. Are there not two great prizes for all his activities? The first is the credibility of the United Nations in seeking to enforce its resolutions because without that it will lose all credibility. The second is the ability to continue to persuade the President of the USA to go down the multilateralist route.
    The Prime Minister: The point that my right hon. Friend made at the end is very important. We all agreed to take the multilateral route last November. Let us be clear, not everyone in every part of every Administration may have wanted to take the multilateral route, but we did so, and on the basis that Saddam had a final opportunity to disarm and that if he did not comply fully, unconditionally and immediately with UN inspectors, he would be in breach and serious consequences would follow. Not a single person—not a single person in Europe; not a single person in the rest of the world—believes that he is co-operating either fully or unconditionally, and certainly not immediately. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is at
    290
    stake is the integrity of the multilateral process. Unless we uphold it now, we are never going to be able to uphold it in future times.
    Andrew George: On a domestic matter, the Prime Minister's chosen rural tsar, Lord Haskins, has said that it is a good thing that small farmers are having to leave the industry. Last year, 15,000 farmers left or were forced out of the industry. Was that a cause for concern or celebration in Downing street?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid I have not caught up with Lord Haskins's comments, but of course not. The reason why we have tried to increase the amount of money going into agriculture is to support our farming industry, but it would be cruel to pretend to people in that industry that there does not also need to be change and reform. For that reason, we set up the commission headed by Don Curry, which has had immense support in the farming community. We are providing the funding to implement it, and I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would support us in doing so.

Antisocial Behaviour
12.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, I should like to make a statement on tackling the scourge of antisocial behaviour.
In recent years, we have made significant progress in tackling crime and disorder. In the past six years, crime has fallen by just over a quarter and street crime has been reduced dramatically. The chance of being a victim of crime is the lowest for more than 20 years, yet the fear of crime remains high. No one will believe that crime has fallen unless they experience it in their own lives and those of family and friends. More than one in three people consider that antisocial behaviour is still affecting their quality of life. Over 30 per cent. are intimidated by gangs hanging around their neighbourhood. Too many lives are affected by the irresponsibility, disrespect and loutishness of others.
Antisocial behaviour can affect people physically and emotionally, undermining health and destroying family life. It can also hold back the regeneration of our most disadvantaged areas, creating the environment in which crime can take hold. Where enforcement is poor and antisocial behaviour goes unpunished, criminals learn that they can get away with lawlessness. That is why we are now leading a new drive to work with individuals, families and communities to build effective action against antisocial behaviour.
Rights and responsibilities must go hand in hand. The White Paper and the legislation to follow aim to put in place support and help for those who are prepared to accept it, and clear, speedy, and effective enforcement when they are not. Our public spaces should be open and free for everyone to use. Our streets should be free of loutishness, gangs and drunken hooligans, or drug dealers capturing the lives of young people. Neighbours creating noise and nuisance and those intimidating others are a blight on our society. Those who do not suffer should not get in the way of protecting those who do.
That is why we will crack down on noise and nuisance. Fixed penalty notices of £100 will be available to environmental health officers. Persistent abuse will lead to a reversion to probationary tenancies. Court action and fast-track eviction will follow. Automatic rehousing is no longer an option. Children of persistently antisocial and dysfunctional families will be offered new intensive fostering. Tenants and landlords must share responsibility. Antisocial tenants will lose their right to buy.
We intend to go further. Tenants must not be allowed to make the lives of others a misery. We will empower local authorities to license designated private sector landlords so that they no longer automatically receive direct benefit payments. We will also consult on the appropriateness of measures to withdraw from individual tenants the automatic right to be granted housing benefit. Where the problem is caused by pubs or clubs, environmental health officers will have the power to close them. Unscrupulous drug dealers can exploit weak tenants and owners of property. New fast-track closure powers will be put in place so that crack houses can be closed and decisive action taken to seal those properties.
292
Gangs of youths can often be the catalyst for further crime, as well as intimidation. We will enable the police to designate areas experiencing high levels of antisocial behaviour, within which new powers to disperse groups causing problems will be available. We will merge these powers with those of child curfews to enable unaccompanied children out late at night to be removed and returned to their homes.
We are all aware of other forms of behaviour threatening our neighbourhoods. We have already announced measures to tackle the misuse of air weapons and the availability of replica guns. We will make carrying an air weapon, or an imitation one, in a public place an arrestable offence. We will support wholeheartedly the new proposals to restrict the sale and misuse of fireworks.
However, we recognise that family problems, poor educational attainment, unemployment and alcohol and drug misuse can all contribute to unacceptable behaviour. Those do not constitute an excuse, but we must act to enable people to rebuild their lives. We will take cross-government action to provide support, while upholding the principle of "something for something". No longer should an individual child disrupt a school, nor should inaction by parents disable that child for the future through non-attendance at school. Parents have a duty to ensure that their children are in school and behaving. Persistent failure will result in parenting orders, fines or fast-track court action. We will support families in overcoming their problems, through parenting classes and new fast-track parenting orders. We will examine residential provision as a compulsory part of education and rehabilitation.
At the heart of antisocial behaviour is a lack of respect for others—the simple belief that one can get away with whatever one can get away with. We need the help of the community as a whole in changing the culture. We need parents to instil a sense of responsibility and respect; communities to build the confidence to provide witnesses and to stand up to the thugs; and businesses to help in overcoming unacceptable and irresponsible behaviour.
Record police numbers, the historic reform of police pay and regulations, the new extended police family, including community support officers, specials and street and neighbourhood wardens, all have their part to play. We have an effective armoury of measures: fast-tracked, slimmed-down antisocial behaviour orders, acceptable behaviour contracts and parenting orders. Since August, almost 2,000 fixed penalty notices have been issued in the four pilot areas. We are clear that breaches of orders must be treated decisively. We must slim down bureaucracy, free up the police and enforcement agencies to do their job and engage the public, businesses and landlords in creating a safer and saner world.
I should like to thank all those who have contributed to the White Paper and also give my thanks for the co-operation of ministerial colleagues in this cross-government drive to rebuild civic society. I know that every Member of this House believes that families should teach respect, that bad behaviour must be dealt with decisively and that there is a need to restore pride in our communities. That is the challenge that we face in

293
the decade ahead. I ask the House to support the measures that I have outlined today as a contribution to that endeavour.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his usual courtesy in providing us with early sight of his statement.
For the past 18 months or so, I have been talking about re-establishing the neighbourly society and recapturing the streets for the honest citizen. The Home Secretary's admirable catchphrase "respect and responsibility" is remarkably similar. That similarity of phrasing is no coincidence; it arises from the fact that he and I share the same diagnosis of the same problem. We both recognise that there has been, and is in too many parts of Britain, a retreat from civilisation. We both recognise the truth behind the broken windows thesis that has guided American cities in their successful efforts to reduce low-level disorder and crime. We both recognise that, if our children are to grow up into the people whom we want them to be, they need to grow up in a society that is orderly and respectful and not on streets that are controlled by gangs, hoodlums, drug dealers and pimps.
The difference between the Government and the Conservative party consists not in a difference of diagnosis, but in a difference of views about the cure. Since the Government came to power, we have seen the introduction of some 15 Bills and Acts dealing with crime and disorder. Legislation is seeping out of every pore of the Home Office, and now we are to have another Bill. I doubt, alas, that this next accretion of the Home Secretary's prodigious legislative energy will do any more to cure the problems that we both diagnose than have his and his predecessors' previous endeavours.
The fact is that the boys in the gangs on the streets are strangely unaware of the Home Secretary's laws, because they are so little enforced. I snail not go quite so far as one of my right hon. Friends, who described the Home Secretary as fostering a police state without the police, but on a day when the snoopers charter is reintroduced and the Home Secretary publicly derides my commitment to providing 40,000 additional police officers, the House could be forgiven for wondering whether that right hon. Friend is rather too close to the mark for comfort.
In the absence of police on the streets, I wonder who will really enforce all those new measures. Or will they go the way of the child curfew orders that have never been issued? Will they go the way of the night-time courts, which now appear to have been abandoned after costing £6,000 an hour and £7,000 a case? Will they go the way of the mandatory sentences that have never been handed down? Will the new spot fines be enforced? Alas, the record of enforcement on existing fines, which is terrible, gives no grounds for optimism on that score. Will parenting contracts be any less bureaucratic than the antisocial behaviour orders, which have made strong men weep with frustration? Will the new crackdown on crack really have any impact if the police are overstretched and no effective, intensive abstinence-based treatment is available for young crack addicts? Will the new measures against begging, of which the
294
Home Secretary has made so much today on the airwaves, actually do any more to diminish aggressive begging than could already be done under existing vagrancy laws if they were effectively enforced?
We are told in the press, from which, I regret to say, we nowadays learn more about the Government's intentions than we are ever vouchsafed in this House, that Downing street now wants to "under-promise and over-deliver" by concentrating on "specific, achievable policies" rather than targets.
The Home Secretary has put forward a plethora of specific policy intentions, but I fear that in the absence of police on our streets, and in the absence of coherent long-term programmes to lift young people off the conveyor belt to crime, the Home Secretary will find that the vast new range of powers that he announced will do no more than mask his failure to enforce effectively the laws that already exist.
Mr. Blunkett: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to having similar policies and his acknowledgement that we agree that the broken windows theory is correct—that is, that if one does not start by dealing with the activity taking place in the immediate neighbourhood, it grows into unacceptable crime. I had better make it clear, however, that I have not read ex-Mayor Giuliani's book, in case anyone thinks that I have plagiarized him in the same way that the right hon. Gentleman plagiarises me. [Interruption.] It is the Opposition's job to poke me with a stick rather than the other way round, so I thought that I would have a go.
The right hon. Gentleman was doing fine until he got to the word that he had done his best to avoid—"but". I want to take the "but" out of the way that things are done. I want to stop the police saying, "We'd like to do something, but we don't have the power." I should like housing authorities to stop saying, "We'd like to deal with your unacceptable neighbour, but we don't have the power." To those who see mayhem on their streets and say, "We want something doing, but nobody's going to do anything", I should like to say that from now on, they are going to do something.
The issue of legislation is an interesting one. Is it a fault, given that legislation may have failed in the past, to legislate in future for things that we want to do, that we know will work, and that we know that people out there want us to put in place? Is it wrong, because there has been a failure to enforce in the past, to put measures in place to ensure that enforcement—through fixed penalty notices, eviction, closure of premises or dispersal—is at the very cutting edge of what we do? I cannot guarantee that the police, the housing offices or the environmental health service will always use their powers. The Daily Telegraph, never mind the Opposition, would certainly take me to task if I had the power to determine the powers of every single official in every single housing office or police station. But I can give them the powers and I can ask them to use them alongside the community.
Yes, we do need more police, but who cut the police service when they were in office? The Opposition were responsible for a fall in numbers in the police service, which we inherited. We are building on that, and we now have record numbers. I have no intention of wiping out

295
the entirety of our immigration and border controls to switch the money into policing. I am, however, intent on making sure, with the Chancellor, that we have the money in future—as we do now—to ensure that year on year there will be increases not only in the trained uniformed police service, but in community support officers, street wardens and all those who are prepared to work alongside the police in doing their job.
I am asked whether these orders will go the same way as the others. Will they be like, for example, the drug treatment and testing orders, of which there have been 11,000 so far? Will they be like the parenting orders, of which there have been almost 4,000? What about the reparation orders, of which there have been more than 18,000? What about the fixed penalty notices that I mentioned? There have been 2,000 in just the few months of the pilot in four areas. What about acceptable behaviour contracts, of which there have been more than 1,800? What about the young people? There have been more than 3,500 intensive supervision and surveillance orders. So, yes, I do intend the new measures to go the same way as those orders, which represent thousands of measures saving thousands of incidents of antisocial behaviour. They ensure that our streets are free and clean, that our homes are quiet and protected and that people know that this House is determined to work on their behalf, and alongside them, to create a Civilised society.
Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary will know that Liberal Democrat Members support the aims and objectives that he has set out. We want a less violent society and a more civil and respectful society. He knows, too, that we shall judge each proposal on its merits, which is why proposals for dealing with crack houses and unscrupulous landlords will be welcome, but why further criminalising beggars, most of whom are on drugs, drunk, homeless, mentally ill or all of those, seems to us a wholly misguided way of tackling a problem that requires people to be brought back into society rather than being given a longer criminal record.
Will the Home Secretary tell us why he has not followed the advice of the Government's social exclusion unit, which made clear, in its most recent report, that we need effective use of existing powers? We need to allow them to settle down and to work across the country rather than to introduce new legislation. Why do not the Government heed the advice that I certainly receive, and which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman receives? There is a panoply of legislation. What we need is not more legislation but more people: more police, more community wardens, more special constables and more youth and community workers. We need more people in the community to help to manage the community and to follow successful examples.
Before the Home Secretary makes more proposals for more laws that are less likely to be enforced, will he look at the projects in my borough—in his city—that work but need more resources? Those projects have been shown to be successful; they are local answers, devised in the community with the support of the community, and are far more effective than legislation passed by Parliament, which, to be honest, goes over the heads of most people in urban Britain.
296
Finally, will the Home Secretary tell us how we can hold realistic consultation on a White Paper produced in the second week of March when he proposes to introduce a Bill in the first week of April? Is not the reality that this is more about dressing the window for a local election in May and to cover up the Government's six years of inadequate law and order policy, rather than the long-term solutions that the right hon. Gentleman knows work better—as does everybody else?
Mr. Blunkett: God forbid that I should spoil the campaign of the Liberal Democrat candidate for Mayor of London, but if the hon. Gentleman's campaign is that we do not need those measures, that we should not take action and that nothing more needs to be done or could be done, he will not get very far.
I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's questions. The honest truth is that he is entirely right to say that we need to take measures to help people on the streets who suffer from drug misuse or alcohol abuse. That is right and proper; it is what we should do. However, if giving people money and leaving them in the subways had been the cure and had put them in appropriate residential facilities and got them off drugs, we should not have the problem on our streets at present. A combination of actions will be needed, including offering people refuge, as we do already, and also drug and alcohol treatment, as we shall do. We must ensure that children who are used by beggars as a means of getting people to give money are treated and supported properly rather than being kept in cold subways as a means of raising cash.
Let me deal with the perfectly reasonable issue raised by the hon. Gentleman—that we need more of everything that he listed. Yes, we do. Why is there more? Why do we have new initiatives, such as those in his constituency to which he referred? Why are diversionary programmes being set up between my Department, that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who is present this afternoon, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Health? Why do we have all those new programmes? I t is because the Labour Government have funded them and put them in place. Why do we need more? Because many of them are working.
However, that is no reason not to match what we are doing positively with the enforcement that was mentioned a few moments ago and which will help those who constantly complain to us that they would do something about the problems if only they had an easy-to-implement power. I am determined to give it to them.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I give today's announcement a hearty welcome. If we are to make a difference to the lives of our constituents, especially those who live in the less leafy areas of the country, we must defeat the vast yob culture that is, I often think, our greatest inheritance from the Thatcher decade.
I especially welcome measures to deal with air weapons, fireworks and spray paints. Far from thinking such things irrelevant, our constituents are more likely to wish that we had implemented them years ago.
I especially look forward to measures to cut off the flow of housing benefit to rogue landlords—probably the most important aspect of my right hon. Friend's announcement. It is extraordinary that for years

297
housing benefit has been used to destroy our inner cities, and we have to put a stop to that. What is the timetable for the housing benefit measures?
I agree with my right hon. Friend that enforcement is the key. There is no shortage of policemen, but sometimes there is a shortage of policemen on the streets. We need to ensure, as he is doing, that there will be more policemen on the streets—on bicycles, perhaps, but not in helicopters.
If more children are to be excluded from school, it is important that alternative arrangements are made for their education. Although big improvements have been made, there is still a gap between children being excluded from school and the alternative arrangements for them. Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind?
Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and I am grateful for his support, which he gives sparingly and only when he agrees, so I particularly welcome it.
I am in favour of policemen on bikes—even on tandems, although we are trying to break up the two-by-two regime. I am strongly in favour of ensuring that children have alternatives when they are excluded from school. There is universal coverage for children who are permanently excluded, but we do not yet have that for those excluded only for a few days. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is working hard to ensure that we achieve that later this year.
I agree entirely that the measure to deal with the very small number of rogue landlords, which will be targeted on designated areas, will make a real difference. It will get the message across that people cannot freeload on the state—what Aneurin Bevan once described as sucking at the teats of the state. If w: can get that right, everyone will be playing their part in overcoming that scourge.
Mr. Nick Gibb: Given the low rate of payment of fines, with only 63 per cent. of fines levied by magistrates actually being paid, how will the Home Secretary ensure that the fixed penalty notices are paid by their recipients? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the 2,000 fixed penalty notices that have been issued since August: how many of those have been paid?
Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that enforcement of enforcement must be the order of the day. That is why the Courts Bill, currently with the House of Lords, actually ensures that deduction from pay or benefits will be an automatic option rather than a long—term struggle.
On the pilot for fixed penalty notices, 60 per cent. were paid within 21 days and a further 38 per cent. were either paid or withdrawn, leaving only 2 per cent. That defaulted. That is a tremendous record and if we can build on it we shall have a success on our hands.
Lynne Jones: One of my constituents, an alcoholic, received detoxification treatment in hospital but could not get rehabilitation
298
services on discharge. He subsequently died. Other constituents, drug addicts, have to wait inappropriately long periods before receiving rehabilitation services. Although the Government have given additional resources, parliamentary answers suggest that the number of people receiving rehabilitation treatment is not growing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential to put adequate services in place and that, in order to do so, we must assess the need for such services? Will he ensure that an assessment of that need is undertaken so that adequate services can be set up?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I will. The establishment of the national treatment agency, the co-ordinated approach that we spelled out in the autumn, the £500 million extra that we are putting into resourcing the services, and the targeted approach—including the £30 million that we have put into the basic command units and police divisions most affected by the relationship between crime and drugs will make a difference. My hon. Friend is entirely right to speak of the speed with which not only treatment but rehabilitation needs to be made available. We have a mountain to climb, and I ask not for patience but for support in going forward to ensure that that happens much more quickly and effectively than it does at present.
Mr. John Horam: Is the Secretary of State aware that antisocial behaviour is a big problem in the leafy suburbs as well as in the inner cities and rural towns? I received an e-mail only an hour ago from a constituent in St. Mary Cray who was complaining about a neighbour who had been forced out of their house as a result of constant harassment. Half the problem is that, when people go to the police to complain about this sort of behaviour, the constant refrain that they hear is, "We don't have the resources to do anything about it."
In Bromley, for example, the number of police has gone down in the last five years, and the number of police stations in my constituency—one of which was in St. Mary Cray, where that incident occurred—has been reduced from three to one under this Government's regime. Does the Home Secretary not see that, unless the Government tackle the number of police on the level that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) outlined only a day ago, and encourage them to go down the path of zero tolerance, this statement will be just another litany of feeble and inadequate responses?
Mr. Blunkett: I would be happy to look at the number of police in Bromley and raise the matter with the Met commissioner. Secondly, we now have a national policing plan, which includes antisocial behaviour. We have also given a clear direction from the centre that we want police out on the streets. But let me take the hon. Gentleman head on. Is he suggesting that I should determine the number of police stations in each division? Is he saying that I should determine how the chief constable and superintendents in charge of the police in each police force area should direct them? If so, he is contradicting everything that his Front Benchers said when the minimal powers that we chose to take in the Police Reform Act 2002 were being debated. I was told time and again by the Conservative party that it was

299
none of my business to interfere with how the police deployed their resources locally. I believe that it is my business, on behalf of the people we represent. I believe it a lot more than his party does.
Mr. Frank Field: May I assure the Home Secretary that there will be quiet pleasure in many Birkenhead homes this afternoon at the announcement that he has made today? May I ask him a further question about taking away housing benefit from absentee landlords and neighbours from hell? I welcome his intention to consult on these proposals, but will he consult more widely than the normal list of suspects, who usually advance a defence for people whose behaviour is indefensible? May I suggest that one or two panels of ordinary citizens might give him different views from those of the people whose first cry is about the violation of civil liberties? If he asked for volunteers in Birkenhead, his only problem would be one of crowd control as decent citizens came forward to volunteer to support his policies.
Mr. Blunkett: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the enormous amount of work that he has done and the campaigns that he has been running. I was pleased, some time ago, to be in his constituency to experience the quiet enthusiasm of the people there—quiet only so that we did not have to issue fixed penalty notices for noise nuisance-for sorting out the mayhem around them. As he would expect, I entirely agree with his final remarks, and I have invited the head of Liberty to join me in my constituency in representing just such people.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman asked for support for his proposals, but that will of course depend on their detail. He outlined a battery of new sanctions and penalties, many of which will depend on the discretion of officials. Does he understand that, unless his proposals provide for proper safeguarding of civil and political rights, they will he strongly resisted? Consequently, before he publishes his Bill, will he consult widely and genuinely on the incorporation of proper legal and civil safeguards into his statutory proposals?
Mr. Blunkett: There will always be proper rights in our society to protect the interests of those who are accused, so that we can avoid wrongful accusation and wrongful conviction. Those rights will exist, whether in relation to fixed penalty notices, the measures that I have outlined that will be consulted on in relation to housing, the powers relating to individual tenants—I did not answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) properly: those powers will be consulted on alongside the draft housing Bill which will be published in the summer—or the powers that we shall take in relation to rogue landlords, having consulted on the detail of how best to apply them. Of course we will ensure that those rights are incorporated in the legislation, as they always will be. The whole thrust of the proposals is to ensure that the rights of the decent, law-abiding community are safeguarded, not at the expense of the right to avoid wrongful conviction but at the expense of those who make a mockery of our existing laws.
Chris Ruane: I thank my right hon. Friend for an answer to a written question that his
300
Department gave me last week on the number of antisocial behaviour orders issued by police authorities in England and Wales. The top number was 95; the bottom number was nought. My own authority, the North Wales police authority, had issued one, which placed it second to bottom. What help, encouragement and—dare I say—pressure can my right hon. Friend apply to ensure proper take-up of the slimmed-down, fast-track ASBOs that he has announced today?
Mr. Blunkett: Progress has already been made. I have made it clear all along, over the last 18 months, that I thought that the number of orders being taken out was unacceptable. The slimmed-down orders that we already have in place, namely the interim orders, are beginning to bite. We have figures only through to November, and they are disappointing, but since the new interim orders came in in November there has been a dramatic change. We want to ensure that there is immediate access to the existing courts and, in future, to the criminal justice centres, so that immediate action cart be taken. We want the police, housing officials and social landlords to be able to use those orders quickly and, above all, we want to ensure that people know about them.
One thing that has struck me over recent months is how little those who have the power to implement these policies know of what they have at their disposal. Even last Friday night, in my own constituency—in a most deprived and difficult part of the city in terms of crime—I found that people were not aware of what was already on the statute book. We have a major task to inform people simply and clearly about how the police and housing and environmental health officials can do their job.
Annabelle Ewing: Will the Home Secretary clarify what plans he has to consult the Scottish Executive on the matters that might impact on Scotland, and when any such consultation is planned to take place?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I certainly will. Obviously, the issues around housing and housing benefit are most relevant to the question of reserved powers and to the relationship with the Parliament in Edinburgh. We will begin those consultations immediately.
Jonathan Shaw: I welcome the confirmation that the Home Secretary is to introduce new laws to restrict the use of air weapons, which maim thousands of people every year and, in extreme cases, can kill. People are simply too young to use them at the age of 14. I also welcome the other measures that he has announced today. People experiencing antisocial behaviour in some areas feel that nothing can be done, and that they have to endure it week in, week out.
Lordswood in my constituency was having particular difficulty with antisocial behaviour. The Kent police responded, and the local community has seen a difference. That is giving the community the confidence to work with the police in the way that my right hon, Friend has described today. It is essential, however, that

301
we have the necessary powers to stop the antisocial behaviour that so many of our communities have to endure.
Mr. Blunkett: I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on that since entering the House, and I welcome his support. I am pleased that the Kent police have responded in the way that he described and I hope that the new powers will help them to do so even more effectively in future.
Tim Loughton: In order to have a system of on-the-spot fines, the Home Secretary knows that on-the-spot policemen are needed. In Sussex, we still have fewer policemen than we did six years ago despite all his assurances. What assurances can he give that this will not just be another way of further stretching police officers and distracting them from other duties? He also mentioned the culture of getting away with it. Does he acknowledge that we still have the same number of youth offenders in custody as we did five or six years ago, and that last year 77,700 people failed to turn up to court—that is, 13 per cent. of magistrates court cases? What is he doing to make sure that penalties stick when they are issued?
Mr. Blunkett: The Criminal Justice Bill and the Courts Bill are designed to incorporate measures to deal with cracked and failed trials, defendants' failure to attend court and the prolonging of court cases. On policing, the run-down in Sussex was part of a policy of the last but one chief constable. Within weeks of taking office, I had the pleasure of ensuring that he found other pastures in which to exercise his liberal views.
Ms Ann Coffey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which will also be warmly welcomed by my constituents. He mentioned dysfunctional families whose children are beyond control. I am sure that he is aware that some of them are as young as six or seven, and that their behaviour terrorises whole communities. That is a particular problem in council estates in my constituency, and I am sure that he agrees that social housing tenants, who often have no choice about where they live, should not have to put up with antisocial behaviour as part of their tenancy. How does he propose to increase the effectiveness of local agencies in dealing with those families because, as he will appreciate, it is not a matter for the police alone?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, it is important that we take every possible step to remedy the problem and not just enforce the law, which is a last resort. We therefore want to experiment with new ways of intervening, such as with the co-operation of social services. We want to build on the Family Welfare Association and home start examples in which people move into the home so that they can assist families. When I was leader of Sheffield city council, home makers were liter ally undermined by professional bodies that did not like the idea of a practical scheme that did not involve counselling services but involved people going to the family, supporting and helping them to change their behaviour. If we cannot get through that way, we should ensure
302
that, as part of parenting orders, residential provision is made available. In the end, people have to live in a civilised society. If we cannot do that by persuasion we will have do it through enforcement.
Mr. Mark Prisk: In Hertfordshire, tackling antisocial behaviour is a question not of not enough police powers but not enough police officers. Given the £5 million shortfall between what Hertfordshire police need simply to stand still and what the Home Office has just given us, can the Home Secretary tell the House and my constituents how his new powers will be enforced, because we are short of more than 200 officers?
Mr. Blunkett: By continuing with record recruitment, we achieved a 40 per cent. increase in recruitment last year—the largest ever increase in recruitment in this country. What do we get when we recruit? Either we are accused of not recruiting enough, or the Opposition say that there are too many probationers in relation to experienced police officers. The Opposition cannot have it both ways—how can somebody become a policeman if they do not first become a probationer? That is an absurd argument and an example of doublethink. We are recruiting at record levels; we are putting the money in; there will be more police in the coming year than has ever been the case in our history; and we will carry on.
Ms Karen Buck: My right hon. Friend is right to maintain a focus on the spectrum of criminal and antisocial behaviour that blights the lives of residents in neighbourhoods in my constituency. I particularly welcome his commitment to speeding up proposals on the closure of crack houses. I commend the excellent enforcement work in my own boroughs, including the neighbourhood warden scheme in Westminster and the rapid reaction crack protocol developed by police and housing providers in Kensington and Chelsea.
On crack houses and many other forms of antisocial behaviour, one of the biggest problems is encouraging people to come forward and give evidence. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that more is being done to encourage and support people who give evidence against individuals guilty of operating crack houses and other antisocial behaviour?
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right about the excellence of those schemes, and I commend them. She is also right that, unless we can provide protection for witnesses, particularly in London, where people sometimes have to be moved away from the situation that puts them at risk, provide professional support for witnesses, ensure that we use technology more effectively and, above all, give people the confidence to be able to come forward knowing that they will not suffer retribution, we will fail. That must be a priority, and we all need to work together to ensure that that is the case.
Lady Hermon: I assure the Home Secretary that the Ulster Unionist party supports much of his statement, so much so that I seek confirmation that the measures will extend to Northern Ireland. As he knows, criminal justice is not a devolved issue, and was

303
not devolved before the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I would therefore welcome clarification.
Will the Home Secretary also look at something that has worked well in Northern Ireland—restorative justice schemes? Disappointingly, there was not a single mention of them in the statement. There is a good lesson to be learned from Northern Ireland, and I urge the Home Secretary to extend the measures to our Province.
Mr. Blunkett: As ever, the hon. Lady is right. Restorative justice is critical and is covered in the White Paper. We have had more than 11,000 restorative justice orders so far on the mainland, which is welcome. She always charms me into agreeing that excellent schemes that she welcomes should be extended to Northern Ireland. I will obviously consult colleagues on making sure that we get that message across.
Geraldine Smith: Thanks to Government funding, we now have street wardens and community support officers out on the streets of both Morecambe and Lancaster. Does my right hon. Friend agree that seaside towns such as Morecambe have particular problems with antisocial behaviour, usually caused by large amounts of privately rented accommodation and absentee landlords who do not care what sort of tenants live in their properties and have no commitment to the towns. Can he assure my constituents that the measures that he is introducing will help to deal with rogue landlords in Morecambe who cause so much misery to my constituents?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes I can. My hon. Friend is right—the local authority will be able to designate the areas that she described and can take action by providing proper licensing, by insisting that there are proper terms, conditions and contractual arrangements for those tenants, and by ensuring that action is forthcoming if tenancy agreements are breached.
Mr. David Cameron: In his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the Home Secretary said that to get 40,000 extra police officers, we would have to abolish the immigration service altogether. Is it not the case that in 1993, when there were 20,000 asylum seekers coming to this country instead of the 100,000 that we have now, the immigration service cost £230 million, or £1.5 billion less than it costs today? Does that not prove that if we had a sensible asylum policy we could have thousands more police officers? Is it not time that the Home Secretary started to look at some imaginative schemes instead of things that are failing?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is a bit wide of the subject.
Clive Efford: I welcome the statement. Last month I chaired a public meeting with 200 angry residents of the Middle Park estate in my constituency, who called for just the sort of powers that my right hon. Friend has described.
The problems that undermine ASBOs also undermined earlier laws against antisocial behaviour that did not work, chiefly because those who commit
304
acts of violence and vandalism in our communities are prepared to intimidate and threaten victims to a point at which they will not come forward to give evidence. That applies even to the new powers. We must become more proactive in gathering evidence, so that we can tackle those individuals.
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right. That is why professional witnesses matter. It is also why—this has been raised with me on my own patch—the ability to provide signed and affirmed written statements, commonly but wrongly known as hearsay, will be important, preventing people from being faced down in court or intimidated or beaten up on the way out.
As for enforcement, the more criminals we have the more police we need on the streets, and the more clandestines we have the more immigration and security we need on our borders, which of course costs us more. That answers the earlier question that I was not able to answer.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating our new area commander in West Norfolk, Chief Superintendent Alan Hayes? He has introduced a policy of zero tolerance on, for instance, graffiti and minor criminal damage. That is already rebuilding public confidence in the police, but we have a serious problem with abandoned and burnt-out cars and fly-tipped fridges, which encourages the production of more rubbish. Time and again, no one takes responsibility. Those problems were not mentioned in the statement; what is the Home Secretary going to do about them?
Mr. Blunkett: We have tightened the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency regulations and the automatic number plate recognition scheme. We have given community support officers powers to deal with abandoned cars, and the White Paper refers to new powers on fly tipping and graffiti. I am sure that the chief superintendent's excellent work in his division will be supported, and that he will welcome the extra powers in the White Paper.
Colin Burgon: As a Member who believes that our main task is to build stronger communities, I welcome the Home Secretary's statement. I was particularly pleased with his comments about education, because I think that we should give teachers 100 per cent. support, and with what he said about parenting orders and fines. I am interested in the idea of residential provision; will he expand on that and on the need for parents to admit their responsibility for the kids they have brought into the world?
Mr. Blunkett: Not one of us who has been a parent does not sometimes say "There but for the grace of God go I." Let me say, with some temerity, that we want to tell parents, "If you want help, ask for it, and we will ensure that you get it. If we can support you, in both parenting and dealing with family situations, we will do so. But if you refuse to accept help and continue to cause havoc to your own children and the lives of others, we will intervene."
The idea of residential provision stems from the view that it is sometimes necessary to take families away from one situation and into another in which they can receive

305
instruction, direction and education if they are to cope with even the most basic tenets of civilised behaviour. There are not many in such situations, but the very few cause havoc to the very many.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Many environmental health departments struggle to provide a full out-of-hours service with their existing resources. Clearly the proposals will raise expectations in relation to, for instance, noise control. Has the Home Secretary discussed the funding of environmental health departments with the Deputy Prime Minister? Will they be expected to divert resources, or will they be given more resources to finance their new powers?
Mr. Blunkett: I continue to have discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister, and with the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, about how resources raised from, for example, fixed penalty notices can be used for reinforcement and reinvestment. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about environmental health, which is close to my heart and, indeed, my family. My family includes an environmental health officer, who tells me of all the things that he needs to do and that I hope to be able to help him to do.
Caroline Flint: The people of Don Valley will welcome the White Paper. I pay tribute to them, for without their agitation and support we would not have had the antisocial behaviour unit in Doncaster that is serving us so well. We have issued antisocial behaviour orders there, but our police officers say that the threat of such orders has contained behaviour in many cases.
I welcome what the White Paper nays about private landlords, parenting orders and much more; but legislation, past, present and future, will work when the agencies concerned listen to the people and respond to their demands. Can we ensure, even more than we do now, that information about what works well elsewhere is passed to those on the ground so that they can meet the expectations of those whom they serve?
Mr. Blunkett: That was excellently put. At yesterday's conference for the new local criminal justice boards and the national board, I said—I think t he message is now getting across—that there can be no excuses. It is no good saying that others should have acted; it is up to those at local level to work together to ensure that the system is effective in practice.
Mr. Mark Francois: I recently accompanied special constables in my constituency on a night patrol in support of a Home Office campaign for recruitment of more special constables. From my discussions with them, I gleaned the information that if they arrest a young man for urinating against a wall it takes five hours to process the paperwork back at the station. Does the Home Secretary agree with me, with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—the shadow Home Secretary—and with the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, who raised the issue today, that if we are to have more effective
306
policing the Home Office must play its part by radically reducing bureaucracy to give our coppers a chance to do their job?
Mr. Blunkett: I am pleased to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he went on a night patrol during the specials weekend that we organised. As for his example of—I am choosing my words carefully—urination in the street, which is both an affront and a criminal offence, I am delighted to tell him that we shall be able to cut out all those hours of bureaucracy when the offender is taken to the station. Rather than spending a penny, he will have to pay £80 for a fixed penalty notice.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has said about air weapons in particular. Over the past three or four years, tenants' and residents' groups in Blackpool have told me that they did not know about the powers and that they have not been working quickly enough. They now tell me that they are working quickly enough.
In a letter to me, Blackpool's chief superintendent writes:
"It appears that the recent changes in legislation have allowed for a much less bureaucratic approach to be adopted … We have maximised the opportunities available to us under this legislation and in recent weeks have seen the courts granting 5 interim orders and 1 full order."
Is my right hon. Friend confident that the current legislation and the proposed new initiatives will be sufficient to deal with the specific issue of antisocial behaviour of transient groups, which has caused difficulties in the past, especially in coastal towns?
Mr. Blunkett: Excellent work is being done in Blackpool. The Tower project, for instance, has been very effective.
It will be possible to attach ASBOs to an individual rather than a locality—to follow the person. That will, I think, make a difference to enforcement.
On a lighter note, I take the point that was made at the beginning of the debate by the shadow Home Secretary. I am learning all the time how best to amend and to re-legislate Home Office legislation, so that whatever was intended in the first place happens in practice.
Matthew Green: I listened very carefully to the Home Secretary, but I heard nothing about extra resources for what the Home Office calls "diversionary activities" for young people. It is a shame that the Government cannot fund activities for young people on the basis that they are good for them, rather than regarding them as a means of cutting crime. Can he reassure me that he respects young people as individuals, rather than simply regarding them as criminal statistics?
Mr. Blunkett: They are victims as much as they are people involved in crime. We are devoting £370 million that did not exist before 1997 to the Youth Justice Board and to the youth inclusion programmes. Through the Department for Education and Skills, some £420 million—again, that money did not previously exist—is being spent on the massive expansion of the Connexions

307

programme. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working with the DES, the Department of Health and ourselves to develop summer and holiday programmes. All those measures, along with the New Opportunities Fund and after-school activities, are the beginning of a process of getting our act together, so that there is an alternative. People are expected to take that alternative, rather than creating mayhem for others.
Mr. David Clelland: One manifestation of antisocial behaviour is car crime. Does the Home Secretary agree that in the wrong hands, a car can be as lethal a weapon as a gun, and that death or injury caused by the illegal or reckless use of either ought to carry the same, very heavy penalty?
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend and his parliamentary colleagues from the north-east have been running a very effective campaign on this issue. I am deeply sympathetic to ensuring that we get the penalties and the signals right, and individual cases have highlighted the fact that, at the moment, they are not right.

Points of Order
1.32 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If there is a debate on a substantive motion before ground troops are committed in Iraq, and given the clear disquiet that exists in the House at the prospect of war, can you confirm that it would be both in order and advisable for a free vote to take place on such a motion when it is brought before the House?
Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical matter and has nothing to do with me. Free votes have absolutely nothing to do with me—I seldom get a vote these days.
Mrs. Alice Mahn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Bush Administration have blatantly given contracts to American corporations to rebuild Iraq once they have bombed it, and despite the spin from No. 10 that Donald Rumsfeld was trying to be helpful to this country when he made it clear that they do not need United Kingdom troops for such bombing—in fact, on the basis of that, the Prime Minister could now bring our troops home—how can we go about securing a debate on what are momentous events by any standards?
Mr. Speaker: I have no responsibility for the actions of American politicians or of the American President's officials. They have absolutely nothing to do with me.
Mr. Tony McWalter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just received a pager message saying that the Prime Minister of Serbia has been shot dead. I should be grateful if the House would take cognizance of that fact in the way that it organises its affairs.
Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry to hear about that.
Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At times of national debate and national crisis, the House looks to you to represent it, and the public look to the House to represent them. You will undoubtedly be aware that throughout this country people are talking about the possibility of British troops being deployed in Iraq in the next few days. Can you assure us that as soon as there is any firm news from the United Nations or about the deployment, the House will be given the opportunity to have a debate—if need be, on an application for an emergency motion—so that it can represent the views of the ordinary people of this country, who are deeply concerned about the danger of going to war?
Mr. Speaker: It is my duty to protect the rights of Back Benchers. As a Back Bencher of long standing, the hon. Gentleman will know that tomorrow's business questions perhaps provides an occasion for him to raise those matters.

Points of Order
  BILLS PRESENTED
    HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE (COMMUNITY HEALTH AND STANDARDS)
    Mr. Secretary Milburn, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mrs. Secretary Liddell, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Secretary Peter Hain and Mr. John Hutton, presented a Bill to amend the law about the National Health Service; to make provision about quality and standards in the provision of health and social care, including provision establishing the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection; to amend the law about the recovery of NHS costs from persons making compensation payments; to provide for the replacement of the Welfare Food Schemes; to make provision about appointments to health and social care bodies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 70].
    LOCAL COMMUNITIES SUSTAINABILITY
    Sue Doughty, supported by Gregory Barker, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mrs. Patsy Calton, Mrs. Helen Clark, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Don Foster, Paul Holmes, Alan Simpson and Ms Joan Walley, presented a Bill to require the drawing up and implementation of a strategy to promote sustainability among local communities; to make provision for the inclusion of targets and indicators in the strategy; to make provision for councils to implement the strategy in their area; to make provision in respect of the powers of electors in relation to the implementation of the strategy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed. [Bill 71].

Prevention of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (Road Traffic Amendment)
1.35 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled drug; to provide powers for police officers to undertake roadside drug tests on drivers; to provide that statistics of drug-related road accidents and deaths are collected and collated; and for connected purposes.
I introduce this Bill not simply because of the views that I hold—although they are very strong views—but because the shadow Home Office team collectively believes that this is an important issue that has been neglected for far too long. We are therefore adopting a recent change in strategy whereby, although this is a ten-minute Bill, we are taking the matter seriously and we hope that it will progress to become law. Indeed, a counterpart Bill will be introduced in another place tomorrow by my noble Friends Lord Dixon-Smith and Baroness Anelay of St. Johns. We very much hope that it, along with this Bill, will receive all-party support.
I have been concerned about this issue for many years—long before I came to this House. I began in practice at the Bar in the late 1970s, and as with all barristers on circuit, I dealt with many cases involving motoring offences. Tragically, many of the most serious involved very serious injury or death. In recent years, we have seen increasing incidences of death or serious injury caused to entirely innocent, law-abiding drivers as a result of dangerous driving by motorists under the influence of drugs, or of a combination of drink and drugs. I shall say a little more in a moment about the particular problems arising from a cocktail of drink and drugs, and about the reasons why there is an increase in such incidents.
I want to pay particular tribute to Rhiannon Sadler and Anarhali Moonesinghe, who are two researchers in my office. In preparing the shadow Home Office team's work on this issue, they contacted every police force in the country and all of Her Majesty's coroners. They asked very detailed questions about the increasing incidence of serious injury and fatal accidents caused by, or contributed to by, one or more drivers being under the influence of drugs, or of drink and drugs. I should stress that we have also had enormous support from the AA, the RAC Foundation and the British Medical Association, all of which—like the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), myself and the rest of the shadow Home Office team—have pursued this issue for years.
The big problem that we understood from our research is that nobody is required to collate the statistics on this issue. Indeed, almost every one of Her Majesty's coroners said, "We'd love to get more information about this, but we haven't got the resources." That is why the Bill would require that funding be provided to every coroner and to every police force in the country, to ensure that these statistics are collected properly. Once we know the scale of the problem, we will be able to address it more rapidly and accurately.
Traffic officers are at the sharp end of this problem and have to deal with the horrendous consequences of serious injury and fatal traffic accidents. I want to stress

311
that every officer to whom we spoke said that people who are addicted to drugs or are regular drug users and who are planning to drive will often choose to drink alcohol as well. If they are stopped because an accident has happened, or for any other reason, they will merely be breathalysed and dealt with only as a drink driver. Although that will probably lead to a ban in court, it will not lead to an investigation by drugs squad officers, which might lead to much more serious criminal sentences, and perhaps a lengthy period of imprisonment. That applies especially to those who deal drugs as well as take them. As one officer said, drug addicts who do not drink as well are crackers. If they drink as well, they will get away with a lower penalty if they are stopped or if there is an accident.
The Opposition have pursued the matter in various debates, notably in two debates on the Government's drugs policy either side of the recent Christmas and new year recess, in which the Government effectively promised jam tomorrow. They said that they would do something about the matter when parliamentary time allowed. Opposition Members are convinced that the problem is far too serious to be kicked into the long grass in that way, and we are strongly supported in that by the AA, the RAC Foundation and the BMA.
The Bill gives the Government an opportunity, as I told the Home Office Minister who responded to one of the Government drugs policy debates that it would. We hope that the Government will allow this Bill, or its equivalent in another place, to proceed.
I also thank the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for his support for the Bill, and for all the work that he has done to highlight the extent of the drugs problem. It is an issue that I hope will attract all—party support.
We need to protect law-abiding motorists from being seriously injured or wiped out by drug-crazed drivers. The BMA says that the use of illegal drugs by the younger generation is frequent and increasing. Talking to young people at secondary school or in their late teens, one finds that they have been persuaded by the media that the Government have legalised cannabis already. They are stunned when they are told that cannabis is not legal. Unfortunately, the Government have given out all the wrong signals on the matter.
The BMA reports that nearly half of all 16 to 24-year-olds in England and Wales have used cannabis at least once. Because they are going to be the young drivers of the immediate future, it is even more worrying that 39 per cent. of that age group said that they had taken hallucinogens. Rather fewer of them had taken other
312
drugs. However, a separate survey of club goers in Scotland found that 69 per cent. had taken cannabis, and that 85 per cert. had at some time driven a car after using illegal drugs.
The problem of drug driving is not only related to the misuse of illegal drugs, as prescription drugs may also cause drivers' judgment to be impaired. However, this Bill concentrates specifically on the illegal, controlled drugs. That is not to say that we ignore the other serious aspects of the matter, but I wanted to keep the Bill's scope within bounds, in the hope of attracting all-party support.
Recent research from the transport and road research laboratory in Crowthorne, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), next door to mine, shows that between 1987 and 1999, there was a significant increase from at least 3 per cent. to 12 per cent. in the detection of illegal drugs in the blood of drivers in road accidents. However, coroners and police forces need to be able to use roadside tests.
I pay tribute to forces such as those in Hampshire, Surrey, Strathclyde and Northamptonshire for piloting the field impairment test. Specific legislative provision can be given for such tests. The roadside impairment test takes place at the side or the road and can form the basis for the arrest of a driver, after an accident or moving-traffic offence, who may have taken drugs. That person can then undergo a full medical blood test, and in that way we will detect people who take drugs and drive, and deter people from doing that.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nick Hawkins, John Mann, Mr. Oliver Letwin, Mr. James Paice, Mr. Dominic Grieve, Mr. Humfrey Malins, Mr. Mark Franois, Angela Watkinson and Mr. Iain Duncan Smith.

Prevention of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (Road Traffic Amendment)
  PREVENTION OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS (ROAD TRAFFIC AMENDMENT) BILL
  Mr. Nick Hawkins accordingly presented a Bill to make it an offence to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled drug; to provide powers for police officers to undertake roadside drug tests on drivers; to provide that statistics of drug-related road accidents and deaths are collected and collated; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed [Bill 72].
Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL

    Welsh Affairs
    [Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, The Work of the Committee in 2002, HC 263, and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Welsh Affairs Committee on 15th October 2002 [The Wales Office Departmental Report 2002], HC 1216, Session 2001–02.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    1.47 pm
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): May I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, how good it is to have a Welsh Deputy Speaker in the Chair for this debate?
    Wales is raising its profile as never before—we have the first Welsh Archbishop of Canterbury for 1,000 years. It is hard to open a newspaper these days without reading about a Welsh celebrity or sports personality, whether it be Tom Jones or Catherine Zeta Jones, Ryan Giggs or Colin Jackson, Julian McDonald or Huw Edwards. Now even the manager of the Liverpool football team, the Frenchman Gèrard Houllier, after his team won another trophy at Cardiff's millennium stadium, has joked that he might apply for Welsh nationality. He is a wise man—and that comes from me, a Chelsea fan.
    There are people in Wales today who are at the top in all walks of life—doctors, scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs. I have met some of them in my first few months as Secretary of State, and I have been greatly impressed by their commitments, talents and confidence. They are world-class people, striving to create a world-class Wales. That is why we are determined that we should never go back to the time when a generation of young people in Wales were denied employment and hope by Tory economic mismanagement and ideological dogma. Never again will the Thatchers and the Redwoods tear up the jobs and public services that we cherish—although I see that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) may be in line for a comeback. He was the most unpopular Secretary of State in history, and I hope that he is dispatched to Wales to campaign full time for the Conservatives, especially in Monmouth and the Vale of Glamorgan.
    This has been a challenging year for the Welsh economy, with stagnant global trade and many of our trading partners in or near recession. However, there are more than 60,000 more people in employment in Wales than there were a year ago. That is a better record than
    314
    in any other UK region. Levels of economic activity are increasing sharply, and the 2.8 per cent. rise over the past year is an equally welcome sign for a valleys MP like me, as economic inactivity there has been so high for so long. Unemployment in Wales has fallen to 5.2 per cent., the same level as the rest of the UK and lower than in countries such as the United States, Canada, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain. We are building on a base of economic stability and the lowest inflation, mortgage rates and unemployment for more than a generation; a base developed not by accident or by fluke, but by the process of taking tough and sometimes unpopular decisions about spending and by the maintenance of firm principles of fiscal and monetary discipline.
    Our stable economic fortunes have delivered record levels of sustained investment in public services in Wales through the 2002 spending review. We have also brought forward new measures to encourage enterprise in deprived areas and spread prosperity throughout Wales. We are making work pay through measures such as the child and working tax credits, which could benefit 350,000 families in Wales, and the national minimum wage, benefiting 70,000 Welsh workers. Wales is a leader in broadband technology with the Assembly Government investing £115 million to spread broadband use across Wales and to help our companies secure the technological advantage necessary to succeed in the global marketplace.
    The objective 1 programme, together with other European structural fund programmes in Wales, has attracted projects of more than £1 billion, regenerating the economy of west Wales and the valleys and creating an estimated 6,000-plus jobs so far.
    Mr. Simon Thomas:The Secretary of State cannot get away with that. The 6,000 jobs created by the objective 1 programme include 800 jobs created at a call centre in Pembrokeshire that immediately disappeared. That is part of the picture as published by the National Assembly. Also, Wales is still at the bottom of the league in terms of broadband link-up. There is a lot of work to be done on broadband and job creation in Wales.
    Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the 6,000 jobs included those at the call centre. If he checks, he will find that that those jobs are not included. I hope that he will correct his researchers on that point. Of course there is a lot to do on broadband but, as I shall say, we are driving it forward. In parts of south Wales—especially south—east Wales—there is more broadband than anywhere else in Europe. He should be welcoming that and praising it. Broadband access has been spread out across Wales. It is interesting; the nationalists always demand more but never provide the funding. That is the politics not of government, but of opposition, where they will remain.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: For ever.
    Peter Hain: For ever, as my hon. Friend says so powerfully.

    315
    More than 27,000 young unemployed people have found work through the new deal, with youth unemployment cut from 12,000 under the Tories to just 1,500. More than 12,500 people in Wales are benefiting from high-quality training through modern apprenticeships; over 50 per cent. more than under the Tories.
    Gareth Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency has fallen by no less than 63 per cent. since 1997, a figure surpassed by the decrease in unemployment in the seat represented by the leader of the Welsh nationalists? Is that surprising?
    Peter Hain: It has nothing to do with the MP in that constituency; it is to do with the Government's brilliant economic record. If we look at the constituencies of all Welsh MPs—those here and absent from the House this afternoon—we will find that unemployment has fallen dramatically during the last six years of Labour government.
    Wales is at the cutting edge of industrial collaboration. Already there are 20 centres of excellence for technology and industrial collaboration throughout the nation. As an enthusiast for manufacturing, I particularly welcome the creation of the Welsh centre for manufacturing excellence, which will help 2,000 firms in its first three years. According to the purchasing managers index commissioned by the Royal Bank of Scotland in January, businesses in Wales continue to outperform the UK average in terms of securing new orders.
    Welsh towns and cities have some of the fastest-growing companies in Britain; Newport, Cardiff and Swansea are among the cities with the highest proportion of firms growing by more than 25 per cent. a year. Cardiff is one of the fastest developing cities in Europe, proud of the contribution that it makes to the world of business and commerce yet with its sights firmly set on winning the European capital of culture 2008 with an excellent bid. The latest forecasts on farm incomes indicate some optimism and confidence returning to the industry, with a distinctive Welsh strategy for the long-term future of farming, centred on high-quality produce and economic, environmental and social sustainability.
    We have an historic opportunity to develop a world-class Wales with a high-quality, highly skilled economy. The Assembly elections on 1 May will be a critical factor in whether we are able to grasp this opportunity. By choosing a world-class Wales, people will be rejecting once and for all the second-class Tory Wales of low wages, low skills, low aspirations and low achievements. We have a significant advantage, in that the partnership principle works much better in the Welsh economy than in any other part of Britain. We must build on this; not just in relation to obvious examples of co-operative endeavour like Tower colliery, but with a firm acceptance that the best companies are those that work in partnership with employees to achieve the highest standards. The Wales TUC has always been a strong partner in economic development in Wales and both the TUC and the CBI Wales have responded positively to the opportunities presented by devolution. For
    316
    example, they recently presented a joint report to the Assembly on priorities for raising skills and improving productivity.
    The "team Wales" approach, bringing together all the key agencies, is a primary reason why inward investors have found Wales such an attractive place to locate. It is why companies based in Wales, like British Aerospace at Broughton, General Dynamics at Oakdale and the Ford motor company at Bridgend are succeeding in world markets and are at the forefront of technological development. All have recently made big new investments; all big votes of confidence in a Wales that is fighting off intense international competition.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I hope that the Secretary of State is going to say something about Corus because I am sure that the House would like to hear directly what action he will be taking to ensure that the jobs there are maintained.
    Peter Hain: I have been in touch with Corus management in Wales, the Department of Trade and Industry, the First Minister and the trade unions. We are all working together to make sure that the Welsh plants at least survive this very difficult situation. It is extraordinary that the Corus management board is having to take its Dutch-based supervisory board to court to get a decent policy and strategy for the industry. I am sure that all Welsh Members, including the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), will join me in saying that it is time for the Corus supervisory board to support the loyal work force of Corus in Wales and to give the most productive and competitive steel industry in the world a chance to flourish and grow.
    Devolution is an essential part of the "team Wales" approach. When the chief executive of British Telecom recently told me that he had received a better response from the Welsh Assembly Government and agencies to investing in broadband than any other part of Britain, I asked him why. He said, "Because you can get to the decision makers more easily, because they immediately grasp the vital role of broadband and because they act quickly." The "team Wales" approach is vital in generating self-confidence in our economic future. More than 3,000 new businesses were created in Wales last year, 20 per cent. more than in the previous year and an increase larger than in any other part of the UK.
    Last year, more than 800 new products and processes were introduced by Welsh companies. We need to accelerate that and to develop a spirit of self-confidence and entrepreneurialism that will help to ensure that the small and medium-sized businesses that comprise the vast majority of Welsh firms have the commitment to invest, to innovate and to grow. It is because I am concerned that we should succeed through partnership and through striving to be the best that I am outraged by the way that the Tories and the nationalists continually talk down Wales and the achievements of hard-working Welsh employers and employees.
    Take, for example, our objective I money, secured by a British Labour Government negotiating in Europe. First, the Welsh nationalists claimed that we would not get objective 1 status. Then, when we did, they said that we would not get support from the Treasury to make proper use of it. Then, when we did get that extra

    317
    Treasury funding, they said that the programme would be a failure. Four years ago, in the St. David's day debate, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) told the House of his grave concern that the whole objective 1 programme would come to nothing,
    "like a handful of sand seeping through one's fingers."—[Official Report, 25 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 575.]
    Is not it time that he and his colleagues apologised, and stopped spreading doom and gloom? Is not it better to aim to be the best, instead of constantly predicting the worst? Instead of the party of Wales, they are the whingers of Wales—their leader, Ieuan "Whinge" Jones.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: In 1989, the GDP of Wales was 89 per cent. of the UK average. The latest figure is 82 per cent. That is not a success.
    Peter Hain: Is the hon. Gentleman saying—[Interruption.] I am about to answer, unless he wants to have another whinge. It is true that parts of the United Kingdom, especially the south-east, have raised their GDP per head much faster, but in real terms GDP per head has been rising swiftly in Wales. That is obvious in terms of employment, which is at record levels compared with recent decades; it is also obvious in the increased wealth and income spreading throughout Wales.
    The Labour-led Assembly Government are succeeding not only because of their partnership with business, trade unions, local authorities and voluntary groups, but because of their strong partnership with the Government at Westminster: Labour working for Wales. That partnership is delivering record levels of sustained public investment. By 2005–06, the Assembly budget will increase to £12.5 billion, almost double what it was when Labour took office in 1997, with record increases in funding for the national health service in Wales. As a result, 700 more hospital consultants and GPs, 6,000 extra nurses and 2,000 other health care professionals will be recruited in the coming years. Education spending in Wales, which passed the £1 billion mark for the first time this year, will rise to £1.4 billion in two years. We could not have a clearer demonstration of the benefit to Wales of both devolving power to the Assembly and pooling resources at a United Kingdom level where appropriate. The firm legislative partnership between Westminster and Cardiff Bay has also produced this year's Health (Wales) Bill, giving patients a stronger role in the improvement, development and running of our health services.
    As well as the specific Wales-only Bill, the Government's legislative programme for the current parliamentary Session contains several Bills that include Wales-only provisions, which have been developed in close consultation with the Assembly Government. Those include the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which improves planning in Wales; the Local Government Bill, which gives more flexible powers to Welsh local authorities; and the Licensing Bill, which repeals the outdated provisions allowing polls to be called every seven years in Wales on the question of Sunday opening of pubs.
    318
    The partnership between the Assembly and the UK Governments reaps benefits abroad as well as at home. The Assembly is able, through the devolution settlement, to form part of the UK delegation to the European Council of Ministers, ensuring a strong voice for Wales yet at the same time enjoying the benefits of being part of an influential member state. Since the advent of devolution, the Welsh Assembly Government have been an active participant in the EU, and have joined with the Scottish Executive in tabling proposals that take forward their strong claims for a louder voice in Europe. Last month, I was delighted to present on behalf of the UK Government a paper demanding a stronger voice in Brussels for Europe's regions such as Wales to the Convention on the Future of Europe. It had been drawn up by the Assembly and the Scottish Executive, working in partnership with UK Government Departments.
    Partnership is the right approach to another of the challenges that we currently face: building stronger, safer communities. The UK Government are working with the Assembly to tackle the crime that blights our communities. We have already delivered record numbers of police officers in Wales, and we are equally determined to give them the powers to deal with antisocial behaviour, and to ensure that resources are effectively deployed to prevent crime and catch criminals.
    Partnership is not, however, just about co-operation between levels of government. It must work downwards to generate an open, inclusive and participatory relationship with groups in society. The Government recently allocated more than £4 million to the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships in Wales, which involve the police, local councillors and other representatives of the community joining together to develop a crime reduction strategy that meets local needs. Through its Communities First programme, targeted on the most deprived areas of Wales, the Assembly places the power of change in the hands of community members.
    How much more beneficial is that co-operative and positive approach than the Tories' Eurosceptic isolationism and the nationalists' antiquated separatism? Indeed, that kind of partnership is the very opposite of what the Tories and the nationalists offer people in Wales. On a recent visit to Wales, the Conservative party leader displayed his party's traditional distaste for devolution when he talked of
    ""an extreme Labour-controlled Assembly".
    He said that
    "way out to the left there in extreme territory lies Rhodri Morgan and his friends."
    How, I wonder, does that extremism manifest itself? Is it in free bus passes for pensioners and the disabled? Is it in free access to the national museums and galleries of Wales? Is it in free prescriptions or Assembly Learning Grants? Which of those "extreme" measures would the Tories revoke if they ever came to power in the Assembly? They should answer that question. Those ridiculous comments show how out of touch with mainstream opinion in Wales the Tory party and its leader continue to be. As long as they stay out of touch, they will stay out of office.

    319
    The Tory leader went on to claim that the Conservative party does not believe that
    "ideology has any part to play in the health service."
    Everybody in Wales knows, however, that Labour has spent five years trying to redress the damage done to the national heath service by 18 years of Tory ideology. People in Wales know that Tory ideology meant the closure of 70 Welsh hospitals. They also know that Labour ideology has already seen eight new hospitals opened or under way. People in Wales know what the Tory agenda on health is because Tory leaders have told them: 20 per cent. cuts, meaning fewer nurses, fewer doctors and fewer hospitals. It means cuts, charges and privatisation, school and hospital closures, and thousands of jobs lost. The same old Tory wreckers are trying to wreck Wales again. Wales does not want to go back to the 10 per cent. Tory inflation, the 15 per cent. Tory interest rates and Tory mass unemployment.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: On that subject, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to cost the impact of the Conservative party's proposed 20 per cent. cuts on the public services provided in Wales?
    Peter Hain: That is an interesting suggestion, which I may deal with, as a result of my hon. Friend's wise advice, sooner rather than later.
    Those cuts will mean up to 20 per cent. cuts in nurses, teachers, police officers and all the services that we have sought to rebuild in Wales. Conservative Front-Bench Members may shake their heads, but we have experienced Tory cuts before. At last, teachers feel that they are able to do their jobs. At last, nurses and doctors feel that they have a Government on their side. At last, police officers feel that they have a Government on their side to fight rising crime.
    The hon. Member for Ribble Valley has often questioned me about the problem of waiting lists in Wales, which is difficult in some areas, although in many areas it is improving. If it is difficult now, imagine what it would be like after the Tories' 20 per cent. cuts in the health service budget.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend think that some of the confusion among Conservative Members arises from the fact that, according to their latest leaflet, they do not seem to be able to tell the difference between Belgian francs and pounds?
    Peter Hain: Indeed.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Secretary of State explain to the House, as I am confused about the matter, why, in 1997, waiting lists in Wales were dramatically lower than they are now?
    Peter Hain: I was trying to provoke the hon. Gentleman to ask a question such as that, and he has duly obliged, for which I am grateful. What is interesting about those figures and the overall picture is that 200,000 more patients are being seen, and were seen last year, than in the last year of Tory government. That is a sign of the extra throughput in Welsh hospitals and other health institutions.
    320
    The figures speak for themselves: an increase of 7 per cent. in the number of patients being seen since the Tories left office. Other waiting list achievements include a reduction in the target for cardiac surgery: the total number of people waiting has fallen to its lowest level since February 1999. The target for bringing down angiogram waiting times has also been reduced, and that applies equally to orthopaedic and cataract surgery. A lot more is needed to improve the situation, but 200,000 more patients are being seen, and if the Tories were to introduce 20 per cent. health cuts, far fewer patients would be seen and waiting lists would lengthen out of sight.
    Adam Price: While I applaud the fact that the Labour Administration in Cardiff will not go down the dangerous route to foundation hospitals, such hospitals along the border will probably have the right to set their own rates of pay for medical staff, including nurses. Is not there a danger that the already severe crisis in retention of nursing staff in Wales could be made even worse as they are poached from over the border by high rates of pay?
    Peter Hain: No. Wales has decided to use a different model because Welsh needs, interests and values are different. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the border can just be abolished, as though Wales can be floated off—which is his policy, of course. We have cross-border treatment now and that will continue, whatever the hospital structure.
    Adam Price: Unlike the Secretary of State, I oppose foundation hospitals in Wales and in England. That is the contradiction that I am trying to tease out. Foundation hospitals in England will have a detrimental effect on the provision of health services in Wales.
    Peter Hain: That is simply not proven. The hon. Gentleman does not even want to be a Member of this Parliament in Westminster; he wants Wales to be independent, hived off as a separate state. So his assertions on the matter are as unfounded as his objectives are indefensible.
    The choice for Wales is between Labour's goal of full employment for our generation and economic prosperity for all, and the Tory policy of scrapping the new deal, higher unemployment and returning Wales to the same old failed Tory policies. The choice is between millions benefiting from our goal of ending child and pensioner poverty, ensuring prosperity not for the few but for the many, and the Tory policy of cutting the minimum wage, abolishing the child and pensioner tax credits and privatising the basic state pension. As the Government who created the minimum wage and equal pay, new rights to take time off work, new rights for part-time as well as full-time workers and new rights for women workers, we know that an enterprising economy on the one hand, and workers' rights, women's rights and equal rights on the other, are not opposing objectives but inseparable allies to create a stronger Wales. That is why we will shortly raise maternity pay to £100 a week, extend statutory time off for mothers to 26 weeks, and introduce paternity pay for the first time. We are also ending the Tory two-tier workforce in private

    321
    finance initiative projects. We are doing more to ensure rights and fairness in the workplace—the foundation of a fair and successful economy.
    We also stand ready to raise the minimum wage. Tory Ministers claimed that a minimums wage would cost a million jobs. In fact, with the minimum wage in place, we have not destroyed a million jobs; we have created more than a million jobs in Britain. The only jobs that the minimum wage cost were those of I he Tory MPs who opposed it.
    As for the nationalists, we know that they want the devolution settlement that people in Wales voted for to fail. Their actions in the Assembly over the past four years have shown them rejecting the path of partnership, preferring narrow oppositionalism. They prioritise constitutional wrangling and the costly trappings of a nation state over health, jobs, education and fighting crime. Their narrow separatist vision of a Wales set apart from the rest of Britain would divide communities, not unite them, and make Wales poorer, not richer.
    Take any Labour Government spending commitment and the nationalists would double it—promising the earth and delivering nothing. The people of Wales are tired of such dishonesty, such opportunism, such posturing. [Interruption.] They know that the nationalists are fit only for opposition, never for government. [Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker(Sylvia Heal): Order.
    Peter Haim: I am grateful for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I rather enjoy the heckling. It keeps them off the street.
    Look at Plaid Cymru's record in office. In Rhondda Cynon Taff, for example, it has closed day centres for the elderly and ended free parking for the disabled in council car parks. That is why Rhondda will come back to Labour on 1 May. In Carmarthenshire, it has closed day centre kitchens. That is why Llanelli and Carmarthen, East will come back to Labour on I May. The nationalists would rather put Tories into power than back Labour, as happened in the Vale of Glamorgan.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: While the Secretary of State is examining Plaid Cymru's performance in local government, will he consider Rhondda Cynon Taff, which I used to work for when it was run by the Labour party? The council got into trouble with the district auditor, but he gave a clean bill of health to the authority after Plaid Cymru took over and put its finances into order. He should also consider Gwynedd and Caerphilly, where we might win in the May elections. One can get very good odds on that. In Gwynedd and Caerphilly, the GMB had an independent report on where the best economic development had occurred in Wales and—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is very long for an intervention.
    Peter Hain: Caerphilly cut services under nationalist control. That is why we will win back Islwyn and retain control for Labour in Caerphilly.
    Mr. John Smith: My right hon. Friend may have noticed that, in that long intervention,
    322
    the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) did not mention the role of Plaid Cymru in propping up the Conservative council in the Vale of Glamorgan for the past five years. It has cut support for disadvantaged communities and distributed it elsewhere.
    Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is right to point out what happens if the nationalists get the chance in power. Only recently, the nationalist presiding officer in the Assembly, Lord Elis-Thomas, said that he would find it impossible to have a coalition with Labour, but could envisage one with the Conservatives. They are not just Welsh nationalists but Welsh Tories, too. The Tories and the nationalists have collaborated in the past, both in local government and at Westminster, against Labour. Given the opportunity, they could do so again, so no one should be fooled into thinking that the Assembly elections do not matter, or that their vote will not make a difference. Our hard-earned economic progress, the record investment in public services and the partnership between Westminster and Cardiff that is enabling us to work together to tackle crime and poverty—and more—will all be at stake on I May in Wales's general election.
    As for the Welsh Liberal Democrats— [HON.MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I did not want them to feel left out. Those of us with experience of their activities in local government will know that they are never backward in claiming credit for achievements, regardless of who may have initiated them. A recent guide for their council candidates advised:
    "Don't be afraid to exaggerate."
    I fear that they have adopted that policy at a Welsh level, with their claim that they are the "driving force" behind the Assembly Government—not so much a driving force, but more a piggy-back ride that will end on 1 May.
    The Assembly elections will provide people with an opportunity to judge the Liberal Democrats on their own terms and policies, which in the past have often been uncosted and impractical. It is a party that has clung onto office but could never govern alone.
    Lembit Öpik: I thank the Secretary of State for including us in his speech, which is a relief to us. The crucial question for him—in the spirit of the type of politics that he promotes—is whether he is seriously suggesting that the Labour party could have implemented a significant proportion of the programme for government that was agreed between the Liberal Democrats and Labour, had we not entered into that coalition. The evidence that the Liberal Democrats were crucial in the arrangement is the fact that there is a divergence between Welsh Labour party policy and—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State will have got the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.
    Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is right to this extent: the coalition has brought stability to the Welsh Assembly Government, and that has been essential in delivering our programme. However, the policies are Labour policies. They are being implemented on a basis

    323
    of stability. Our decision to create a stable Government was taken in the national interest; we did not form a coalition with the Liberals because we wanted to. We are determined to get an overall majority and we are working flat out for it. We want to win back the seats that we lost to the nationalists—in the Rhondda, Islwyn, Llanelli and Conwy—and to ensure that we hold our existing seats, and perhaps take Monmouth from the Tories. Those are our objectives to establish an overall Labour majority.
    Mr. Llwyd: Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman spoke at length about the employment situation in Wales, in which there has been great improvement. Such has been the improvement that I am sure we could afford to have one other person on the slide—the statistical slide. It is time for the Secretary of State to sack his speech writer. This is rubbish.
    Peter Hain: I take that as a compliment. I invite the hon. Gentleman to train the person who drafts his interventions a little better.
    Only Welsh Labour offers a coherent vision for a world-class Wales—a vision of high-quality jobs and high-quality public services, a vision of social justice and economic success, and a vision of Wales going places, not going backwards.
    Lembit Öpik: I think that I heard the Minister say that only Labour policies had been implemented through the partnership. Where in Welsh Labour's manifesto did it say that the partnership would diverge from Westminster Labour Government policy on student funding, and where did it say that it would provide free school milk? Those are two examples to show that what the Minister said was factually incorrect.
    Peter Hain: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Those are Labour policies—although I acknowledge that they were given a bit of assistance by the Liberals.
    I believe that, at the Wales general election on 1 May, people will look at Labour's solid record of achievement over the past four years, look at Labour's exciting plans for the next four years, and decide that Wales's future must lie not in going back to the days of boom and bust or to standing alone in separatist isolation, but in continuing a partnership for social justice and prosperity to build a world-class Wales—a future of working together for Wales and not pulling us apart, of winning together, not losing apart.
    2.22 pm
    Mr. Nigel Evans: It is good to see Madam Deputy Speaker in her traditional place for this traditional debate. I enjoyed the spat between the Secretary of State for Wales and Plaid Cymru as to who would gain the most seats at the next local elections. [HON. MEMBERS: "National elections."] We will not have to wait long for the Assembly elections on 1 May.
    I was not surprised that the Secretary of State left the Liberal Democrats until the bitter end because there is very much a Lib-Lab pact. Not only do the Liberal Democrats have to take the credit for the things that
    324
    they do not do and the things that they do, they have to take the blame when things go wrong. They are not prepared to do that.
    The Secretary of State started by mentioning famous Welsh people a rid said that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was a good Welshman. I am delighted that the Secretary of State mentioned the archbishop, because he went to the same school as I did—Dynevor school in Swansea. It is a proud school with a proud history, but despite its proud record it was closed last year by a Labour council, under a Lib-Lab Assembly and a Labour Government. I find it amazing. Brian Ludlum, the chairman of the governors, was a Labour councillor when I was a councillor on West Glamorgan county council, but at least in those days we were accused only of selling off the school playing fields. This Government are selling off the schools. Brian Ludlum said that he had to take into account the fact that the school was on a prime site and would fetch a lot of money. How ridiculous that was. Dynevor school had a proud history and it is a great shame that it has closed.
    At the start of this St. David's day debate, it is important to say that our thoughts are with our troops in the Gulf—allied troops, British troops, and of course Welsh troops. They are preparing to take whatever action is deemed necessary to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with resolution 1441. We know that these are hugely difficult times and we fully support the Prime Minister on the build-up and preparation for action. I have no doubt that, if it were not for the actions that have been taken so far, Blix and the weapons inspectors would have been nowhere near Iraq now.
    Welsh service people have a proud record of service to their country. I was in the Falkland Islands three weeks ago, where I laid a wreath for our service people who were killed in action. As the House knows, Welsh servicemen and women were at the forefront of that war. We are proud of their record and their contribution to the British armed forces.
    I want to focus on a few areas, including the economy, education and training—which has been mentioned—the national health service and the future of Wales under this Government and the Welsh Assembly. I will start with Swansea airport. The Secretary of State knows that I have campaigned long and hard for the expansion of that airport and the opening of a London-Swansea route. It is import ant that that should come about, not only for Swansea but for west Wales as a whole. I congratulate Air Wales and Swansea airport on the announcement that there will be a London City-Swansea route. It will open on 28 April. Two new 50-seater aircraft have already been bought, one of which will be used on that route.
    Air Wales hopes to expand its number of employees from just 50 to more than 200 when the expansion is fully operational. When I was a lad, Swansea airport employed just three people, and I think that they were mostly employed to keep the sheep off the runway. It is now hoped that I DO people will be employed there. It is a success story.
    Peter Hain: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's close interest in the development of Swansea airport and I applaud him for it. He has been a great source of support. I am visiting Swansea airport on Friday, partly

    325
    on his suggestion. I am very excited by the developments. The London link shows what can be done. I would like to see a Cardiff link and the expansion of airports across Wales, including north Wales and mid-Wales.
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I think that everybody in the House would applaud him on this issue. Although they do not mind coming to Newport and Cardiff, a lot of businesses seem to have a mental block about going further west or to the north. The expansion of regional airports—led by Swansea and Valley airport, which I have also supported—will be very important.
    Mr. John Smith: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about airports, but does he also acknowledge the success of Wales's international airport at Cardiff, which is one of the fastest growing airports in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Evans: Of course I will join the hon. Gentleman in acknowledging that success. We both deplored the actions of British Airways in pulling out of Cardiff airport, which was a grave mistake. I also applaud BMI Baby for coming in and considering a number of routes, which I hope it will take over from British Airways.
    Not everything is as great a success as Swansea airport and Air Wales. Businesses in the United Kingdom have had £47 billion of extra taxes foisted on them; they have also had to bear more than £5 billion of extra rules and regulations in every year that this Government have been in power. The latest tax—the tax on jobs—will hit them next month. It will hit employers and employees. I will deal with the impact that the tax will have on local authorities and the public a bit later on, but the 1 per cent. extra tax on jobs will raise the equivalent of a 3p rise in the basic rate of income tax. That means that a burden of more than £4 billion will fall on businesses in the United Kingdom including Wales.
    When the Government introduced the climate change levy, we were told that it would be a neutral tax and that we should not worry. The CBI, along with the Engineering Employers Federation, has done a report on the climate change levy. They have found that manufacturing has been hit hardest, with a £328 million rise in their energy bills. The Secretary of State will know that Wales is more reliant on manufacturing than any other part of the United Kingdom, but this tax was still introduced.
    In the survey, the CBI and the Engineering Employers Federation found that some firms were not able or willing to absorb the extra tax and have moved production abroad. That cannot be right. Manufacturing has faced an enormous slump before and since the introduction of the climate change levy. I could list a huge number of manufacturing companies in Wales and the jobs that have gone. Hon. Members will know about them, because the job losses will have occurred in their constituencies—in Swansea, Bridgend and Llanelli. We have suffered manufacturing job losses throughout Wales.
    Paul Flynn: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the cost of the climate change levy to
    326
    manufacturing industry, but is it not right to mention the amount that the Government have given to industry to compensate it for its losses? They are giving £2 billion that has been taken from the national insurance fund.
    Mr. Evans: My point is that the energy tax fell disproportionately on manufacturing industry. It has been hardest hit, and it is proportionately more important to Wales. It has suffered the extra job losses. One cannot open a newspaper these days without reading that there have been further job losses.
    I referred to Corus in an intervention. I wanted to get that point on the record, so that the Government know how important it is that these jobs are preserved not just in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom. I agree with everything that the Secretary of State said in response, but it is a shame that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry seemed to be caught on the hop by the announcement. She spoke to the all-party steel group the night before, and she seemed to believe that all the jobs would be preserved. The announcement obviously came as a huge surprise and shock to her.
    Peter Hain: I do not intend to abuse the opportunity to intervene, but I wish to respond to the point about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The announcement was made in the early hours of the morning and the information was not available to her when she spoke to members of the all-party steel group. Indeed, the Corus managers present were not in possession of that information, either.
    It is important to get the issue of manufacturing into perspective. Although 26,900 manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1999 in the objective 1 area, more than 20,000 have been created. New manufacturing jobs are being created all the time even though older manufacturing jobs are being lost as part of the process of global restructuring.
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but people sometimes wonder where all the jobs have gone. Unemployment is not going up, but we read about manufacturing jobs disappearing. My figures for the whole of Wales show that, in November 1999, there were 247,000 jobs in manufacturing, whereas in November 2002, the figure, which includes the jobs created and those that have gone, was 206,000, so 41,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared in Wales. In November 1999, there were 361,000 jobs in public administration in Wales, but by November 2002, the figure was 415,000, so there are 54,000 extra jobs in public administration. One has only to read the many pages in The Western Mail that advertise jobs in local authorities, the Welsh Assembly, the Welsh Development Agency and the quangos that have been so berated by Government Back Benchers. Such jobs are advertised every day. However, manufacturing is vital to Wales and it is a shame to see jobs in that sector under threat. In fact, in many cases, the jobs have already disappeared.
    Objective 1 has been mentioned, and we welcome the money that has gone to support the most disadvantaged areas of Wales. However, it is a great shame that the impetus behind that money was not quicker and that industry throughout Wales was not involved at an earlier stage. That would have enabled objective 1 money to have come on stream much earlier.

    327
    The Secretary of State did not refer to agriculture, but he must recognise that that sector has suffered an appalling downturn. The figures for those employed in agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing have fallen from 21,000 in 1999 to 14,000 today. That is extremely alarming. Indeed, the Prime Minister was asked today about the importance of agriculture. Jobs in that sector are important.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I must say in passing that one job lost in Wales is that of Conservative candidate for Llanelli. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us morel Look in the newspapers.
    On agriculture, is it not the case that the Liberal Democrat Assembly Member, Mike German, is responsible for agriculture and that he has failed time and again to make on time and in full the payments that farmers deserve? That is one of the reasons why farming faces such a crisis today.
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning late payments. I am sure that we have all received letters from NFU Wales, which has listed the areas where there are problems. Late payments clearly are a problem, and that brings us back to the fact that the Liberal Democrats, a party in the Administration in Cardiff, must take responsibility for the plight of the farmers in Wales who have simply had to wait for their payments.
    Mr. Roger Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Evans: Of course, I will give way, so that the hon. Gentleman can say sorry to the farmers in Wales.
    Mr. Williams: We all concede that there have been difficulties in making the payments. However, the Assembly Government have addressed the European Union's new requirements for making those payments and have put in place the mechanism for doing that. Some 98 per cent. of payments have now been made. When the suckler cow payments are made shortly, that will complete the process.
    Mr. Evans: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to be sympathetic to the plight of farmers in Wales, but he must recognize that farmers cannot bank sympathy. They need hard cash. The money has been paid late and the Liberal Democrats must take responsibility for those late payments and understand the stress that farmers have gone through.
    Mr. Williams rose—
    Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman wants to say sorry, I will give way to him again.
    Mr. Williams: I will not say sorry, but perhaps I should declare an interest: I am a recipient of the payments. At least the farmers in Wales will receive the money. When the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was Secretary of State for Wales, he sent a lot of that money back to the Treasury.
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is, at least, a recipient of the money. I hope that he received it on time.
    328
    [Interruption.] No, he did not get it on time. He knows whom to blame—Mike German and the Liberal Democrats in the Welsh Assembly.
    We have also received letters about other key issues. Red tape and TB—I am not referring to the Prime Minister, as some might think—are real problems. Tuberculosis in cattle must be tackled. In addition, we face the problem of the ban on farm burial from 30 April. The French already have a scheme under way that is fully funded by their Government, but we have nothing in the United Kingdom or Wales to deal with the problem of fallen stock. We must address that problem sooner rather than later, because the ban will come into effect on 30 April.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer is daily becoming a rabid Eurosceptic, and he believes that there should be more flexibility in Europe. I have read many of the articles in which he has said that. Nations are doing their own thing, so let us do our own thing, but let us not do nothing. Sitting idly by while another industry goes to the wall cannot be allowed to happen. Wales was known for its manufacturing and for its agriculture, but the Government are waving goodbye to both.
    I hope that the:Minister will deal with insurance in his winding-up speech, because that affects agriculture and manufacturing. Many businesses find it incredibly difficult to obtain insurance or they find that the premiums have gone through the roof. That is not simply the result of 11 September. Part of the problem relates to the claims culture that now exists in this country, but some firms have seen their premiums rise by as much as a factor of 10. That is totally unacceptable and creates serious problems for firms and employment prospects.
    Another thing that affects the people of Wales is the increases in council tax that will shortly drop through their letterboxes. The Secretary of State did not mention those. They represent one of the most cruel stealth taxes and come on top of other tax rises introduced by the Government since 1997 on petrol, stamp duty and air travel. In addition, the job tax increase comes into effect next month. The increase in council tax is one of the most iniquitous of them all. It is not as if the quality of public services is improving. Local authority homes are closing and the free bus pass scheme, which the Secretary of State mentioned, is not fully funded by the Welsh Assembly.
    I am sure that the latest figures will interest hon. Members. I wondered which local authority would be the first to hit £1,000 for a band D house, and it is Merthyr Tydfil, with a council tax of £1,003, an increase of 6.9 per cent. On last year's charge. That is an increase of 65 per cent. on the rate in 1997 when the Government came to power. The increases are staggering. In Blaenau Gwent, the council tax is up 10 per cent., taking the bill for a band D house up to £975. In Denbighshire, it is up 12 per cent., taking the bill up to £944. Inflation is running at 2.5 per cent., but the local authority in Torfaen is imposing a tax rise of 14 per cent. The bill for a band D house in that area in 1997 was £483; this year, it will be £816. That is an appalling record. The increase is a stealth tax and it hits ordinary people throughout Wales.
    Albert Owen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Tory leader of the council in Ynys Môn

    329
    backed a 9.4 per cent. increase in council tax, but Tory Assembly Members voted against changes to the standard spending assessment that would allow extra resources from Cardiff to help needy areas like mine? The Tories voted against extra money in Cardiff, yet they voted for an increase in council tax in my constituency.
    Mr. Evans: In Monmouthshire, the increase—[HON.MEMBERS: "Apologise."] No. The increase in Monmouthshire is 13.8 per cent. We know that rigging has taken place to remove money from shire counties so that it can go elsewhere. Even with all the rigging, however, every local authority area faces inflation-busting increases this year on top of the massive inflation-busting increases since 1997. The Government said that they would not increase income tax, but they have ensured that there are increases in council tax, which hits everyone, especially poorer people in some areas.
    Llew Smith: Although the hon. Gentleman is right to mention the problems in Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil, will he accept that they have nothing to do with the efficiency or otherwise of those local authorities? They arise because the local government formula, determined by the Welsh Assembly, discriminates against the poorest communities. That being so, does he support a revision of that formula so that we reverse the situation to take from the rich and give to the poor?
    Mr. Evans: In Monmouthshire, we know that money is being taken from people and given to other areas. Surely what we need is a fair distribution of the money available. I also recognise that the Welsh Assembly has imposed extra responsibilities on local authorities and has not passed on the extra funding 100 per cent. of the time, so if local authorities wish to deliver those services, they have to put up council tax, and that is unfair to people who live in homes on fixed incomes.
    Llew Smith: I will reword my question. Will the hon. Gentleman support a local government formula, determined by the Welsh Assembly, that is driven by need as opposed to greed?
    Mr. Evans: I would support any formula that ensures that everyone gets their fair share of the money and that the local services that are supposed to be delivered in those areas are properly funded. No area should be penalised simply because of social engineering.
    Mr. Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Evans: No. I want to make some progress because other hon. Members wish to speak.
    The Secretary of State is concerned about the turnout at the Assembly elections on 1 May. I too am worried that people will boycott them, perhaps because they never supported the Assembly or because it has not delivered on its promises. I hope that people do vote and punish the Labour and Liberal Administration in that Assembly by voting for change. The coalition has
    330
    comprehensively wasted millions of pounds on, for instance, the bureaucratic reform of the national health service, which will come into effect shortly. It is also wasting millions of pounds on the new Assembly building, which only Lord Rogers and some politicians want, and on embassies in capitals around the world so that Mike German can visit them, which seems to be his reason for being on this earth.
    Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Evans: I will, but I am only half way through my list.
    Lembit Öpik: I cannot wait to hear the rest, but let us handle the issues one by one. Is the hon. Gentleman opposed to the Assembly building? If so, why can he never explain satisfactorily why he is willing to take a place in Portcullis House, which cost £231 million? I believe he voted against it, which makes his position even more hypocritical.
    Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman, who believes in proportional representation, explain why he has taken a seat in this place under the first-past-the-post system? He has done that because it exists and we work with the system that is in place. I took an office in Portcullis House because that is where the offices are, and we were asked to go there. I opposed the expenditure because of the way in which it was handled, just as I oppose the expenditure—perhaps as much as £40 million—on a new Assembly building in Cardiff, when the money could go to front-line services.
    Let me continue listing examples of where the Lib-Lab Administration has been at fault. Although industry is declining, the training body ELWa—Education and Learning Wales-has given millions of pounds to a pop factory without following proper procedures—and, of course, there has been the interference by the permanent secretary, Sir John Shortridge. I find that disturbing, and I congratulate Jonathan Morgan, our Assembly Member, for exposing that incompetence and demanding a full and transparent copy of the report. Four senior executives on that quango, which has £500 million to spend, have been disciplined. In addition, the Administration turned a blind eye when British Airways pulled out of Cardiff airport. If there is a low turnout, it will be for those reasons. The Assembly offered so much and has delivered so little that even the extra spin doctors employed by Rhodri Morgan will not be able get them out of that mess.
    Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman said that he, like every hon. Member, wants a high turnout. Are his disparaging and insulting remarks helpful in that respect?
    Mr. Evans: It would be more disparaging than helpful to have a conspiracy of silence when things go wrong. I am condemning those who run the Administration for making those decisions. I encourage people to vote on 1 May because they need to consider what the political parties are offering and decide which of them will provide what people really want, which is better frontline public services.
    Gareth Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Evans: Not at the moment, but I will shortly.

    331
    Lord Richard's commission, which is a sop to the Liberal Democrats, is considering whether more powers should be given to the Welsh Assembly. Irrespective of what the commission suggests, it will be up to the Secretary of State and the Cabinet to decide whether they will recommend extra powers. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that, should that be the case, the people of Wales will be able to vote in a referendum on whether the Welsh Assembly should have primary—indeed, tax-raising—powers?
    Mr. Simon Thomas: How much would that cost?
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman may ask that, but this is about democracy, which is vital. The people of Wales must be consulted. The last thing that we want to be implemented is the Liberal Democrat plan to have 80 Members of the Welsh Assembly—an extra 20. The Liberal Democrats would also like to reduce the number of MPs here in Westminster, which would be a great shame. They want to belittle what is going on in Westminster in order to glorify events in the Welsh Assembly.
    I also want the Minister to address a problem at the heart of further and higher education. I welcome the project announced yesterday, in which a bus will go round 195 schools in Wales with the purpose of encouraging youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to university. What I do not welcome is the socialist engineering that artificially disadvantages youngsters from middle-class backgrounds—and, indeed, those from working—class backgrounds-and turns them into victims.
    Parents who work all the hours that God sends to save money in order to send their youngsters to fee-paying schools—or parents such as the chairman of the Welsh Language Board, Rhodri Williams, who has been able to get his son on a scholarship to Eton—should not be punished by universities aiming to secure Government funding by favouring youngsters who have inferior academic qualifications. We all want youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds to be given every opportunity, but surely the way to do that is by ensuring that they receive good primary and secondary education, so that they can attain academic qualifications. We should not punish youngsters simply because they went to fee-paying schools. The Government need to raise the aspirations of youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds and ensure that they can fulfil their potential. Replacing merit with malice as a cornerstone of education policy is a disgrace, and will go down in the annals of time as one of the most appalling examples of new Labour going completely off the tracks.
    Gareth Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman disown the comments made at the end of last year by the shadow Chief Secretary to the effect that his party could cut funding by 20 per cent? What effect would that have on schools, hospitals and educational attainment in Wales?
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to put the record straight. That will mean, of course, that I will never be asked about the 20 per cent. again—will I?
    332
    The fact is that my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary said that in certain areas savings could be made. I will give the hon. Gentleman some perfect examples. I could save 100 per cent. of the money spent on the Welsh Assembly building—not just 20 per cent. I could save 100 per cent. of the money spent on all those embassies around the world for Mike German to visit. The fact that he is out of the country is generally a good thing; none the less I could save 100 per cent. of that expenditure. Jane Hutt said that her NHS reforms would be cost-neutral, but we now know that they will cost £15.5 million. We could save 100 per cent. of that money. All that wasted money could go into front-line services, ensuring that we got extra police, nurses and doctors. We would be cutting not front-line services but waste and unnecessary expenditure.
    Mr. Roger Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Evans: No, I want to make some progress; I want the Minister in his winding-up speech to answer some questions about tuition fees, about which we have heard much.
    When the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced the funding of further and higher education, we were told that the likelihood was that powers would be devolved to the Welsh Assembly. There followed an embarrassing silence. When I wrote to the Education Secretary, I was told in reply how complex the issue was and how it had to be looked into carefully. That sounded like a perfect recipe for kicking the matter into the long grass. The long grass no longer needs to be that long, because we now understand that in a couple of months' time when the elections are over, a decision will be made on what exactly will happen.
    Peter Hain: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? Is he seriously suggesting that examination of the transfer option should be conducted quickly just to complete it ahead of an election campaign, and that perhaps we should short-change Wales? Surely not. If such a transfer were to be agreed, we would have to bottom out the costings in very detailed terms. There are about 8,000 English students studying in Wales and about 6,000 Welsh students studying in England. There are all sorts of issues like that. Officials at the Assembly and in the Department for Education and Skills are getting to the bottom of those cost implications and working out how much money would follow students if the transfer took place.
    Mr. Evans: It is the money that follows the students that we are interested in. On one hand we have the Treasury, which might not provide the full amount of money for Welsh universities, and on the other we have the Assembly, which might want to say no to any top-up fees. That would put universities into a straitjacket. We know that there will be a black hole of many millions of pounds, which means that many English students might attend universities in Wales but there will be no investment in those universities because they will not be able to raise funds.
    Mr. Williams: I am sure that everyone in the House would want to give young people from disadvantaged

    333
    homes and areas the opportunity to go into higher education. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree, however, that the problems started with the abolition of maintenance grants for students and the introduction of student loans, which were his party's idea? Did he support that at the time?
    Mr. Evans: That is rather ridiculous. When I went to Swansea university, I received a small maintenance grant, and of course was charged no tuition fees whatever. When I entered the House to sit on the Government Benches—as we shall shortly do again—I had to listen to Labour politicians shouting at us for attempting to introduce tuition fees to top up maintenance grants. Maintenance grants have been abolished under this Government, and tuition fees have been introduced. I find that amazing. The Dearing report on funding universities recommended that the Government should do one or the other, but they chose to do both. It is appalling and shocking that people who themselves received free education, and maintenance grants as well, should have have removed the ladder from beneath many students.
    Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend's historical lecture is entirely correct; the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) seeks to misrepresent the position. Does my hon. Friend recall that on 14 April 1997—Welsh students will be conscious of this—the Prime Minister said:
    "We have no plans to introduce tuition fees in higher education",
    and his position was reinforced 10 days later by the Leader of the House of Commons?
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that those who wish to participate in the debate should be present for the opening speeches? I believe that the hon. Gentleman wandered in towards the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is correct: Mr. Speaker has made it clear that he wishes to see hon. Members in the Chamber for opening speeches—but on this occasion the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was allowed to intervene by the Opposition spokesman.
    Mr. Evans: We are always grateful for the expertise and wisdom of my hon. Friend :he Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who has reinforced my point. I suspect that the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) is embarrassed by what her Government did. How can she say to her constituents, "Yes, we are the Government who removed your grants. We are the Government who introduced tuition fees, and we will be the Government who introduce top-up fees." Let us see how she gets on with that line in elections to the Assembly and at the general election. I look forward to visiting her constituency and to debating that issue with her.
    334
    On the national health service—another subject that I look forward to debating with the hon. Lady—we have heard all the statistics from the Secretary of State for Wales, but we know that the number of people waiting for in-patient and out-patient treatment has gone up since 1997; 82,460 people have been waiting more than six months for outpatient treatment. That figure is up 221 per cent. since 1999. The 1999 Welsh Labour manifesto stated that by the end of a Labour Assembly's first term, no one would wait more than six months for out-patient treatment or more than 18 months for in-patient treatment. The Assembly elections are on 1 May. The target has not been met.
    However, the number of bureaucrats in the NHS has gone up dramatically—three times the rate of the increase in the number of nurses and doctors in the NHS. We heard the Secretary of State for Wales proudly say how wonderful the health service was, and how wonderful the doctors and nurses thought it was—but why do we see in the The Western Mail the headline, "A third of Welsh nurses to quit early"? The article states:
    "The first survey of working conditions in Wales by the Royal College of Nursing paints a picture of a disillusioned and short-staffed front-line army of nurses struggling to care for patients in the face of bureaucratic and administrative pressures on the NHS."
    The same edition quotes a nurse as saying:
    "There are so few staff, we run around trying to fit everything in".
    No wonder so many nurses say that they will retire early from the NHS. Those are the very people whom we should support.
    All that is happening despite the fact that in Wales, the amount of money spent per head of population is £822, whereas in England it is £740. The Secretary of State mentioned the cross-border issues that need to be confronted, particularly in the NHS. The Maelor hospital in Wrexham is at risk of losing £840,000 that it receives from English trusts if it does not meet the targets set in England. The problem is that the targets are lower in Wales than in England, but they are more readily met in England, in spite of the extra funding going into Wales. I find that appalling. It is a disgrace that £15 million is to be wasted on bureaucratic change.
    The Secretary of State paints a rosy picture of Wales, but the reality is far from that. Wales needs a dedicated, strong voice at the Cabinet table to fight its cause. In The Independent on Sunday the right hon. Gentleman is quoted as saying:
    "I'm real left, as opposed to posturing left. There are poseurs and doers. I am a doer."
    Yet we find out from another article that he still has a CND membership card in his wallet, next to his heart. Is he a member of CND or is he just a poseur? If the Secretary of State wishes to intervene to clarify that, I shall be more than happy to give way. Is he still a member of CND?
    Peter Hain indicated assent.
    Mr. Evans: The right hon. Gentleman is still a member of CND, so he is not a poseur. That probably makes him unique among his fellow Cabinet members—apart from one, about whom we have heard much in

    335
    recent days. I am staggered that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that, but at least we have put it on the record.
    Mr. Bercow: Given that in this debate we are concerned about the interests of the people of Wales, would they not be intensely disturbed to discover that they are represented by a Secretary of State for Wales who remains a member of an organisation whose initials, CND, were memorably described by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) as standing for communist, neutralist and defeatist?
    Mr. Evans: The Prime Minister himself might be staggered to find out that his Secretary of State for Wales is still a card-carrying member of CND. After all, the Prime Minister let his membership lapse a long time ago, when he thought it was convenient. Membership may not be the most career-enhancing move.
    Peter Hain: This is old news. The Tory Front Bench came up with this dramatic discovery a couple of years ago and made a fuss about it. I do not intend to withdraw my membership from Wales CND, to which I pay £15 a year, just because the hon. Gentleman gets up and has a rant about it.
    Mr. Evans: Many others will have a rant about it after today.
    Mr. Llwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has taken 42 minutes so far, whereas some of us are restricted to 14 minutes. That is an abuse, especially when the hon. Gentleman is talking about matters such as membership of CND, which has nothing to do with the debate in hand. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The Chair has no control over the length of Front-Bench speeches—nor their content, unless they go out of order. Nothing out of order has occurred so far.
    Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The record will show how many interventions I have taken, which I have been happy to do. I am coming towards the end of my contribution—[Interruption.] That usually brings a cheer—possibly the only cheer during my speech.
    The Secretary of State was quoted as saying that he was absolutely certain that his No. 1 task in Wales was Wales, and that when he had some hours left, he would do some work on the Convention on the Future of Europe. That explains why the Convention has gone pear-shaped for us. Both jobs are important. The Convention needs 100 per cent. attention, not divided time and divided loyalties.
    One newspaper headline states, over an article by the Secretary of State, "The people of Wales must decide where the nation belongs in a future Europe". Now is the time for the Secretary of State for Wales to decide where his future lies—in looking after Wales or in looking after Europe. So much is at stake in Wales, and so much has already been lost.
    336
    Let us help our businesses make profits and make sure that they are fairly taxed and the taxes are efficiently spent. The Government, both in Cardiff and in Westminster, are heaping extra taxes and extra regulations on our businesses and taxing the people by stealth at every turn, and the money raised is not getting through to the people in improved services.
    "The key is to root out unnecessary administrative cost, and to spend money on the right things-frontline care."
    Those are not my words; they are the words of the Prime Minister in the Labour party manifesto of 1997. That was six years ago. The words were right then, but sadly, that has never been delivered. People pay the extra taxes and receive poorer services. Businesses are taxed to the hilt and tied up in extra red tape. People working in the public services are fed up with huge extra bureaucracy and overload in their work. They are all saying the same thing: enough is enough. It is time for the Government finally to listen to the people.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is a 14-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches from here on.
    3.7 pm
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: The only comment that I will make about the contribution from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is that it clearly demonstrates why the Tories have no Members of Parliament in Wales. An extra 54,000 public appointments is a sign of investment, not of waste. Until the Opposition learn that lesson, I hope that they will have no parliamentary representation in Wales.
    I turn to parochial issues relating to Pembrokeshire that have national implications for Wales. There are two projects currently under way in Pembrokeshire that are vital to our local economy and which can bring tremendous benefits to the whole of Wales. The first is the plans of Petroplus for a liquid natural gas importation terminal in west Wales, and the second is the Bluestones project, which has been proposed as a unique top-quality tourist project in west Wales.
    Those are important to our area, first and foremost because of the jobs and opportunities in the locality. Petroplus will also put Wales in the forefront of UK energy infrastructure. Bluestones will create and support 600 direct—and potentially 400 indirect—jobs in the tourism industry locally, and also help Wales to meet national Welsh criteria for quality tourism.
    I want to refer back for a moment to Pembrokeshire in 1997. In some areas of my constituency, we had a legacy of unemployment affecting two or three generations in individual families. In Milford Haven, male unemployment was 20 per cent. and there was an increasing reliance on declining industries. In the 1960s and 1970s, Pembrokeshire had five oil refineries; there are now only two. There is little diversification in the local economy, which relies almost entirely on agriculture, tourism and the oil-related industries around Milford Haven waterway.
    We have had our share of disappointments since 1997. In respect of ITV Digital, 868 full-time equivalent jobs were created and lost. Let us face it—who would

    337
    have thought that ITV would run into the sort of problems that it encountered? It was seen as a blue-chip company that was bringing wealth to our area.
    What happened in the clothing industry and with regard to Dewhirst in the north was a classic example of an industry walking away from its loyal work force. I took representatives of Dewhirst's management to meet Rhodri, the First Minister, and he and the Assembly promised to give every bit of help they could to Dewhirst in overcoming its problems and in diversifying just as Laura Ashley did. Laura Ashley has now become more successful than it ever was when it sold only women's clothing. However, the Dewhirst management, who did not even tell me about their decision to close the Fishguard site until the announcement had been made publicly, simply walked away from their commitment to an area with a low-wage economy to maximize their profits.
    Despite our disappointments, it is interesting to note that between April 1997 and January 2003, there has been an overall fall in unemployment in my constituency of 37.7 per cent. If we had not lost those ITV Digital jobs, the picture would be considerably better. Youth unemployment has fallen by 80 per cent. and long-term unemployment by 75 per cent. However, Labour's goal is full employment, which is why the two projects to which I initially referred are especially important for my area.
    When Chevron ceased trading, Petroplus, a small Dutch company, bought the site for storage only and not for refining. The irony is that Pembrokeshire has always thought of itself as an isolated area. For Petroplus, which is involved in the storage and distribution of oil, the area was central. It was amusing that its perception was completely different from ours, and we must build on that.
    We have recently seen a review of security of supplies and energy culminating in the energy White Paper. Across the board, an assortment of predictions has been made about when the UK will become a net importer of gas. Some have said that that will happen in about 14 years, others that it could happen as early as 2005–06. Currently, interconnectors on the east coast of the UK provide our gas, but security of supply issues are important, with the liberalisation of other European gas markets still some way off. Security of the supply from Russia and Norway, which has had problems in recent months, is an important issue.
    The establishment of a liquified natural gas terminal on the west coast will allow supplies of LNG to be imported by vessel from other locations in the world. Pembrokeshire has the expertise to deal with that industry after 30 years in the oil industry. The site is one of the very few UK deep-water ports that allows good access to even the largest vessels, and planning consent was granted in February by Pembrokeshire county council. There is still some way to go and the process has not ended, as it is subject to IPPC—integrated pollution prevention and control—authorisation and to COMAH—control of major accident hazard—safety assessment.
    The development offers much to our locality and Wales as a whole. It will provide only limited jobs in our area, but the most important thing is that it will put
    338
    Wales at the beginning of a high-pressure gas pipeline, rather than at the end, as at present. It will provide security of gas supply for Wales in a changing global scene and sustain existing refinery businesses by providing a reliable supply of competitive fuel. Local industry has been crying out for years for a high-pressure gas line. The line currently finishes at Swansea, 70 miles away. The development will be a tremendous boost for existing industry and a magnet for new investment.
    The Secretary of State has given his support in principle and the project has passed the first hurdle, but my concern, which is shared by many people, including those in the company itself, is that unless Transco meets the challenges and time scale demanded by the project and the pipeline, we could lose out on this valuable infrastructure project for Wales as a whole. I ask him to do all that he can to ensure that Transco does not drag its heels and jeopardise the project.
    The second project, Bluestones, is located over the border from my constituency in that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger). It has tremendous implications for my area because of the job opportunities that it offers. It is very much a new-generation tourism project and offers the opportunity to turn seasonal part-time jobs into full-time year-round employment. The development straddles the border between the national park and the county council, so planning responsibility lies with both those authorities, which are currently considering the matter.
    I should like to mention national park purposes and duties. Unfortunately, there is a perception and a public rumour circulating in our county that the national park is determined to block the project. I sincerely hope that that is not true and I have every confidence and faith in the national park officer, Nic Wheeler, to ensure that the process is carried through correctly and as quickly as possible.
    We must remember, however, that the principles of the national parks are to conserve and enhance their natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage and to promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities. Those are the national parks' two primary purposes, but they also have duties. They have a statutory duty to seek to foster the economic and social well-being of their local communities in ways that are compatible with their pursuit of national park purposes. They should also have regard to the principles of sustainable development. In formulating policies for the administration and management of the parks, they must have in mind the wide range of interests that can be affected by their decisions.
    Those responsible for the parks have a distinct duty of stewardship, but at the same time, they must recognise that the parks are a living and working environment for the people who live there. That is essential if they are to remain vibrant areas and not lapse into purely rural theme parks. The Government's creation of the sustainable development fund, which involves some new work for the parks, is a very positive move that demonstrates that the parks are taking on board those issues.

    339
    I ask both the national park and the local council to recognise the need to undertake their statutory duties without any unnecessary delays. As I said, in Pembrokeshire, the public perception is that there are commercial considerations and we do not want the authorities to be seen to hold back those processes and threaten the project. That would be a tragedy for Pembrokeshire and Wales as a whole, because of the 1,000 jobs that could emanate from the project and the services that would be available to local people as well as tourists. Given that the Carbon Trust, Ethical Pembrokeshire and other organisations are involved in seeking to ensure that the development proceeds in the most sustainable manner with the smallest footprint on the environment, any failure to proceed would be a tragedy. I also firmly believe that the project is an opportunity to create a top-quality tourist venture that abides by sustainable principles and could become a model not only for the whole of Wales, but for the whole UK. We must Capitalise on that opportunity.
    The Wales Tourist Board has identified seven main points that give priority to projects. Bluestones clearly matches every one of those targets by providing a strong competitive advantage for Welsh tourism, enhancing quality and service, extending the season and profitability, providing full-time job opportunities, demonstrating sound business planning, enhancing the environment and supporting Welsh culture.
    The project offers opportunities for the national park to bring more people to appreciate the value of national park areas. I fear that if we do not take the wider vision, and if there is a blinkered vision among local communities and individuals, we could miss a tremendous opportunity for our community and for Wales in terms of the importance of the tourist industry as a whole.
    I can best demonstrate that by giving two short examples. Oakwood, upon which the scheme is based, is a leisure park in Pembrokeshire that attracts daily visitors. It is, as its name suggests, primary oak woodland that is very valuable environmentally. The presence of Oakwood park has preserved that woodland, which, given the difficulties that farming is experiencing, could have faced being cut down.
    My second little story was told to me by a former colleague in this House who is involved with the Forestry Commission. He happened to mention that he had been approached by a very sound environmental group about diminishing the amount of Sitka spruce in Northumberland and replacing it with mixed deciduous woodland. On the face of it, that appeared to be sensible and logical until it was pointed out that it could destroy 80 per cent. of the UK's red squirrel population. Although deciduous mixed woodland might seem preferable, it can support the grey squirrel, which would chase out the red squirrel. Environmental matters are not always straightforward; they can be much more complex than they seem to be.
    I urge the Secretary of State on every level to support both projects because of the individual benefits that they can bring to my constituency and the tremendous opportunities that they offer to Wales.
    3.21 pm
    Lembit Öpik: First, I emphatically agree with the Secretary of State for Wales, who said how delighted he is to see Welsh celebrities doing so well in the media. Things are going very well for Wales in that regard; I also speak in a personal capacity.
    The St. David's day debate is always a great opportunity for hon. Members to remind ourselves of the vision of Wales with which most of us would agree. Our debates in the Chamber are inevitably partisan to some extent, but they do not diverge significantly in terms of the kind of Wales that we all feel we have been elected to try to achieve. It is a Wales that is economically, culturally and socially successful; where low unemployment is achieved, but not at the cost of unreasonably low wages; where there is a strong and confident culture that does not depend on the crutches of racism or exclusion; and where social diversity is humorous, lively, fresh-minded and experimental, as well as deep-thinking, wise and internally confident of its national identity. It is a Wales where the political structures are set not to rule the electors, but to serve them; where ideas are stronger than factionalism; where credit is given where it is due; and, crucially, where the public feel that those in politics know how to use the structures in the best interests of the people whom we are elected to serve. None of that is controversial, but we sometimes get so obsessed with arguing about the different process proposals that the parties make that we take our eye off the ball.
    A classic example of a dark age for Wales was the period between 1999 and 2000 when, in the first 18 months of the Welsh Assembly, there was little better than feudalism—a moribund system in which the party politics of the situation seemed to obscure the opportunity for a strategic programme for government. Then, in October 2000, the political sun rose and a new dawn arrived as the Liberal Democrats finally decided that it was time to enable the Labour party to free itself of its Westminster shackles and to create some stability in Welsh politics The seminal watershed in the effectiveness of the Welsh Assembly occurred when the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party took the mutual risk of attempting a partnership—a shared programme for government—that was intended to deliver outcomes rather than merely political stress between the parties.
    Llew Smith: I want to make a correction. The Labour party did not take the decision to go into coalition; the respective leaderships took that decision. I assume that the party would have opposed it.
    Lembit Öpik: I understand the bitterness experienced by the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, he might consider joining the Welsh. Liberal Democrats. As he will immediately remember, the Welsh Liberal Democrats put the partnership proposal to a full party conference in Wales, where it was voted on.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: How many people were there?
    Lembit Öpik: It was very well attended. [Interruption.] I am delighted to see the enthusiasm that Welsh Liberal Democrat processes spontaneously generate among nationalist and Labour Members.

    341
    Following the positive decision by the Welsh Liberal Democrats as a party to attempt to achieve that stability for Wales, profoundly important progress has been made. It was Lloyd George who said that the greatest eloquence is that which gets things done. I am fairly confident that, in our quieter and less confrontational moments, as we reflect on the achievements of Mike German and his team, we all accept that the whole has been greater than the sum of its parts in that partnership.
    Sadly, the Secretary of State seems to have left, no doubt to congratulate Mike German on his achievements. It was frustrating to hear him imply—not even imply, but explicitly claim—that all the results delivered by the Welsh Assembly Government in the past two and a half years were a direct consequence of Labour party policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If Labour Members—in many cases, I like to think of them as Labour friends—are willing to believe that, they need to compare the 2001 and 1997 Labour party manifestos with what appeared in the partnership agreement. They will find that the Welsh Liberal Democrat manifesto made a significant contribution in that regard. One example is the introduction of Assembly learning grants to higher education and further education students.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): The hon. Gentleman talks of the new dawn after his party came into coalition in the Assembly, but does he recall that, until the creation of that coalition, his party, like the Tories and the nationalists, pursued wrecking tactics in the Assembly? By pursuing their own party advantage, they put our fledgling Assembly at risk.
    Lembit Öpik: Although the Minister insists on making a partisan point when I was trying to make cross-party observations, I shall endeavour to draw a jewel from the mud of his intervention. I agree with his implication: all parties found it difficult to play a constructive role in the Assembly. The advent of the partnership agreement between the Welsh Liberal Democrats and the Labour party enabled the Conservative party and Plaid Cymru to settle their focus on outcomes. I shall be interested to hear what other Members think about that.
    Few deny that there was a lack of stability or that there were huge internal pressures in the Labour party. Surely, we can all agree that the improved stability that resulted from the decision of two parties to form a partnership Government has been advantageous to the interests not only of all four parties but of the Welsh public.
    Mr. Llwyd: To return to the Minister's intervention, it was in fact the Labour party that ditched the First Minister—nobody else. That is why there was confusion and difficulty during the first few months.
    Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is correct to highlight the fact that there was great pressure, which was widely acknowledged, in the Labour party as it
    342
    struggled to form an independent Administration. Ultimately, the project was not successful and the partnership came into being.
    There have been many successes in the Welsh Assembly Government. I have already referred to the learning grant arrangement for higher and further education students. This is the first time that the binary divide between further and higher education students has been breached, which is tremendously important news for people who believe that lifelong learning requires sensible funding.
    The Secretary of State talked of the increased number of doctors and nurses. That was one of the important early steps taken by the partnership to address some of the serious health difficulties, including the under-provision that was a direct consequence of underfunding since 1979 under successive Conservative and Labour Administrations.
    Few deny the importance of free school milk for children at key stage 1, a proposal that was explicitly promoted by Mick Bates, the Assembly Member for Montgomeryshire, who just happens to be a Welsh Liberal Democrat. There are other successes: free prescriptions for the under-25s; free dental checks for the old and young; and free personal care for up to six weeks after diagnosis. Crucially, prescription charges have been frozen, while they continue to rise in England; I imagine that, for residents of England, they will be going up again from April. There are 700 new teachers and many other proposals.
    I do not suggest that everything in the list of the Assembly's achievements came about because of the Welsh Liberal Democrats. However, if we are serious about the new politics of Wales, it is incumbent on our partners in government—the Labour party—to acknowledge that the Welsh Liberal Democrats have tried to play a constructive role, and that many of those achievements are a direct consequence of Welsh Liberal Democrat promises to the people of Wales, which, to the credit of the Labour party, it has enabled us to implement.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman mentioned several important innovations made by the National Assembly. Can he tell us whether any of them were opposed by Plaid Cymru? Can he tell us which of them was not in Plaid Cymru's manifesto, or indeed that of the Labour party? Does he realize that Labour Members would drop the much-vaunted partnership on which he relies as quickly as they could if only they could get a majority in the Assembly—[Interruption.] They agree with me.
    Lembit Öpik: The Minister resists that acknowledgement except for a wry smile. Of course, other Members may be jealous of the power enjoyed by the Welsh Liberal Democrats in the Assembly, or perhaps they are showing humility or envy in the face of the enormous wisdom and maturity demonstrated by the Welsh Liberal Democrat-led Government in Cardiff.
    Mr. Roger Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that the formation of the next Government in the Assembly is in the gift not of the Labour party but of the electorate? That is the important point.
    Lembit Öpik: I violently agree with my hon. Friend. However frustrating it may be for Members in this place, the decision will be made by the Welsh electorate. If there is no majority, the final decision on the future programme for government will be debated by Assembly Members and, I would hope, by the respective party conferences—although I suspect that will happen only if the Welsh Liberal Democrats do not actually win an overall majority. I would also go so far as to say that, on occasion, the stability that the partnership has brought has enabled Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives in Wales to come forward with some ideas of their own.
    Once again, the fact that some of the friction that existed in the early days of the Assembly has been lifted has enabled everyone in the Assembly to adopt a more external focus. That is to the benefit of all. Nevertheless, it prompts the question of whether we should seriously consider moving further primary legislative power to the Welsh Assembly. I do not want to dwell on that, but I believe that there is a strong case for devolving transport, further education and other powers to the Assembly, now that it has proved itself capable and manifestly desirous of exercising responsible government for the people of Wales. This all comes down to whether we believe that devolution is working. For an establishment that has been going for only four years—and has been operational in an effective sense for only two and a half—the Welsh Assembly has done extremely well.
    Looking ahead, we are about to have the elections, and much of what is said today will be tainted by that. However, it is important that we all recognise that, regardless of how the public in Wales vote, the Welsh Assembly does best when it focuses on outcomes. There will be a great opportunity to extend free personal care, further to cut junior class sizes to no more than 25, and to promote free access to sports centres for young people so as to promote health and fitness among youngsters and to reduce antisocial behaviour in young people. Those are some of the many opportunities that the Welsh Assembly has to diverge in its policy making from what goes on in Westminster. That brings me to an important point. As we see devolution take root, we see divergence in terms of local best practice—in this case, with regard to the three examples that I gave.
    I noted with great interest the comments of the Secretary of State for Wales on student funding. I see the potential for a dramatic rift in student funding policy between what happens in Westminster for English students and what happens in Wales for Welsh students. There has already been an improvement in access for many target groups in Scotland as a result of fairly progressive student funding arrangements introduced in the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the Labour party. If the Labour party achieved that idea independently, why has it not done it for the whole of England and Wales? Why have we had to wait for devolution?
    I suggest that one of the spin-off benefits of what has happened in Wales is that other party policies—for example, those of my own party, and occasionally those of Opposition parties—get more oxygen for their promotion, and can sometimes be passed on merit. Let none of us pretend, however, that if the Labour party had an overall majority in the Welsh Assembly and there
    344
    were no partnership, there would not be massively increased pressure on the Labour Administration in that environment to toe the party line from Westminster.
    While the first four years of Welsh Assembly government have been a learning process, in the next four years, we can really hit the ground running. There is great potential for the confidence of the Welsh Assembly Government to develop. The maturity of the established organisations and the flow lines of power make it possible for the Welsh Assembly to settle down and, crucially, for the relationship between Westminster Members, including the Lords, and Assembly Members based in Cardiff to become more relaxed and smooth-flowing. This is not a party political observation but something that I have noticed across all parties. If we are honest, I think that we have all felt that.
    There have been some teething troubles and frictions between parties, simply because the Welsh Assembly is new, and we have all had to rebalance the way in which we operate in the political environment that has ensued. Things have occasionally looked threatening to the Welsh Assembly, as the Welsh MPs have seemed unhappy about what it was doing, and vice versa. However, etiquettes have been established, and we increasingly recognise that working together, far from being a threat to the jurisdiction of either Westminster or the Assembly, results in better outcomes and right decisions at the right levels. Devolution is a process, and requires us progressively to give up more power as the Welsh Assembly develops and becomes more confident about the exercise of power.
    The focus of our debate should be positive, and I exhort hon. Members to consider another initiative that I hope is welcome from the Welsh Liberal Democrats—a campaign charter to try to improve the style of politics that we practise in Wales and, in the longer term, elsewhere. On previous occasions, I have said that I am not comfortable about embarking on negative campaigning and debates and, more than anything, running other parties down in a non-evidence-based way. Individual parties do not gain from that and, collectively, the body politic loses.
    Mr. Wayne David: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore publicly distance himself from the outrageous literature that his party produced in the Ogmore by-election?
    Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have often said that, although it can help an individual campaign in the short term, it does not help any party or politics in the medium to long-term to embark on unreasonable campaigning. We can debate those leaflets—I have looked at them and had debates about them. The hon. Gentleman is smart enough to realise that I am not going to conduct a witch hunt in my own party.
    Paul Flynn: Why not?
    Lembit Öpik: The answer is simple. I respectfully and humbly suggest to hon. Members that we cannot mandate people's attitude, but we can propose a way of looking at politics. Our campaign charter has seven points, which I shall not go through in detail.

    345
    Essentially, we focus on campaigning on positive records of delivery; positive policy proposals; and being willing to criticise other parties' weaknesses, but only where appropriate and in the context of party policy proposals. The charter says:
    "We will, on no account, comment or encourage comment on the personal lives of politicians … We will campaign honestly and fairly so that we can justify our statements"
    and back them up with facts. The charter continues:
    "We will seek to engage people in the political process through argument, issue and comparison … We will work with people from political parties and none when we share objectives and interests."
    None of that is very radical, and it would be a shame if any Westminster Member felt that it was an inappropriate form of campaigning.
    Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Ogmore by-election, which was held during his tenure as Liberal Democrat spokesman on Welsh affairs. It therefore behoves him and any other leader to ensure that that kind of thing does not happen. I am sure that we all agree with the broad thrust of what he is saying. We do not want personalised politics, but first we must clean out our own stables.
    Lembit Öpik: I am making that very appeal to right hon. and hon. Members. It would be neither feasible nor appropriate for me to attempt to clean out the stables of the Labour party, the Conservative party or Plaid Cymru. Perhaps I can do something to achieve a new style of politics among Welsh Liberal Democrats—we will find out. I am making not a mandate but a recommendation, and I urge hon. Members to bear it in mind. They do not have to respond to the charter today, but if they are interested in it they could quietly consider its content in their own time.
    We have written to the Conservative party, the Labour party and Plaid Cymru. I detected some scepticism in the responses of Nick Bourne and Ieuan Wyn Jones, but we all know that, at the end of the day, people who go into politics do so on the whole for the right reasons. It is a great shame that individuals are besmirched and dragged down in what, in my judgment, is a noble profession simply because we cannot resist cheap shots when it would be better to remain quiet.
    The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) laughs, which prompts me to do what I did not intend to do, and give an example. He will know that there has been some debate about the prospective Conservative candidate for Llanelli, who made what I consider outrageous homophobic and racist statements. I will not name him, but he says:
    "I would like to see Britain take a stronger line on 'normalising' incomers … deplore the way Britain subscribes to every damn 'human rights' act so strictly … I cannot convince myself of anything other than homosexuality being a medical mental condition … they need medical attention."
    There is no doubt whatever that the person who said that was a prospective Conservative candidate for Llanelli. If one intended to be cynical or opportunist one could give the impression that the entire Conservative party held those views, but I think that would be inappropriate, because I do not seriously believe that
    346
    even the majority of Conservatives hold them—and, although the hon. Member for Leominster may not know this, I understand that the Conservative party in Wales, to its credit, has taken swift action and fired the candidate.
    That is a practical example of what I am talking about. Any attempt to gain mileage from those views would rebound negatively on politics as a whole.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Why did the hon. Gentleman quote them, then?
    Lembit Öpik: Because they constitute just one of many possible hostages to fortune that do not reflect the thrust of, in this case, Conservative party policy—although the same could apply to other parties.
    Let me end with a request. Members find it hard to resist poking fun at my continued idealism in raising the game of politics. I hope that, in a quiet and perhaps less charged environment, they will consider whether they would be willing to give it a chance, and see whether we can clean up politics. The ultimate winner would be politics as a whole, and we would be able to focus on outcomes rather than process.
    That said, the Welsh Liberal Democrats are here to get things done. We do not pretend to have a monopoly on good ideas, and we are willing to work with those who can add value to our views—even members of other parties. We regard politics not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end. We do not necessarily consider it to be a conflict; we see it as a competition rather than a war.
    I hope that those who feel comfortable about occasionally stepping out of the tired old box of politics that runs us all down will find some resonance in what I have said. Most of all, I hope that the Welsh public—the people who elected us to serve them—find some resonance in the fact that one party is genuinely willing to step outside the negativity that has sometimes bedevilled campaigning, is willing to risk working in partnership to achieve results as we have in the Welsh Assembly, and is trying to live out the creed of Lloyd George himself and get things done. If they do, I hope they will consider supporting us in the forthcoming elections.

    DEFERRED DIVISION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have now to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day.
    On the Question of social security, the Ayes were 279, the Noes 58, so the Question was agreed to.
    [The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]
    3.48 pm
    Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to mention the growth in the Welsh economy that has taken place during the last five or six years. He was also right to mention the dramatic fall in unemployment that has occurred in most of our constituencies. In Llanelli it is now half the level in Germany, and I suspect that the same applies in many if not most constituencies.

    347
    My right hon. Friend was courageous to point out that economies in the euro area are in a much worse state. I believe that when he was a full-time Foreign Office Minister he used to travel around Wales extolling the virtues of the euro; but the Welsh, being sensible people, did not really listen.
    We have better growth than the euro area partly—perhaps wholly—because of the Government's policies and the sensible economic policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, we have not solved all of Wales's economic problems, and no one believes that we have done so. We cannot solve in a short time the problems of a country whose infrastructure was built up over 100 years, but practically disappeared within 10 years; however, a good start has been made. We were told during the Assembly elections that it was to be an economic powerhouse. Without wishing to show any disrespect to it, that was one of the more exaggerated statements that were made. Sadly, these days no Government can be an economic powerhouse, given the global economy, the constant pressure on costs and the movement of industry to low-cost areas. It is far more difficult than it was in the 1940s or 1950s for a Government to interfere or intervene, in order to rebuild an economy such as Wales's; however, a good start has been made.
    On the other hand, we should not fool ourselves: Wales is still one of the poorer areas of Britain. Some four or five years ago, I looked at budget figures showing the income raised and expenditure spent in Wales. Those figures will have changed, but I doubt whether the underlying position will have changed very much. On taking a percentage of the gross domestic product from those figures, the difference between income raised and expenditure spent—the Maastricht-type deficit-was 15 per cent. One does not have to be a slavish follower of balanced budgets or of the growth and stability pact to know that Wales on its own—I am not making a political point—simply could not finance or sustain a deficit of 15 per cent. It saddens me, as it undoubtedly saddens most of us, to note that according to the figures, Wales still has such a substantial deficit. One priority for the future should be to try to increase the wealth generated in Wales, and thereby to try to fund more of our public expenditure within Wales.
    There are those who want to change the Barnett formula. I have no objection to that, although I have yet to see any positive alternatives. I suspect that those who want to change it are looking to obtain more money for Wales—I doubt whether they would be very happy if a new formula produced less money—but were we so to change it, the 15 per cent. deficit would undoubtedly increase. In the past four or five years, public expenditure in Wales has probably grown by between 4 and 5 per cent.; in the next few years, it will certainly grow by that amount. The economy is growing by 2 to 2.5 per cent, so I suspect that current figures would show that the deficit is even higher than 15 per cent. I am not saying that that should not be the case, but that is the reality of the position in Wales. We could use that as the benchmark in examining the progress of the Welsh economy, in order to establish whether it is improving.
    Leaving aside the economic consequences of such a deficit, there are also constitutional consequences. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) mentioned increasing the powers of the Welsh
    348
    Assembly. In looking at that issue—as the Richard commission is—we must also consider the financing behind it, because in effect, there would be a considerable democratic deficit. If we transfer more power from this Parliament to the Assembly in Cardiff bay, it will spend more money but we will have no control over how it is spent. Yet much of the money that will be spent in Cardiff bay is raised not in Wales, but by taxpayers in other parts of the United Kingdom, and although Members such as I represent Welsh constituencies, we represent those people as well. I doubt whether it would benefit Wales to have such a total dependency culture. Nor would it benefit democracy if we in this House, who have to vote on the use of other people's money, were not to be consulted at all, and the money were simply transferred.
    I hope that the Richard commission will take that into account. I am not suggesting that one cannot change various anomalies, but major transfers of power from this House to the Welsh Assembly must take account of the economic democratic deficit that would be created because Wales does not raise enough money to finance public expenditure.
    The main consequence of that deficit is that we must make every effort to increase wealth in Wales so as to produce more income to pay for our infrastructure. That is not easy: we are an economy that depends heavily on public expenditure. I am not proposing cuts in that expenditure, as we have to have it, but the growth in public expenditure in the past few years has probably been greater than the growth of the economy. Expenditure on health and education has grown, but the growth in welfare expenditure—such as income support, housing benefit and the working families tax credit—reflects the relative poverty of the Welsh economy.
    We all welcome the working families tax credit. It is needed in Wales, which has a low income base. However, it subsidises our fairly low wages, and I do not believe that it is sustainable in the medium or long term. Governments sometimes have to retrench. Recessions happen, not necessarily for internal reasons. An economy that is so dependent on what may be called subvention payments, however necessary, does not promise to be sustainable in the future.
    I hope that we do not get carried away with the growth that has been achieved. I am sure that we will not. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to point out the successes, but we need more companies in Wales that make more money and create wealth. Of course, we need the public expenditure as well, but on its own that will not provide the wealth creation that the market sometimes can produce.
    One area of growth in the Welsh economy is quangoland. We have quangos, executive agencies, non-governmental public bodies and governmental public bodies, although all of them exist throughout Britain, not just in Wales. We also have a strange entity that I find difficult to understand—the not-for-profit company. I am sure that other hon. Members receive in their mail from time to time glossy sheets of paper describing the creation of another new not-for-profit company. Such sheets usually have lots of logos at the bottom, saying that the new not-for-profit company is in partnership with lots of other such companies.

    349
    I am not sure what not-for-profit companies do. I do not know whether they spend their money wisely, and I am not sure about their accountability, but the not-for-profit company is a very post-modern, new-Labourish concept. What Wales needs is profit companies, not—and I hope that the House will excuse the double negative—not-for-profit ones.
    Still, not-for-profit companies exist, and no doubt some perform a useful function. However, they do not come on their own. I am told that they come with social entrepreneurs—another concept that I, in my old-fashioned way, find difficult to understand. I suppose that the social entrepreneur is another post-modern, new-Labourish concept. I suspect that many are more social than entrepreneurial, as they are receptacles for much Government money.
    There is no doubt that we must keep our eye on the growth of bureaucracy in Wales. We are a country that loves the committee, and the partnership fits into our culture nicely. We love to sit down and talk about such things, but we must be careful and remember the need for wealth creation.
    Whatever their faults, the mining industry, the steel industry and the manufacturing and farming sectors created wealth in Wales. Somehow or other, we must make sure that we get into the new wealth-creating industries and we should not believe that by distributing money to all the various bodies that I have described, we will, in the end, improve the basis on which the Welsh economy is built.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about getting wealth-creating companies into Wales, but we must ensure that that wealth is not sucked out of Wales, as happened in the past. The right hon. Gentleman mentions mining, steel and farming, but the money from those sectors went out of Wales and into other institutions. The one valid job that we have—whether in an Assembly or a Parliament in Wales—is to ensure that that money is retained within the Welsh economy.
    Denzil Davies: I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman says. Much of the investment in mining, steel and iron was made by people who came from outside Wales; naturally, they took their dividends back to where they came from. It is certainly important that we try to generate local Welsh industries to produce the wealth to fund infrastructure and public expenditure. A good start has been made but we must not get carried away. There is much still to be done.
    4 pm
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I intend to talk about health and the economy. First, I refer Members to Labour's 1999 manifesto and the pledges therein. Many have said that those pledges were hostages to fortune—there were no ifs or buts—because they announced that by the end of the Assembly term, no one would wait more than six months for their first out-patient appointment. In 1999, the figure was 21,828; today it is 82,574. The manifesto said that no one would have to wait more than 18 months for in-patient treatment. In 1999, the figure was 2,197; it is now 4,715.
    350
    Targets are supposed to be attainable. The doubling or quadrupling of waiting lists is not acceptable, and breaking a promise to end waiting lists is not acceptable. It was probably not possible to meet the 1999 manifesto promise and, perhaps, it was misleading, but the increased waiting times are catastrophic failures, condemning thousands to wait in pain and misery. At last week's Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister proudly said that
    "we have a situation whereby there is not a single waiting list national indicator, in-patient or out-patient, that is not better than it was in 1997." —[Official Report, 5 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 812.]
    He was talking about the situation in England.
    Waiting lists in the health service are not the only problem. The number of NHS beds has fallen every year since the Assembly came into being, a drop of about 300 over that period. There are fewer full-time GPs in Wales, with vacancies for 130. We need to train 200 a year to replace those who are retiring or leaving; currently the level is 120. Things are improving slowly and, with the new training facility at Swansea, I hope that they will improve further, but we are struggling against a strong tide of disaffected NHS workers.
    Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman says that things are improving. Will he acknowledge that he is talking about an all-Wales situation and that, in north Wales, the situation is a lot better than in the rest of Wales? He is doing his and my constituents a disservice by talking down that area when they are working hard and providing excellent services in comparison with the rest of Wales.
    Mr. Llwyd: I am trying to speak on an all-Wales basis, as the hon. Gentleman said. I will not go into figures about north Wales because I am not utterly sure—
    Albert Owen: They are better.
    Mr. Llwyd: I accept that he says that there is an improvement.
    We in Plaid Cymru believe that health is as much about well-being as about illness; therefore, we need to have a revolution in the way we think about health. It follows that we cannot expect the Department of Health alone in Government to do all that is necessary for Wales to ensure that it is a healthy country. Health and social services are resources of the community and the community is a resource in terms of the aims of health and social services.
    I shall suggest some things that might happen after I May to improve the position. We should put in place retention and recruitment measures for health professionals, including nurses, dentists, GPs and consultants. We should end the current Government's target culture, which merely steers funds away from more long-term strategic planning and empowers the system operating over the patient in such a way that it perpetuates the vicious cycle of poor services.
    We should practise aggressive health promotion to prevent disease and illness and focus on primary care, since, of course, 90 per cent of care is delivered at this level. We need to direct strategy and funding towards community-based organisations and initiatives, including incorporation of the voluntary sector into

    351
    national administration and planning. Of course, we must urgently tackle the "inverse care law", which means that those who most need care are least likely, under the present circumstances, to have it.
    Julie Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Llwyd: I am moving on to talk about the economy, and I regret that I will not take another intervention at this stage.
    The First Minster of the National Assembly was proud to boast in November last year that 33,000 jobs have been created in Wales since November 2001. That figure dropped by 8,000 to 25,000 when he was quoted a few days later in the The Western Mail. Be that as it may. In 1998, the average wage in Wales was 89 per cent. Of the UK average. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State, and agreed with much of what he said about the economy generally. Welsh workers, however, are getting 11 per cent. less than other workers in the UK. By the end of 2002, the level of their pay was worse: just 86 per cent. of the average. If we translate that into hard facts, a 3 per cent. decline has cost us about £100 a month each. If the First Minister's Government had kept things as they were, the average Welsh worker would be£25 a week better off. That is the true cost of this Government's current economic strategy.
    What of the 17,000 manufacturing jobs that have been lost in Wales since 1999? The true cost of that is seen in the appalling statistic that, unfortunately, a third of Welsh children now live below the poverty threshold, five years after the Labour Government said that that would be tackled properly. Labour still pretends to look after the socially inept and socially excluded, but voting Labour has an economic and social cost. The gap between the rich and poor in Britain is widening. Welsh gross domestic product figures show that, per capita, the current figure of 82 per cent. of the European average is likely to drop even further during the next few years.
    The Welsh Assembly Government have based their economic targets almost entirely on narrowing the gap in economic prosperity between Wales and the rest of the UK. The Chancellor refuses to acknowledge the regional need, and refuses full Treasury match funding under objective 1. I know that there have been arguments in the past about that, and there will undoubtedly be arguments about it in future. The hard fact, however, which anyone in any political party in the National Assembly will admit, is that full match funding is not occurring. We are not drawing down sufficient money, and we are not taking advantage of objective 1 as we could do.
    That means that Wales is forced to find from its own finances-the health, education and social services budget-about £100 million a year to finance objective 1. There is neither match funding for objective 1 from the Treasury nor operating aids as an additional tool that would stimulate business growth in objective 1 areas. Despite the constant boasting, nothing has transpired from the current co-operation between London Labour and Cardiff Labour. The Westminster Labour Government continue to ignore the needs of Wales, as did previous Tory Governments. To rub salt in the wound, it is the Welsh Labour Government who
    352
    reject a regional economic policy in Wales. There are neither regional direction nor regional employment targets.
    The main aim of objective 1 and "A Winning Wales" is to increase comparative levels of GDP. No official statistics are available for Wales since 1999, however, which is disgraceful. That suits London Labour, of course, because the regional GDP figures remind everyone of the inequalities in the UK economy. It also suits the objective of Cardiff Labour, because every independent report indicates that, in spite of objective 1 status, the gap is widening between Wales's GDP per capita and that of the rest of the UK, and that the coalition has failed to change that.
    The Chancellor was a strong supporter of the regions, and he probably still is. When he was in opposition, he regularly and tirelessly requested information about regional selective assistance from the Conservative Government. Unfortunately, that is no longer any concern of his. Payouts in 1997–98, when Labour came to power, were £295 million, two and a half times the estimated figure for 2002£03. The share of regionally targeted business support won by Scotland and Wales has fallen sharply in the past 10 years.
    Before somebody asks what can be done, I suggest—in the cross-party way in which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) always deals with such matters—the following points for consideration. Plaid Cymru believes that we should create seven economic regions in Wales, more appropriately reflecting the economic and social patterns, and develop a sustainable economic development strategy in each region, together with set job targets. Within each region, we should identify special development centres that will provide the focus for economic growth in the area. That should give people quality job opportunities, provide social infrastructure and help to stem the outflow of young people. They frequently end up in Cardiff, which is that city's gain but the rural areas lose out.
    Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman mentions a difference between London Labour and Cardiff Labour, but is there not a difference between London Plaid Cymru and Cardiff Plaid Cymru? The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price), who is not in his place, proposed that we move the capital of the United Kingdom to Liverpool. Is the hon. Gentleman proposing that we should move the capital city of Wales to Caergybi or Anglesey?
    Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman knows that the comments made by my hon. Friend were not serious. If the hon. Gentleman had taken enough of an interest to read my hon. Friend's point in context, he might have understood it. As usual, he was not there for the debate, but if he had been he might have understood the point.
    Our vision is of creating some major counterpoints in Wales to provide a magnet effect for industry and to kick-start the economy in all parts of Wales. Some of us who have been here a while remember the arguments with the Welsh Development Agency and the need to shift inward investment from the south-east corridor and the north-east to west Wales and the rural areas. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) would agree with the need to do that, especially

    353
    since the Development Board for Rural Wales has gone. Policies were amended and people said, "Yes, it will be done, it is now part of our policy and half the moneys and half the effort will be put into those areas." Precious little effort was put in. It was far too easy, for example, for somebody behind a desk in the WDA to say, for example, "There are 4,000 unemployed within travelling distance of Newport. Let's get the semi-conductor plant in and soak up 3,000 jobs immediately." That is good luck for Newport, but bad luck for the rest of Wales. In one stroke, that person would achieve his or her targets for the next 18 months. That happens too often. We need to look strategically at the needs of the whole of Wales, not just some sectors of it.
    We should set up in the Assembly a jobs unit that would take over the strategic and policy-making roles of the WDA and ELWa—Education and Learning Wales. The latter is greatly discredited and I wonder what job it is doing at the moment. The jobs unit would identify areas and sectors of potential economic growth in each regions and set targets for job creation. We need to improve access to finance for businesses that will boost the Welsh economy—not just large amounts of finance, but smaller amounts as well. The problem with the current regime is that if someone wants a small loan from the WDA, it is not interested. The loans have to be big. Some 90 per cent. of businesses in Wales are in the small and medium sector: they do not want several million pounds but £10,000 or £20,000. That does not interest the people at WDA, and that is not good enough. We need to cater for everyone in the business sector. It is important to focus on home-grown, Wales-based businesses, so that we can provide the maximum benefit for the Welsh economy.
    We need to identify businesses with high growth potential and focus specialist funding on them so as to create a base of 10 to 20 fast-growing Welsh companies. I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) on that point. Wales has one listed company per 130,000 people, but Scotland, for example, has one for every 30,000 people. Scotland is doing considerably better. We need to identify high-growth sectors and to focus resources more effectively on developing businesses within those sectors. I am thinking of businesses in optoelectronics and auto electronics, high-quality food, renewable energy and sustainable tourism—for all of which Wales is well placed.
    We need to get objective 1 funding back on track, cut the length of time for applications, cut the numbers of committees and partnerships, and get the thing moving, encouraging local firms to gain more and more public sector contracts. Hat could add £3 billion to the Welsh economy. We have to unlock the potential of the south Wales valleys and create a specific strategy for infrastructure, communications and environmental improvements to develop the valleys as an area of polycentric growth. We need to keep pushing for operating aids, which have been promised but not delivered by the Welsh Assembly Government. We will fight for Wales to receive the maximum possible operating aids to stimulate growth in indigenous businesses.
    354
    The unemployment situation in Wales has improved—it would be wrong of me to deny that—but much needs to be done. The figures for gross domestic product show that we are still slipping behind. The right hon. Member for Llanelli highlighted many things that have still to be done. It behoves us all to strive to close the gap so that no longer will we be the poor relations of the United Kingdom. One way of doing that will be to elect a Plaid Cymru Administration in Cardiff in May. At this moment, that seems extremely likely.
    4.16 pm
    Mr. Martyn Jones: I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members for not being here for the opening speeches. This debate was changed from last week to this week, and I wrote to Mr. Speaker to point out that I was a Privy Council appointee to the disciplinary committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons—it was a quasi-judicial meeting that I was not able to leave.
    I shall raise several issues, all of which are of great importance to Wales. I want to address the important principle of this House discussing more draft legislation for Wales. As Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, I believe that our Committee has some experience of those matters. I want to tell the House about some of the advantages that would derive from an extension to our discussions of primary legislation for Wales. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, the Health (Wales) Bill was an excellent start to the concept of draft legislation for Wales. The Welsh Affairs Committee was charged with providing the main pre-legislative scrutiny on behalf of this House. Even though I say it myself, the Committee did a good job of fulfilling the obligations set by the Government.
    I pay tribute to the Health and Social Services Committee of the devolved National Assembly for Wales, which mirrored our responsibilities. All in all, the process was a huge success. It proved that Cardiff and Westminster can work in tandem in the interests of Wales and for the benefit of Wales. That is why more draft legislation would be welcome. The Welsh Affairs Committee greatly welcomed the chance to lead on the draft Health (Wales) Bill and now looks forward to fulfilling the same task on other draft bills.
    In anticipation of the Government heeding my call, I would like to raise an issue that I have raised with the Serjeant at Arms in recent months, and will continue to press for. I would like this House to enter into a reciprocal arrangement with the National Assembly for Wales so that Members of both the Parliament and the Assembly may have security passes allowing them access to each other's buildings. Members may be interested to know that I and members of my Committee have security passes that allow us to gain access to the Assembly building in Cardiff. That came about because we spent a lot of time in the Assembly, taking evidence, meeting with Members and attending Committees. It makes excellent sense for MPs to have passes. Unfortunately, however, we cannot return the favour to Assembly Members. I find that very embarrassing. I am asking for a change not just as a reciprocal courtesy or a nicety, but as a practical convenience for Members of the Assembly who regularly visit this House on formal business. I look forward to the Secretary of State taking up this issue

    355
    with the House authorities on behalf of Welsh Assembly Members. It is more than just a gesture; it is rapidly becoming a practical necessity. I look forward to a positive outcome.

    I should like to give a brief outline of an element of work undertaken by the Welsh Affairs Committee that is not usually mentioned in the Chamber but, none the less, forms an important strand of scrutiny of the Executive by the House in respect of Wales. I refer to my Committee's scrutiny of the Wales Office's annual departmental report. As hon. Members know, a core function of the Committee is to take evidence on the departmental report. Unfortunately, for the sake of this annual debate, the report is invariably published nearly 12 months too late. I assure the House, however, that my Committee takes evidence on matters contained in the report and questions the Secretary of State closely on matters as they affect Wales.
    For example, following the publication of last year's report, the then Secretary of State answered questions on Corus's restructuring of steel production in Wales. Sadly, that is a topical subject following the news that broke earlier this week. We also questioned him on how he monitored the potential impact on Wales of Bills introduced in the House. Other subjects included the Wales and Border rail franchise; post offices in Wales—both urban and rural; and the Welsh language scheme. As the House can see, they are all issues of great importance, and I look forward to the publication of the current Secretary of State's first report, which I hope we will receive in the not-too-distant future.
    It may surprise some of my hon. Friends if I offer thanks to a Welsh nationalist Member, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), who is sadly not in his place. I was recently successful in securing a Westminster Hall Adjournment debate on employment in north Wales in which the hon. Gentleman and I had an interesting exchange about call centre jobs in Caernarfon. To put it in a nutshell, he complained that his constituency was not attracting enough call centre jobs. I intervened in his speech helpfully to point out that that was probably because the call centre companies had commissioned market research and concluded that some regional accents are more user-friendly than others. The fact that there is only one call centre in Caernarfon has nothing to do with Government policy and more to do with what the companies that run call centres perceive to be acceptable. My Committee initially discovered the research when it took evidence in our investigation of inward investment in Wales.
    Interestingly, after the Westminster Hall debate the hon. Member for Caernarfon took it upon himself to rush out a press release to local newspapers castigating me for being less than generous about the Caernarfon accent and alleging that I had said that it was "second class". If he senses some reluctance on the part of inward investors to put their money into north-west Wales, I suggest to him in all sincerity—
    Mr. Llwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has been here a long while, but evidently does not understand much about how this
    356
    place works. If he is going to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), should he not have given notice of that?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would certainly be in accordance with the conventions and etiquette of the House to give notice in advance if sharp, critical comments are to be made about another Member. No doubt, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) will consider his remarks in the light of that ruling.
    Mr. Jones: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that ruling. I did not think I was making sharp comments about the hon. Member for Caernarfon; I was defending my position on the matter. The hon. Gentleman was in his place but left as I got up to speak, so I am embarrassed by his absence rather than by the fact that I was raising the matter. I had assumed that he would be here, but he has left the Chamber. I apologise for the fact that he did not know that I was about to mention him in my speech, but it is difficult for me to anticipate his movements.
    I was trying to point out that the reluctance of inward investors to put their money into north Wales had nothing to do with accents, but more to do with extremist members of Plaid Cymru and others—I do not include the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) in this—who espouse anti-incomer and anti-English views to their economic detriment.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman said that he was not present for the opening speeches. Had he been present, he would have heard me intervene on the Secretary of State to point out that an independent review by the GMB judged the Plaid Cymru-controlled authority of Gwynedd, which I think is the area to which he is referring, as having the third or second best rate of economic development in the country. His calumnious words have no basis in fact whatsoever. He should know that a new call centre has just opened in Caernarfon selling books throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We might try to steer the debate into calmer waters. Mr. Speaker accepted what the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) told him about needing to be absent. Considering the hon. Gentleman's seniority and role in Welsh affairs, it was perfectly proper to call him at the time that he was called. He has said nothing in reference to hon. Members that I judged to be out of order, although I always appeal for moderation of language at any time.
    Mr. Jones: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I find the intervention by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) rather strange. I was making the point that in my Westminster Hall debate, the hon. Member for Caernarfon did not acknowledge that there was a huge upturn in economic activity—in fact, he did precisely the opposite. I am sorry that he is not present, but he did not even acknowledge what the hon. Member for Ceredigion just confirmed. There has been a huge amount of economic investment, but it happened under the Labour Government. It was churlish of the hon. Member for Caernarfon not to do that because the debate was about economic development and unemployment in Wales.

    357
    Youth unemployment in Caernarfon has gone down by 89 per cent. Caernarfon has done better than my constituency, which has experienced a reduction of 85 per cent. Caernarfon's overall unemployment rate has gone down by 43 per cent., which is better than that of my constituency, which has gone down by 31 per cent. However, the hon. Member for Caernarfon implied that that was not good enough. He must accept that we have a right to find out why he thinks that things could be better.
    Mrs. Lawrence: What does my hon. Friend think about Plaid Cymru's alternative budget, published on 11 April 2002? It proposes abolishing the upper limit for national insurance contributions, restricting personal allowances to the standard rate, introducing a new 50 per cent. top rate on taxable income, and increasing the basic rate of income tax. Does he think that that will assist economic development in Wales generally?
    Mr. Jones: Obviously I do not think that it would, but the document implies that Plaid Cymru would tax the rest of the UK just to fund investment in Wales. Given the party's separatist agenda of splitting Wales from the UK, I doubt whether the UK Government would allow the input of £13 billion from the Exchequer to Wales. Plaid Cymru Members would spend their time better by persuading those in their back yards to let go of the 1930s attitude of the founder of Welsh nationalism, Saunders Lewis. He hated the English-peaking people of these islands and had regular con tact with Mussolini.
    Paul Flynn: Having been taught by Saunders Lewis—I think that I am one of the few people in the House who knew him—I recognise him as one of the greatest literary figures in Wales. He was a man of genius and vision, and such slurs are cheap and unworthy of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Jones: I was talking not about Saunders Lewis's literary abilities but about his contact with nationalist movements in Europe. That has nothing to do with his writing, which I am sure is very good.
    On the antics of the nationalists, a headline in The Sunday Times of 2 March screamed at readers, "Rail union plans to ditch Labour and fund Plaid Cymru". The article went on to say:
    "Britain's biggest rail union is preparing to sever a century-old link with Labour".
    I shall not read it all because the story turned out to be absolute rubbish. I asked my office to contact the RMT last week about its intention to
    "ditch Labour and fund Plaid Cymru".
    The reply was most interesting. My office was told unequivocally:
    "It is complete codswallop! There is absolutely no substance to that story!"
    Albert Owen: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
    Mr. Jones: I am afraid that I cannot, as I am about to be cut off.
    358
    If the nationalists are mounting a charm offensive on the unions, they should not tell untruths about senior union leaders, especially two weeks before such leaders are due to speak at their conference at their invitation. If the nationalists wants to be seen as donning the mantle of the people's party in Wales, they clearly have a great deal to learn.
    4.30 pm
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee. I am sure that he would be delighted to attend our conference on Saturday in Llangollen in his constituency, where he would hear for himself the words of the RMT leader, who could explain exactly his views on the future funding of the Labour party.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech. I am grateful to him for telling me that, because neither he nor any of his hon. Friends had told me that they were going to my constituency on that day. If he issues an invitation and he tells me where, I shall be delighted to welcome him to my constituency.
    Mr. Thomas: That was an invitation. I should be delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the conference—despite the fact that that part of Llangollen will be Plaid Cymru territory for a short period. I am sure that he recognises that before Saturday there are still several days in which right hon. and hon. Members could have given him notice of their presence in the town.
    I am delighted to follow the hon. Gentleman not because of what he said, most of which was absolute rubbish, but because I want to talk about a feature of the work of the Welsh Affairs Committee. Hon. Members who have served in this House much longer than I—possibly including the hon. Gentleman—will remember that about 10 years ago the Committee conducted an investigation into planning policy in Ceredigion. As a result, for the past seven or eight years, planning decisions that are out of line with the county of Ceredigion's local plan have been referred latterly to the Welsh Assembly and previously to the Secretary of State. That is in recognition of Ceredigion county council's failure to uphold planning policy and to act in accordance with planning guidelines. In the next few minutes, I shall explain to the House that the situation has not improved since the Committee's report. Indeed, it is about to worsen considerably.
    The collusion cabinet in Ceredigion—I would not call it a coalition—led by the independents but, unfortunately, supported by the Liberal Democrats has just produced a unitary development plan for the county that utterly fails to take into account the county's needs and the views expressed by its residents. We have had a draft version and then a deposited version of the plan, to which about 10,000 objections were made. The independents and the Liberal Democrats who try to run Ceredigion county council have failed to accept any of those objections and have pressed on regardless with a unitary development plan that the vast majority of residents hold in contempt.

    359
    It is worth hon. Members hearing a little of the reasoning—mine, at least—behind why those councillors are prepared to continue with a development plan that is so unacceptable to the people of Ceredigion.
    Mr. Roger Williams: I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said about the preparation of the unitary development plan in Ceredigion. Will not it reach a public inquiry at which people's objections can be heard by an independent inspector?
    Mr. Thomas: It will; I look forward to that public inquiry and to hearing the councillors' justification for their proposals. However, the hon. Gentleman surely would not close out the need for a democratic process before a public inquiry. Any responsible local authority should hear the views of its local people, especially when they are forcefully expressed in such numbers. I am sure that he would not wish to ignore that.
    I believe the process by which the unitary development plan has been arrived at in my county to be fundamentally corrupt—and I use my words advisedly. There has been a distortion of the planning process to the benefit, real and potential, of individuals. Those individuals happen to be councillors, so we must ask who will benefit from the plan in Ceredigion.
    Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Thomas: Not at the moment, I regret, but perhaps if I have time later.
    The planning process arrived at the conclusion that 6,500 new homes were needed in Ceredigion by 2016. How can a rural county support 6,500 new homes? What effect will that have on Welsh-speaking communities? What proportion of those new homes has been designed for local need? What proportion has been designed for social need? What proportion has been designed to go with economic development? What proportion has been designed to meet the needs of the student population in Ceredigion? All those questions need to be considered when we examine the unitary development plan for the county.
    The matter was the subject of an expose on "Week In, Week Out". We in Ceredigion are all grateful to the BBC for that expose on the planning processes that led up to the unitary development plan. How was it that so much extra land was allocated for housing in Ceredigion, and by what process was the figure of 6,500 new homes arrived at?
    I held a public meeting with the leader of the council, Councillor Dai Lloyd Evans. The meeting was called by the Farmers Union of Wales, which opposed the plans; when farmers oppose land allocation plans, one knows that something needs looking at. At the meeting, the local planning process was explained: local councillors walked round their wards with the planning officer and identified the land that would be good for housing. That was then put into the local plan for development. The council took the plan forward as the deposit version, and the whole council agreed the plans for the entire county.
    There are two fundamental problems with that, which is why I say that the whole process has been corrupt. First, local councillors who went round their wards
    360
    allocating land for housing had some of their own land allocated for housing. They did not declare an interest until after the whole plan was approved and discussed at individual ward level. My argument is that they should have declared an interest when they first allocated land that included their own land for housing development in Ceredigion.
    Secondly, the process is a nightmare. As any hon. Member knows, there is a local needs assessment planning process with guidelines from the National Assembly for Wales, which looks at local needs in terms of communities, and builds up from that the overall housing needs of the county. In the case of Ceredigion, one cannot depend on people of a certain age who have fought uncontested elections for the past 30 years deciding what proportion of land in the county should be allocated for housing, particularly when that land includes their own.
    That land included the council leader's own land. He allocated for development land in his ward that he owned, and told the "Week In, Week Out" programme that he saw nothing wrong with councillors making money on the back of land that was being developed under the local plan. That was before he had declared an interest in that land. The process has, therefore, been corrupt from beginning to end.
    Lembit Öpik: I would be interested in having a conversation with the hon. Gentleman outside. Can he confirm, for the record and for the avoidance of doubt, that he is not referring to a Liberal Democrat councillor? I should be grateful if he would make that clear.
    Mr. Thomas: I made it clear who ran the local authority in Ceredigion. I have named only one councillor so far. The record will show that he is an independent councillor. Whether Liberal Democrats had land allocated in any ward for housing is a matter for the record to show. I do not intend to speak about that.
    In an attempt to throw some light on a difficult situation, I have commissioned an independent report on the unitary development plan in Ceredigion, which I hope to publish next week. The report has been written by Mark Tewdwr-Jones, who, as many hon. Members know, is one of the foremost authorities in planning issues in Wales. He is a reader in spatial development at the Bartlett school of planning at University college London and has recently worked on two projects for the National Assembly for Wales. One of the projects dealt with second homes and he is currently working on a language planning project. His examination of the plan is fairly forensic. Although it is not yet available in its full version, it would be useful for me to tell the House what it has revealed to date.
    First, the report has revealed that no local housing needs assessment has been made, as I have already alleged. Secondly, it points out that the local plan produced by Ceredigion depends on things called language impact assessments to protect rural communities. It says that those assessments as yet have no basis in planning policy and that Ceredigion county council has done no assessment of how they might work in that context. Thirdly, the report points out that

    361
    Ceredigion has used something called the Norfolk model for working out student numbers in the county, but has not detailed how that model, which is literally a model from Norfolk, can work in an such an area.Finally—this is important not least in terms of socialjustice—the report has shown that the unitary development plan sets out no information about how much housing should be set aside as social or low-income housing or for the needs of local communities.
    In other words, a huge amount of land—sufficient to provide more than the 6,500 houses to which the local development plan refers—has been set aside without any allocation whatever on the basis of local need. The expectation and fear is that that land will simply be developed in a piecemeal way with maximum profit for the landowner and minimum benefit to the local community.
    The unitary development plan has now gone to the National Assembly, which has placed several formal objections, as indeed has the Welsh Language Board. I understand that the plan was very close to being called in by Sue Essex, as the environment and local government Minister, because she was so concerned about some elements of it. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) intimated, there will almost certainly be a public inquiry into the plan. More to the point, however, is the fact that that whole process will not happen until next April or May. Of course, that is when local government elections will occur both in Ceredigion and Wales as a whole and when a different Administration will—I hope—take over in Ceredigion and throw this ridiculous plan out on its sorry backside.
    There is one final sorry chapter in the history of the plan: the use of public office by Cabinet members in Ceredigion county council—and by one councillor, Ray Quant, in particular—to carry out a nasty political witch hunt against the Plaid Cymru leader on Ceredigion county council, Councillor Penri James. Councillor James was accused of breaking an agricultural restriction on his home. Indeed, the county council began enforcement action against him, and him only, out of 500-odd people in Ceredigion who were in the same position. The local government ombudsman investigated the matter and Councillor James was cleared. The officers eventually saw sense and reined back their more extreme councillors, and enforcement action was not taken against him. Unfortunately, however, the campaign of personal vilification against him has continued in the press in a series of letters from Councillor Quant. That has served only to besmirch and reduce public trust in the whole planning process in Ceredigion.
    The House has previously examined in detail, through the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the planning processes in Ceredigion and found them severely wanting. I think that it is appropriate and right for me again to bring before the House on the occasion of this Welsh affairs debate the fact that things have not improved. I remind hon. Members in all parts of the House that the same individuals are involved and that the council leader who was found so wanting 10 years ago is the same one whom we now find wanting in the planning process. The Under-Secretary used to have
    362
    responsibility for planning in Wales and, although he no longer has such direct responsibility, he has a direct line into the Assembly. I ask him to ensure that he is fully appraised of developments in Ceredigion and to talk to Sue Essex as the Assembly Member responsible for those matters in Ceredigion. I ask him to ensure one thing. Whatever happens in the planning process in Ceredigion and in the final decision on allocating X amount of houses or land—it is important that we allocate new land for housing—I ask him to ensure that that process is seen to be above board, and above all else, is seen not to involve personal gain at the expense of our communities.
    4.45 pm
    Mr. John Smith: It is a privilege to be able to contribute, albeit briefly, to this important St. David's day debate. I want to start by repeating the comments of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who said that as this is a Welsh affairs debate we should all be mindful of the Welsh service men and women who are in the Gulf. We all hope that they will not be engaged in military action, but if they are our thoughts will be with them.
    I intend to focus on the subject of Y Ddraig Goch, or the red dragon—not the red dragon on our national flag, but the Red Dragon project in my constituency—but I want first to talk about one or two points that have arisen so far.
    I agree with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about how great it is to be Welsh and the success that we have recently enjoyed in Wales. One cannot open a newspaper without seeing a great Welsh film star or pop star—or even a great Archbishop of Canterbury. We should also recognise that that success attracts other success, and pay tribute to the adopted Welshmen who chose Wales instead of other countries. The name that comes to mind is that of John Fashanu, that well known Nigerian ambassador for sport and first-class soccer player, who could have had the choice of several Premier league or higher division clubs, but chose, just before Christmas, Barry Town football club—an excellent choice.
    Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman celebrate the BBC's decision to broadcast League of Wales football scores on "Grandstand" for the first time in the history of Wales, which was the result of a campaign run by myself and the BBC all-party group?
    Mr. Smith: Given Barry's position in the league, I naturally welcome that decision.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about the great economic success that we have enjoyed in Wales over the past five years. That is undeniable. Unemployment has decreased and opportunities have increased, and a huge redistribution has taken place through a combination of the introduction of the working families tax credit and the minimum wage. That has affected Wales enormously owing to its weak position in terms of incomes compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. We have benefited more than practically any other region of Britain except Northern Ireland. It has been a hugely successful policy.
    In one area, however, we have not done enough. Welsh people who work are the hardest-working people in the whole of Europe. They work longer hours and

    363
    have fewer holidays. Trade union rights have been improved—that is right, and they should continue to improve—but it is time we addressed the issue of holidays. As this is a St. David's day debate, I return to the subject of a public holiday on St. David's day. We can use any excuse to give Welsh workers more time off, because they deserve it—they should have more leisure time and more time with their families—but what better reason is there for doing that than to celebrate our patron saint?
    Mr. Roger Williams: Would not one of the best excuses to give Welsh working people a holiday be the fact that it is a Liberal Democrat policy in the partnership Government of Wales?
    Mr. Smith: Had I known that, I might have thought twice about suggesting it. However, this is an important matter. The Minister will be interested to hear that on St. David's day itself, on Saturday, I carried out a poll among my constituents, and there was a 100 per cent. response in favour of the call for a public holiday on St. David's day. I am sure that he will take that into consideration.
    We have introduced some huge benefits, including the minimum income guarantee for our pensioners, the working families tax credit and one that has been very important for my constituents—the stamp duty exemption in less-favoured areas. Five wards in my constituency have benefited directly from that exemption, but unfortunately many of my constituents, like those of other hon. Members, have been unable to do so because the Inland Revenue, through its website and in response to telephone inquiries, continues to issue the advice that they are ineligible—because it is using out-of-date postcodes. There have been scores of inquiries in my constituency and we have recovered thousands of pounds for people who purchased houses since November 2001. We should take that matter up with the Treasury to ensure that people benefit from that exemption.
    Another important matter for Wales was the announcement last week by the Department of Transport that for the first time, the Civil Aviation Authority is to be given a statutory responsibility for the health of airline passengers. I understand that this is the first time that such a responsibility has been given to an aviation regulator anywhere in the world. It is especially welcome in Wales, as two years ago the tragic deaths of a number of young Welsh people raised public concern about the problem of deep vein thrombosis among long-haul air travellers. I am thinking of the tragic deaths of young Emma Christoferson, as a result of a return flight from Australia, and of my constituent John Thomas, while returning from his honeymoon in Honolulu. That case began my involvement with the DVT campaign two years ago, although I knew little about the condition at that time.
    The steps that the Government have taken are welcome. They have also announced the creation of an aviation health unit at CAA Gatwick, to be funded by a levy on the aviation industry and the airlines. The budget of £200,000 a year is modest, but it will ensure that there is a focus on public health concerns. The unit will be the first port of call for people who have concerns. Those steps are modest but they will be
    364
    important in enabling us to discover the extent, incidence and causes of thrombo-embolic disease among air passengers, which is also the purpose of our campaign. We are still a long way from discovering those things because the necessary research has not yet even begun. I hope that it soon will.
    My main focus is on the announcement on Tuesday 25 February of the go-ahead for the red dragon project at RAF St. Athan in my constituency. The project is not purely parochial; the benefits will spread throughout Wales. We shall all be able to take advantage of the project.
    The decision was courageous; the project is the first of its type in the world, and there was a great deal of difficulty in obtaining Treasury approval. The Defence Aviation Repair Agency, made up of NARO, the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation, and MGDA, the RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency, achieved trading fund status in 1999. In April 2004 it will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence, trading on the open market. It will no longer be dependent on vote money but will operate entirely on customer income. The organisation will be owned by the MOD, but run purely on commercial lines.
    Getting the organisation together has been a long haul; it has taken five years and there have been many obstacles. It could not have been achieved without devolution, without the crucial role played by the Welsh Assembly Government. Interdepartmental differences in Whitehall would have delayed the necessary decisions indefinitely. However, the ability to work in partnership with the Welsh Assembly Minister for Economic Development, Andrew Davies, and with the Welsh Development Agency, which played a crucial role in bringing the project into being, has allowed it to happen.
    The project will turn the biggest military base in the whole of Europe, a 1,000 acre development, into a unique aeroplane hangar—a superhangar. It will cost £80 million, and the work has already started. It started as the marquee came down the other Tuesday morning. There will not be another hangar like it in the world. It will not only be capable of taking in up to 47 fast jets for repair, but will be adaptable to take just about any aircraft, from a C-130J at one extreme to small helicopters or commercial planes—Boeing 737s would fit into it—at the other. It will be able to meet any demand in the military aviation market.
    Alongside the hangar, an aviation business park will be built on this gigantic air force base, which had become largely redundant under the cuts made by the Conservative Government, who reduced defence spending by more than 30 per cent. In real terms. The development is a tribute to the Ministry of Defence, the Welsh Assembly Government and, most importantly of all, to the Wales Office Ministers, without whose constant direct intervention to push the project forward, it would never have happened. There will be nothing like this facility anywhere in the world, and it is in Wales. It will give the Welsh aviation and aerospace industry a critical mass that it has never had before, and it will become a centre of excellence in third-line military aviation—that is, garage maintenance.
    I have to declare to my colleagues that the capacity in this market is almost limitless, if for the wrong reason—the fact that the military aviation business throughout

    365
    the world is one of the most inefficient in existence. We have been courageous enough to commercialise ours. We have not privatised it; that was on the Tory agenda, and it would have been a disaster. The industry has to remain under the umbrella of the defence services, as the situation in Iraq illustrates. It has to have a surge capacity—which many private businesses do not—so that it can meet the needs of our front-line forces and pilots on demand. This was the best way to achieve that, and I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and the Welsh Assembly, on this courageous decision. It will put Wales on the military aviation map. I also congratulate all my right hon. and hon. Friends on helping us to get the project in the first place.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would like to say to the House that, given the time available, if everyone were to take their maximum allocation, there would be many disappointed hon. Members. Perhaps a certain amount of mutual co-operation would assist in enabling everyone to participate.
    4.58 pm
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall certainly take that advice to heart.
    There are some 30,000 births a year in Wales.
    Gareth Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not one to make frequent points of order, but with the greatest respect, I seek your ruling on this. Is it in order for an Opposition Member to be called in this Welsh debate when he has not even been present for the opening speeches, given the pressure on the Government side for people to be called? A great many of us have been waiting anxiously to be called. I realise that there is a 14-minute limit, and I simply seek your guidance on that point.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should not question the decision of the Chair in that respect. The Chair always has to try to achieve political balance in a debate. Mr. Speaker has made clear—most recently in a letter to hon. Members—the basic courtesies to be observed. Equally, it is recognised that, with the pressure under which hon. Members work, having to be in more than one place at a time—we have already had an example of that explained to us today, and I also know that hon. Members have had duties in Westminster Hall-there has to be some relaxation of the very strict rules of courtesy that we normally try to achieve in the House.
    Mr. Swayne: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    There are 30,000 births a year in Wales, or 750 in each constituency. Maternity services are vital both in themselves and in colouring many young people's impression of the health service. That impression is marred by the current shortage of midwives in Wales. In Swansea NHS Trust, 11.4 per cent. of vacancies are for midwives, and have been unfilled for more than three months. Across Wales, long-term vacancies for
    366
    midwives account for more than 3 per cent. of all vacancies. That impacts on the care that can be given to women in Wales, and inevitably reduces the choice available to women.
    Birth is a natural experience for women—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but many women wanting natural births in Wales have to opt for intervention, whether a Caesarean birth or something less invasive, because there are insufficient midwives. An expectant mother who has opted for a natural birth may go into hospital and find on arrival that there is not a dedicated midwife to help her through childbirth. Instead, there is one midwife looking after three women, having to dash between three delivery rooms, so the expectant mother does not have the one-to-one supportive relationship that she was expecting. As the availability of midwives is a problem, it is highly likely that she will opt for an interventionist birth.
    It is extraordinary that, although 20 per cent. of women express an interest in having a home birth, in Wales, only 2 per cent. have such a birth. I suspect that that is largely a consequence of the shortage of midwives in Wales. Pregnancy is not an illness.
    Julie Morgan rose—
    Mr. Swayne: I am afraid that I shall not give way, as I wish to be brief and take up as little time as possible.
    Pregnancy is not an illness. It is a perfectly normal experience for women, who should be made aware of the choices available to them. The shortage of midwives in Wales has resulted in an inability to provide those choices, so women's options are restricted. From 2000 to 2001, nearly a quarter of the babies born in Wales were delivered by Caesarean section—an increase of 5 per cent. in five years. That figure is 5 per cent. higher than the figure for England, which itself has a high Caesarean birth rate—much higher than the rest of Europe, for example. Not only does the rest of Europe have a much lower level of Caesarean delivery, but that level is stable, whereas in England, and even more so in Wales, it is unstable and rising, from a much higher initial base.
    Caesarean deliveries involve a much higher cost both to the health service, in terms of intervention, and to the long-term health of the women involved. I am sure that there is a connection between the shortage of midwives in Wales and the high rate of caesareans. More skilled, one-to-one midwife support is needed; women receiving the present level of care are much less likely to experience normal vaginal births. I hope the Minister will tell us what the Government are doing to deal with the midwife shortage.
    Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Swayne: No.
    I hope the Minister will also give me the figures relating to breastfeeding in Wales. Although the Royal College of Midwives specifically requested me to ask that question, I have a personal interest: my wife is a breastfeeding counsellor for the National Childbirth Trust. Perhaps the Minister could at least give me the latest figures in writing. I know that there is a relatively high rate among those beginning to breastfeed, which tails off markedly after a few months.

    367
    As the Minister doubtless knows, the first week of April is real nappy week in both England and Wales. What are the Government doing to promote the use of "real nappies" in Wales? The issue is particularly important to low-income families, who spend a significant proportion of their income on nappies in supermarkets. It also has landfill implications. We are storing up problems with nappies that are not biodegradable. Hospitals should make parents aware of the perfectly acceptable, less expensive "real nappy" alternatives, which are biodegradable and environmentally friendly.
    5.7 pm
    Mr. Martin Caton: I shall concentrate on the fight against poverty that has taken place in Wales over the last six years and the situation of low-paid people and their families, and make a couple of helpful suggestions.
    Poverty affects every part of the United Kingdom, but all the statistics and our own observations show that the problem has been particularly acute in Wales for many years. Our gross domestic product is historically lower than those in England and Scotland, more people suffer from limiting long-term illnesses, and more claim related social security benefits. A higher proportion of the population receives meals on wheels, incomes are lower than those in both England and Scotland, and more income is derived from social security benefits. Things have improved in recent years, but we have not eliminated those comparative disadvantages, as others have pointed out.
    A great deal has been done since 1997, both by the Labour Government here in Westminster and Whitehall and by the Labour-led Government in the National Assembly. The first big difference, for which both levels of government can take a share of the credit, is the reduction in unemployment. Unemployment in Wales is at its lowest for 25 years. We are all contributing information about our own constituencies today. In Gower, the overall unemployment figure is down to 3.1 per cent. Just over 1,000 people still receive jobseeker's allowance: that is too many, and there is much more to do, but in 1997, about twice as many people in my constituency were on the dole.
    Since then, we have suffered our share of factory closures and job shedding, which has been traumatic for individuals and families; but there has been none of the desperation that was so evident in the same towns and villages when miners, steelworkers and others were thrown on the scrap heap under the Tory Government, with little prospect of alternative employment. The new deal, welfare-to-work tax credits, better child support, objective 1 and sound economic management have all contributed to those historic reductions in the jobless figures, and to the 61,000 new jobs created in Wales last year alone.
    There have also been targeted attacks on poverty in particular groups, such as pensioners, the poorest families and the most deprived and disadvantaged communities. Again, it is action by the UK Government and by the National Assembly that is making a difference. There have also been specific measures to help the working poor through the tax credit system, and through the introduction of the national minimum wage.
    368
    Like many Labour Members from the 1997 intake, I remember the vote to secure the minimum wage, after an all-night sitting, as a high point of that first Parliament. I suppose that it was especially significant for many Welsh Members, because Wales contained some of the worst low-blackspots in the country. Research by the Low Pay Commission in south Wales in 1998 showed that 27 per cent. of employees in Fishguard, in the west, got less than £3.50 an hour, and that 25 per cent. in Monmouth, in the east, got less than that figure. In the run-up to the 1997 general election, I remember visiting jobcentres in my constituency and noting down the worst cases. One example was, "Security guard required: £2.80 an hour; must have own dog." However, what appalled me even more than the worst cases was the sheer number of jobs for which the going rate was less than £3.00 an hour.
    Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is, and always has been, a gap between women's and men's earnings, and that although it has reduced, it is still a major issue that needs to be tackled in Wales?
    Mr. Caton: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is sitting next to me and has clearly read my speech, because I was about to point out that the national minimum wage has made a real difference in my constituency. In particular, it has made a real difference to women in my constituency, especially those whose work involves caring for other people, such as the young or the elderly.
    The national minimum wage remains a notable achievement, but it has two weaknesses that we should now address: it does not apply to everyone to whom it should apply, and it is not enough. The people who are wrongly excluded from the minimum wage are young workers: 18 to 21-year-olds get a reduced rate, and 16 and 17-year-olds are not covered at all. When the Welsh Affairs Committee undertook its inquiry into social exclusion just over two years ago, we argued that the principle of equal pay for equal work should apply to young people, just as it should to everyone else. The evidence that we received then taught us that some unscrupulous employers would employ workers aged under 18 only to avoid paying the minimum wage. At that time, some were paying as little as £2.00 an hour. We called for the minimum wage regulation to apply to all workers aged over 16, and at the adult rate.
    The Committee is conducting an inquiry into the empowerment of children and young people in Wales, and the minimum wage issue has come up both in formal evidence, and in more informal discussions with young people during our visits to Wales. Of course, I cannot predict what our report will say when it is published, but this inquiry gives us a new angle. One reason why we looked into the empowerment question was the concern that so many young people appear to be disengaged from their communities or from wider society-and that includes, of course, democratic politics.
    A factor that has already been brought to our attention as a potential contributor to such disengagement is many young people's perception of how they are valued by society. All too often, they feel that they are not listened to, and that their contributions are undervalued in various ways. The message that they get from the current minimum wage rules is that they are

    369
    second-class citizens. Now is the time to make the minimum wage embrace all working people, and to increase it in such a way that it makes a greater contribution to the incomes of the families of low-paid workers.
    Compelling evidence for such an increase emerged in December, in the form of research commissioned by Unison from the family budget unit at the university of York, and by the national centre for public policy at the university of Wales, Swansea. I shall not go into too much detail, but the unit has established a methodology to calculate weekly minimum cost needs, taking into account food, clothing, housing, transport and all the other costs involved in maintaining a family at a range of standards of living. At the bottom of the ladder—level 1—is what is called the "low cost but acceptable" standard. The researchers have identified and costed the components of a minimum living standard designed to promote good health and enable lower-paid households to reach their full potential. It is tight, but more than survival standard. It recognises, however, that the income needed to reach that standard will vary according to where people live, as costs vary considerably between different parts of the country.
    The study published in December looked at the net incomes required to avoid poverty by one and two-parent families in my home town of Swansea, each with a boy aged 10 and a girl of 14. The incomes needed varied from £252 a week for a lone mum working 17 hours a week, to £310 for a two-earner couple.
    The good news is that, with working families tax credit, all the Swansea households with at least one person in full-time work were above that low-cost but acceptable threshold. Although the same was not always true in respect of part-time work, the Government's objective of decent incomes for families with work is in considerable part being met.
    The bad news is that the current minimum wage level, and the consequent reliance on working families tax credit, means that the poverty trap is almost inescapable for some families. As long as they are receiving the working families tax credit, the most that such families can gain from every extra pound earned is 31p. Two-parent households in Swansea paying basic rate income tax would need above-average male manual earnings to escape the poverty trap and benefit by 68p for each extra pound earned. The lone mother needs close to three times average female manual earnings.
    Unison has translated the £10 minimum needed for a minimum acceptable living standard for the one-earner family with two children into approximately £5.10 per hour. Is that so much?
    The Low Pay Commission will re port again in the near future. I welcome this afternoon's commitment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to increasing the minimum wage. The figure of £5.10 an hour is the sort of amount that we need to secure to make a real difference to low-paid workers in Wales and across the UK.
    5.17 pm
    Mr. Roger Williams: It is a great privilege and honour to take part in this St. David's day debate, even though it has been delayed. Before I make my own comments, I should like to respond to some matters raised by other hon. Members.
    The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) is no longer in his place, but I am sure that the House listened with great attention to his description of the problems encountered in Ceredigion in ensuring that the planning process is carried out properly and honestly. Before I was elected to the House, I read the report from the Welsh Affairs Committee on rural housing. It dealt with the planning process as well, and made some good recommendations with which I agreed. Although the hon. Gentleman said that the cabinet in Ceredigion unitary authority was led by independents, with Liberal Democrat support, none of the councillors mentioned by him were Liberal Democrats. I am sure that he took great thought before he made his contribution, but I wanted to put that on the record.
    The debate has touched on manufacturing industry. There is great concern in Wales about the future of Corus and the huge redundancies that could happen as the company contracts. On a smaller scale, the Llanidloes aluminium casting company, KTH, looks like it is heading towards closure. That will have a huge impact on communities in the area. The company employs so many people in the local work force that its decline is very worrying, as is the fact that so many of the jobs have gone to parts of the EU and enlargement countries that have lower wage costs. That highlights what many hon. Members have said, which is that we need high-skilled, high value-added business to come to Wales. That will ensure that we will not be as vulnerable to such competition as we are now.
    Members have spoken of the importance of air transport to Wales. It has been overlooked for a number of years but economic development in Wales would have been much more rapid if it had been available. It will make Wales a much more inviting place to put one's business.
    Lembit Õpik: As my hon. Friend says, KTH is closing. Does he agree that there is a great opportunity to invest in mid-Wales to enhance opportunities for air travel at, for example, Welshpool airport, which—I observe wistfully—might be a good venue for British Airways to relocate its operations?
    Mr. Williams: The Minister will have noted that and will make representations. A little village outside Llandrindod called Llandegley now has a huge sign saying, "Welcome to Llandegley international airport, terminals one and two." That may be someone's aspiration, which may take more to achieve than my hon. Friend's suggestion about Welshpool.
    There has been political merriment today about ambassadors from Wales, but Wales has benefited over the years from an international outlook. We have had a huge amount of international inward investment that has benefited us greatly. Wales has a history of involving itself on the international stage and should not be too shy in encouraging that as we gain long-term benefits.
    Mr. Evans: But it is costing £2 million to set up embassies when we already have embassies throughout

    371
    the world; they are called United Kingdom embassies and high commissions. Should not Wales be working through those?
    Mr. Williams: If we are to be serious about getting added inward investment into Wales, we have to put serious amounts towards that investment, which will he beneficial in the long run. The payback period will he short.
    I want to turn to three issues that affect my constituency, Wales as a whole and the UK in general. The first is the criminal justice system and the importance of individuals having ready access to that system. The rights and privileges of individuals cannot be safeguarded unless they have the opportunity to defend themselves against charges of which they believe themselves to be innocent. I am thinking particularly about victims.
    The Government have said that they are putting the rights of victims and witnesses at the heart of the criminal justice system. Yet, in my constituency and rural Wales as a whole, magistrates courts are closing, which makes it difficult for victims or witnesses to get to court without undertaking long and difficult journeys because so little rural public transport is available.
    Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is also a problem for magistrates in my constituency who have to travel considerable distances? Following the centralisation of magistrates courts, that problem is likely to get worse.
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In Llandrindod magistrates court, the youth court was closed. Two magistrates who had been trained and had a particular interest in youth justice work resigned because they now have to travel more than 30 miles to get to a youth court and were not prepared to continue making the great sacrifices that magistrates make to provide those services.
    Recently, I took a delegation to meet the Minister from the Lord Chancellor's Department with responsibility for magistrates courts and was accompanied by the hon. Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)—as well as my hon. Friend the Member forMontgomeryshire (Lembit Õpik)—to make points on this issue. We were advised that the county council, as the funding body, must make representations if the decision to close Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod is not to be a foregone conclusion.
    I have grave doubts about the way in which magistrates courts committees operate. I do not know how accountable they are to the general public or how they perform their deliberations and consultations. The impression that was given—falsely, I think—by the magistrates courts committee is that investment in the courts in Newtown and Brecon may be lost if we oppose the closure of Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod. It is important that those courts remain open so that the criminal justice system is available to everybody in those areas. I hope that the Minister will join us in making representations on those matters, too.
    I would like to turn to an issue that I raised with the Minister in a debate in Westminster Hall a couple of weeks ago: two-tier employment in public services that
    372
    have been externalised or privatised. That has occurred in my constituency, and, I am sure, in other hon. Members' constituencies. In my constituency, residential homes for the elderly were externalised to BUPA. Although the staff who were transferred under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to BUPA had their rights, conditions and pay retained, anyone employed afterwards was employed under much poorer conditions.
    For example, the basic rate of pay for carers from the protected staff was £5.50 an hour, whereas, for BUPA staff, it was £4.20 an hour. It gets much worse than that. For protected staff, the Sunday night working rate was £12.86 an hour whereas BUPA staff were on the flat-rate minimum wage of £4.20, which the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) mentioned.
    Not only that, the protected staff had 27 days' holiday plus eight bank holidays, whereas the BUPA staff had only 20 days. One can imagine the difficulty of staff working together on such differing rates of pay and conditions. It does not lead to good relationships among the work force. Those on poorer pay and conditions were not so loyal to the establishment in which they were working, which led to a greater turnover of staff. Hon. Members will agree that the quality of life of those in residential homes depends on building relationships between staff and residents. Obviously, that cannot be done if there is a great turnover of staff.
    I was therefore very pleased when the Prime Minister announced that he would deal with the two-tier system of employment. On Thursday, I believe, a code of conduct will be published for local authorities in England, under which contracts for externalised or privatised public services will ensure that not only transferred but new staff have the same pay and conditions. I understand the problems in this regard, but, unfortunately, the press release states:
    "The Code will not apply retrospectively to any contracts which have already been advertised or entered into. The Government intends to publish statutory guidance on this for local authorities in early March."
    Those who are locked into organisations that have already had contracts with local authorities seem more beleaguered and isolated than ever. I understand that Edwina Hart's office in the Assembly is considering the code of practice with a view to establishing it, or something better, in Wales. Will the Minister consider whether there is any way of dealing with people in such establishments who are on very different rates of pay and conditions from those who were originally transferred?
    5.29 pm
    Gareth Thomas: I know that many of my hon. Friends are anxious to make a contribution to this important debate and I am glad that the convention of having an annual Welsh debate has been observed, even in the context of these difficult times internationally. This debate is taking place closer to St. Patrick's day than to St. David's day, but we all know that St. Patrick was rumoured to be a Welshman.
    I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to open the debate. He has made a considerable impact in his new job and has been able to

    373
    bring his considerable flair, energy and communication skills to it. He follows in the distinguished footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), whose great reserves of patience and diplomacy are now being put to such great use in Northern Ireland in an attempt to restore the devolved institutions there. My hon. Friend the Minister also does an excellent job getting around Wales—he has been to north Wales on many occasions and I hear good reports of him.
    It is important to acknowledge that devolution is working. We are getting a dividend from having a democratic, directly elected institution in Wales. Some of us, including myself, express frustration and exasperation on occasion at the way in which policy is formulated in Wales. As someone who is comfortable with the direction of the Westminster Government—putting the emphasis on investment and taking a robust approach to the need to reform public services—I sometimes feel frustrated, but I am glad that the campaign, in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State played such an important part, was successful. I seriously believe that devolution is working.
    The last four years have been difficult, but we are seeing a real difference. That is because the Labour group in the Assembly is working in partnership with the Labour Government in Westminster.
    Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Member agree with Mr. Rhodri Morgan that there is clear red water between the Labour-Liberal Government in the National Assembly and the Administration here?
    Gareth Thomas: I am relaxed about any differences. It follows the logic of devolution that the Assembly will take its own path, but there is a strong partnership between Labour in the Assembly and Labour in Westminster. Long may that continue.
    We know that on the horizon is a report from an institution called the Richard commission, which is considering the powers and efficacy of the Assembly. We know, too, that the chattering classes—or the Pontcanna pundits, as they may be described in Wales—many of whom are from various academic boltholes, such as Cardiff and Aberystwyth universities, are obsessed by the need to gain parity with Scotland. As a committed devolutionist, I think that we should be very cautious about calling for further powers for the Assembly at this stage. It is a new institution that has to prove itself. We should adopt the test of whether any extension of powers would improve the quality of life for the people we serve. Would it mean better schools and hospitals? If not, it would not pass the test. We have to be pragmatic and cautious.
    We are in an election period and I am sure that the electorate in Wales are interested in constitutional issues, but I intend to keep my powder dry. I expect that we will have a robust debate about further powers for the Assembly formulated by Labour members. We must also bear in mind the fact that Wales and England have separate legal systems and I cannot see how we could easily accord further primary legislative powers to the Assembly.
    374
    Very often, these debates concentrate on the negative comments of Opposition spokespersons. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) was rather less negative than usual. In the Tea Room earlier, I had a little joke with him, saying that his speech would be something approaching a whingeathon. It was not—because even he has to give credit where credit is due. The Government have been a big success for Wales. Wales is benefiting from sound management of the economy. We have heard some of the statistics from the Secretary of State: we have had the longest period of low inflation for 40 years; long-term interest rates are at their lowest since the 1960s; and new business growth is high and the survival and growth of small businesses is excellent. That is good news and no mean achievement. Contrast that with what happened under the Conservatives. In 1997, inflation was up at 10 per cent. and interest rates were at a very high level of between 10 to 15 per cent. Unemployment was also high. We should not underestimate the fact that unemployment has fallen considerably in Wales. In my constituency, it has fallen by 63 per cent. The new deal and the minimum wage have made a real difference.
    We can be justifiably optimistic. I know that a national characteristic of us Welsh is that of being somewhat melancholic, but I feel that we can be optimistic about the prospects for the Welsh nation, the Welsh economy, and the people of Wales whom we serve. It is a great time to be Welsh. The creative industries are doing well. We have massive extra public spending that is making a great difference to the health service, especially in my part of the world. There have been considerable achievements in education. The prospects are good and there is nothing wrong in talking up Wales. We should be positive.
    I want to mention a few figures that relate to the Conwy and Denbighshire NHS Trust. I pay tribute to the excellent work of the management team—in particular, to Hilary Stevens, who is the chair of the trust, and to Gren Kershaw. In the trust, no people have been waiting for more than 12 months for in-patient treatment. In-patient waiting list targets are being met in a wide range of areas—orthopaedics; ear, nose and throat; general surgery and many others. For Abergele hospital and Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, it is a good news story.
    On the economy., my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) has been active in promoting the St. Asaph business park. Many of my constituents work there. Let us not forget Airbus and let us pay tribute to Lord Barry Jones. Many of us consider him to be a great example. He has brought his considerable oratorical and people skills to bear and he has put Airbus on the map—as has his distinguished successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). Broughton is good news and Airbus is good news, for the whole of north Wales. Broughton has brought huge inward investment to the area, with a big investment in skills and opportunities. It is a genuine good news story.
    I will wind up now because I know that my hon. Friends want to contribute. Let us talk up the Welsh economy. The future is good; the future is Labour.
    5.38 pm
    Mr. Dai Havard: I will exercise discipline to try to give the rest of my comrades the opportunity to speak. It is a great privilege to contribute, as the first Member elected in 2001 to have the opportunity to speak in this debate.
    I want to talk about employment and economic activity. Official unemployment rates are dropping dramatically in Wales—in my constituency and elsewhere. That has been because of the success of the new deal and so on. It is also because of new employment. There are many positive things that I could say about the Welsh economy—there have been new opportunities that have gone beyond simply manufacturing jobs. For example, the General Dynamics investment in Oakdale with the Bowman radio project has brought science to the area. The Canadian ambassador made the point very well to me. He said that, "If you have got science, you can get science." Part of the problem in Wales is that we have not had the higher-order activities in terms of the employment base that we need. We should continue to try to get that.
    Oshkosh is developing its investment in Llantrisant to build heavy vehicles. If we can attract other Ministry of Defence investment contracts that are available, they could help to provide a new dimension to the vehicles economy in Wales and lead to the development of the heavy vehicle sector. Many good things are happening, so I certainly do not want to talk Wales down.
    I come from and live in the valleys and the difficulty that we face is that of economic inactivity. Merthyr is said to have the greatest problem in that respect, with 28 per cent. of the real unemployment rate according to the studies carried out by Sheffield Hallam university. That problem needs examination and action is taking place. Members of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions visited my constituency last week, and I was glad to welcome them. We considered what could be done to help disabled and incapacitated people back into work through projects such as workstep.
    The Committee met people from the local job service and some of the brokers involved. It visited the Merthyr Tydfil Institute for the Blind, which might sound like a strange place to visit. However, the institute goes beyond its terms of reference and makes a major contribution not only to Merthyr Tydfil but across the valleys by taking forward the workstep programme. I took my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who was then in the Treasury team but who is now the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the institute a year ago. As a result, extra investment has gone in to try to cure the problems that we face and that are the result of a legacy that I do not have the time to explain. I am sure that everyone knows the reasons for it.
    New Members of Parliament have created opportunities ourselves. Several of my comrades and I commissioned research from the Bevan Foundation to try get a view as to what could be done and not just a measure of the angle of dangle of deprivation. We tried to get an idea of what policy initiatives could be taken to find solutions to the problems. The report should be published soon and I look forward to seeing it. I have not prescribed what it should say, so I shall be interested to read its conclusions. However, I know that it will say that investment is needed in the upper valleys.
    376
    Investment has gone in along the M4 corridor in Wales, but we need a strategic development plan that considers the development of the heads of the valleys and of the crescent across the old Welsh coalfields. That area needs sustained investment. In Merthyr, we will bring in the university of Glamorgan to create links with lifelong learning so that the community can develop a view of what it can do itself and how to achieve that. Our young people are back at work, but we need to develop the circumstances in which economic inactivity is addressed. To do that we need redistribution—I am not afraid to say the word. Indeed, redistribution is going on, and some Conservative Members have spotted that. They do not like it, but I think that there should be a damn sight more redistribution.
    We should also consider the tools that we need to achieve our aims, which include operating aids and the extension of employment zones. In Merthyr, we have a great problem with people on incapacity benefits, but we do not have Jobcentre Plus. Some of the tools and techniques need to be brought forward. We need step changes as well as incremental progression. Objective 1 is helpful, but what will come after it? We need to consider that issue.
    My predecessor in this place wrote a book entitled "Something Must Be Done", a phrase that originally came from a member of the royal family. He talked about sporadic and episodic investment in the valleys. We do not need that. We need sustained investment, and the Wales Office and its Ministers are well placed to help as brokers. We will bring the report that I have mentioned to the House so that it can be examined by all the Departments of the United Kingdom. We shall also take it to the Assembly, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be able to act as a broker. Because he also represents us in Europe, I hope that he will be able to take our suggestions to Wales, the United Kingdom and Europe.
    5.44 pm
    Dr. Hywel Francis: The debate on Welsh affairs always affords us a time for reflection. One of my constituents recently gave me some advice. He quoted a distinguished predecessor in the House, Aneurin Bevan, as saying:
    "Instead of living in a Wales that possesses you, create the Wales you desire".
    In that spirit and as a representative of a steel constituency, I want to reflect on the centrality and importance of steel, despite all the problems that have, and continue to, beset it.
    As recently as December 2000, in the document "A Strategy for Modern Manufacturing in Wales", the Wales TUC highlighted the modern advanced nature of the industry. The report said:
    "With plants in Wales producing record amounts of quality steel with much fewer workers than even 10 years ago, it would be hard not to recommend steel as a shining light for manufacturing."
    The announcement this week that Corus is once again reviewing its UK operations with the possibility of, as it calls it, "significant capacity reductions", causes much anxiety and deep concern, especially in steel communities.
    I welcome the positive comments made this week by the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in support of steel. We all

    377
    know that steel has a vital and strategic role within Welsh and British manufacturing. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to pledge that he will work to ensure that there are no further cuts in capacity in Wales, and in so doing secure the long-term future of Shotton, Llanwern and Port Talbot.
    Despite the current internal and external problems of Corus, especially in relation to the sale of its aluminium production in Holland, the economic indicators for Welsh and UK steel are promising. The exchange rates in relation to the euro are increasingly more favourable. The demand for steel in the UK is buoyant and strengthening, especially in the construction industry, and steel prices are stabilising and improving. Industrial relations are good, as evidenced by the recent significant efficiency savings in Welsh plants. Llanwern is in profit, and Port Talbot and Shotton are performing well.
    Steel workers in the UK are widely acknowledged as the most efficient in the world. In my experience, there is a growing optimism despite the trauma of recent capacity cuts and the explosion in the No. 5 blast furnace in Port Talbot. The rebuilding of that furnace in record time symbolises a rebirth of the Welsh steel industry. The new furnace very recently broke its production record by producing 33,000 tonnes of liquid iron during the month following its formal opening by the Prince of Wales. That was one of many records recently broken at Port Talbot in the hot mill, the cold mill and the "capl" line. Improved consistency in operations and in quality have been recorded.
    That sense of optimism for steel communities is also represented by the community leadership provided by the steel unions in highlighting the importance of skills enhancement and lifelong learning. The Iron and Steel Trades Confederation training arm, steel partnership training, has led the way in many centres from Shotton to Ebbw Vale and Newport. In my constituency, unions have come together with educational providers to form the Port Talbot union academy. Again in my constituency, as a result of support from the Wales union learning fund of the Wales TUC and the Welsh Assembly Government, Amicus and the local authority, Neath Port Talbot county borough council, have created a unique work-based learning initiative at the new Baglan learning centre. It is therefore critical that the Governments in Cardiff and Westminster work in partnership with the Welsh steel industry as never before to secure its long-term future by pledging, by every means possible, to secure all productive capacity throughout Wales.
    I began with the importance of reflection. As an historian, I am only too well aware that as the Welsh economy diversifies, there is potential for what is called cultural tourism, especially in the valleys of south Wales. That will be highlighted in a report by the Welsh Development Agency and in a report that colleagues and I commissioned, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) referred, which will be published by the Bevan Foundation later this month.
    I recently heard the new Archbishop of Canterbury reflecting on what he called "political virtue", and how he defined that from the poetry of Waldo Williams, whose verse, in his words, exemplifies
    378
    "the Welsh double commitment to the local and the international in a framework passionately seeking peace".
    We meet at a time of local and international crisis. We should reflect in a Welsh way on that political virtue and that political legacy of the local and the international community, which we all share.
    If we are to develop cultural tourism in Wales, we could start by reflecting on the lives and ideas of two Welsh political thinkers who were both modernisers in their own ways. First, there was Richard Price of Llangeinor, friend of the American and French revolutions of the 18th century, who gently advised his American friends to conduct the kind of foreign policy that would make the United States respected in the world.
    Secondly, there was Henry Richard of Tregaron, a Liberal Member of Parliament for Merthyr. He was known as the apostle of peace. He initiated a debate in this House on 8 July 1873. His motion, which was carried, called on the Government of the day to contact foreign powers with a view to the improvement of international law and the establishment of a permanent system of international arbitration. In his own modernising way, he was a Welsh visionary who anticipated the necessity of the United Nations decades before its emergence.
    Today of all days, we should reflect on the political virtue of striving to secure the local—in our Welsh communities that are dependent on steel and other employment—and the international by securing peace through the United Nations. By doing so, we would achieve Aneurin Bevan's dream of a Wales we all desire.
    5.52 pm
    Mark Tami: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to talk about manufacturing and training. I shall try to be brief to allow as many other hon. Members as possible to speak.
    Manufacturing accounts for 31 per cent. of gross domestic product in Wales—11 per cent. more than in Britain as a whole. It is clearly a key sector of our economy. Some would have us believe that manufacturing is dying on its feet and not really part of our future. Manufacturing is and always has been a dynamic sector of the economy. Innovation and change have always been part of its growth and, in some areas, part of its decline.
    Thirty years ago, the manufacturing base in my area was dominated by the steel industry, which employed more than 12,000 people, and the textile industry. By the 1980s, both those industries—the area's main employers—were devastated. Shotton Steel still holds the record for the largest single loss of jobs at one plant on one day. I hope that no other area ever has to suffer holding that record. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) spoke of the fears that are again surrounding the 12,000 jobs in the steel industry.
    Steel and textile manufacturers needed to change and innovate, but importantly, both also needed the time and the economic stability to accomplish that. We are all aware of the Conservative party's economic policies, which meant that there was no such chance. The industries suffered the same fate as many other manufacturers during the years of the Thatcher Government.

    379
    Life is never easy for manufacturing, as I am sure every manufacturer would tell us. Manufacturers would also tell us that they need economic stability—an environment where they can plan for the future in the knowledge that they are not on the edge of another boom and bust, as we saw under the Tory Government. In Wales, as in Britain as a whole, work force productivity remains a major concern. We will improve it only if manufacturers invest not just in new technology but in their work force. Equally, our education system must work more closely with industry to equip our young people and some of our older people with the skills and know-how that they need today.
    Productivity gains are rarely made by people working longer or harder; they are made by people working smarter. About 30 per cent. of employers in Wales state that they suffer from skills shortages. Many more suffer from skills gaps in matching skills with the appropriate job. We need to tackle the problem in a number of ways.
    More than 13,000 people in Wales are taking up modern apprenticeships. Many of those young people will secure employment in manufacturing, putting their new skills into practice. I welcome the modern skills diploma for adults, introduced by the Welsh Assembly, which is delivering an apprenticeship-style training scheme for the over-25s in employment—a vital group in our work force whose training needs we have tended to ignore. Training and retraining those in employment is key to improving productivity.
    In my area, Deeside college has done a great deal of work to tailor its training packages to the needs of employers, not offering the one-size-fits-all solution that characterised further education in the past. Deeside college recently won the Queen's anniversary prize for its work with business and industry. Much credit goes to the college principal, Will Edmunds, for that achievement.
    As unemployment is, thankfully, very low in Alyn and Deeside—less than 2 per cent., thanks to the economic stability delivered by a Labour Government—work-based education and training is of paramount importance to our economic growth and regeneration. We must therefore ensure that its availability and success are not held back. ELWa must receive the level of financial support that it needs for training in the workplace via the further education institutions. It will receive the necessary investment only from a Labour-run Assembly that makes education a priority.
    One of Deeside's largest and most successful partnerships is with Airbus, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) spoke. It is probably the largest modern apprenticeship scheme in western Europe and is a good model that other companies and colleges could follow. At present, 274 apprentices are undergoing various forms of training, with a further 80 new recruits hoping to start in September this year.
    Airbus has a high retention rate—above 90 per cent. One major factor is the opportunities for apprentices. More than 70 per cent. of the senior management is made up of former apprentices, including Brian Fleet, director of manufacturing, Airbus UK. That important point demonstrates that an apprenticeship not only leads to a good quality job, but opens opportunities to progress in the company, even to the top levels of management.
    380
    Airbus rightly views training as a form of investment. Employees should be seen as valuable assets. Too many employers view employees as a form of disposable costs—something that can be put aside at the slightest change in the market. After the events of 11 September, which severely affected the market for airliners, one of the first things that Airbus did was to write to every apprentice in the company guaranteeing their job. Other British manufacturers would have written to apprentices telling them that they no longer had a future with the company. We have lost so many good people who could now be skilled workers, because they have been cast aside at an early stage.
    The company's recruitment strategy has led to a growing number of female apprentices coming through the system, in an industry that has traditionally been male-dominated. I was pleased that this year the apprentice of the year was a woman. The company's commitment to training and the value it places on the work force are an example to other companies in Wales. Importantly, the partnership between the company, the college and the schools is producing well-trained people for good quality jobs.
    As in Britain as a whole, education spending in Wales has risen significantly under Labour—a real-terms increase of some 6 per cent. in 2003–04 over the current year, with planned investment rising to a record £1.4 billion by 2005-06. That level of commitment is needed if we are to improve standards and produce youngsters able to work to the requirements that modern value-added manufacturers are looking for. Schools, colleges and universities have a major role to play in promoting a positive image for manufacturing and engineering. Too many youngsters still view a career in that sector as less valuable and important than one in the white collar, office-based professions.
    If we are to ensure that success is guaranteed, we need continuing investment in education and training. We must see real improvements in this area.
    6 pm
    Julie Morgan: I am grateful for the opportunity briefly to contribute to this debate. I am pleased that we have an opportunity to concentrate on domestic issues in Wales. At the moment, whenever I speak to constituents or other people in Wales, they talk about the international situation, so I am glad that we can concentrate today on domestic issues, which should not be forgotten.
    As many other right hon. and hon. Members, including the Secretary of State, have said, the great achievement that the Labour Governments in Westminster and Wales have achieved is the drop in unemployment in Wales, which has fallen by 40 percent. since 1997. Wales has had the biggest increase in employment of any region in the UK and the biggest fall in inactivity. Other hon. Members have mentioned what has happened in their constituencies. In mine, there has been a fall of 46.6 per cent. in unemployment, which is tremendous. The equivalent figures are minus 80.9 per cent. for youth unemployment and minus 84.8 per cent. for long-term unemployment, so it is clear that we are now reaching all parts of the labour market. That achievement is a tribute to the Labour Governments here and in the Assembly.

    381
    St. David's day was recently celebrated and last Saturday was international women's day. I attended the launch in the old library in Cardiff of a book produced by the Honno press and edited by Professor Deirdre Beddoe. Some remarkable contributions were made by women who read out extracts about experiences in their lives in Wales. We heard contributions from Elaine Morgan, Molly Parkin and Jane Salisbury. Many women in the audience had contributed to the book, including the mother-in-law of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), who made a tremendous contribution. All of the women had remarkable stories to tell. While listening today to various hon. Members talking about the great achievements that Welsh people have made in becoming stars in sport, film and other areas, I thought about the women who read to us about their experiences last Saturday. In many cases, those experiences were very ordinary, but they were a tremendous tribute to the wealth of talent that we have in Wales.
    I thought that it would be interesting briefly to consider the position of women in Wales today. It is probably very much as hon. Members will imagine and as the jobs situation in Wales has always been stereotyped. In 2002, 46 per cent. of women were in part-time occupations, compared with 9 per cent. of male employees. That has not changed much. Women account for 69 per cent. of administrative, secretarial and consumer services occupations, while men account for 80 per cent. of skilled trades and plant and machine operators. A similar divide has existed for many years in Wales, so the situation has not changed very much.
    As other hon. Members have mentioned, however, the introduction of the national minimum wage has increased the wages of thousands of women and part-time workers. That is a tremendous achievement. Along with devolution, the introduction of the minimum wage was one of the great ambitions of Keir Hardie, and we have brought those two things about. So far, we have failed in reforming the House of Lords, but perhaps we can achieve that in the future. The minimum wage has helped thousands of women in Wales and, on its introduction, it narrowed the pay gap between men and women by 3 per cent. Nevertheless, there still is a pay gap. In 2002, full-time women workers earned 13.4 per cent. less per hour on average than male full-time employees. That is grossly unfair.
    In discussing the rise in employment and how well we are doing economically in Wales, we must bear in mind the disparities that still exist, especially between women and men. One of the main priorities of the Government women's unit here and the equal opportunities unit in Cardiff bay is to try to close the pay gap between men and women in Wales. The Welsh Assembly Government are putting their own house in order by carrying out a pay audit and planning over three years to equalise the pay of women and men, and they are setting money aside to ensure that that happens. Some Departments here are doing the same. Private bodies are being asked to undertake voluntary pay audits, but I am not sure whether that will work out in the long term.
    The position of women in terms of employment has been improved by the introduction of much more child care. Many more child care places are available in
    382
    Wales, although they are still too expensive for some women to be able to take advantage of them. Maternity and paternity rights have been increased and great efforts are being made to help people to manage the balance between their family responsibilities and work. That is crucial.
    Hywel Williams: On child care, does the hon. Lady agree that the problems in rural and dispersed areas are a significant barrier to women taking up employment? Can she suggest how those difficulties could be addressed?
    Julie Morgan: I agree that the provision of child care in rural areas is a key issue. The solutions that apply in urban areas do not apply in rural areas, where there has to be far greater emphasis on child minders and on provision for smaller children. The child care group in the Assembly is considering that.
    I want briefly to welcome two initiatives in Cardiff that have come about as a result of the partnership between the Labour Governments here and in the Assembly. One of those is the opening of the new ambulatory care unit in Heath hospital in Cardiff, which is the biggest of its kind in the UK. It means that 4,000 people will receive treatment for minor surgery much earlier than they would have done. Opposition Members throw a great deal at us about health, but there have been enormous improvements. That particular development will be a huge asset to the people of the region around Cardiff.
    Another initiative is the women's safety unit in Cardiff, which has had its funding secured by money from the Home Office and from the Welsh Assembly. It is a tremendous step forward in looking after the safety of women in Wales who suffer from domestic abuse.
    6.8 pm
    Paul Flynn: To experience at first hand the ugly reality of the threat that has come again to Wales as regards steel jobs, one has only to visit some of the four newly derelict sites in Wales. It is an eerie experience to go to Llanwern, which I know well. When the steelworks was laid out brand new in 1962, it was shining, vibrant and exciting, with the best people from steel plants all over Britain. Now, those gigantic structures are still standing, but they are silent and rusting where once there were jobs and prosperity. We should think about what has happened to the lives of thousands of our constituents. Not only have they lost their jobs and the scrap of dignity that comes from having a job, but the job itself has gone, because the skill has been destroyed. They have nothing to look forward to and no expectation of a similar occupation for their children. We have suffered grievously in Wales. In 2001, we lost 3,000 jobs, and now the sword of Damocles is hanging over our communities again. It is right that we should say in this debate that it is an awful threat that could have devastating effects on many of our constituents.
    That situation is not the fault of the steelworkers. In recent years, they have been part of an incredible success story for the steel industry in Wales; they have adapted, rationalised, and shared and lost jobs. At one time, there were 9,000 jobs at Llanwern. That number went down to less than 3,000, yet the workers achieved record production of steel of record quality.

    383
    The main message that the House should send today is that we are anxious about the current situation for the industry and want the Government and the Assembly to do their utmost to ensure that steel jobs are saved and that there continues to be work in the industry.
    My final point is on energy production. The most promising form of renewable energy in Wales—the most benign and non-polluting form—was not mentioned in the recent presentation made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Indeed, it was hardly mentioned in the White Paper. That form of energy is tidal power, which is not intermittent, like solar or wind power, but continuous. The tides around our coasts produce constant pulses of energy, which could provide valuable baseload electricity.
    Many of us have supported the erection of barrages over the years. The barrage at La Rance has been a great success and produces the cheapest electricity on the planet. However, the environmental impacts, such as the disturbances to shipping and the effects on wildlife and tidal flows, mean that barrages are no longer the way forward. Lagoons are a far more effective way of tapping tidal energy. There are plans for three in Wales: one at Swansea, one off the north Wales coast and one at Uskmouth.
    We must embrace such developments, which are the only way that Britain will reach its energy targets by 2010. Lagoons can be built cheaply; they are low cost and are not blots on the landscape. They are especially of interest in Wales, where it is likely that the first tidal lagoons will be built. They take only three years to build and will give us clean, non-polluting, inexhaustible British power.
    6.13 pm
    Albert Owen: As a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I am pleased to be called to speak in this debate.
    One of the Committee's main inquiries recently was into transport in Wales. Although we investigated all modes of transport, I shall concentrate on ports and internal Welsh air services, as roads are a devolved issue. I shall do so in a positive light, given the exciting developments that have already occurred throughout Wales and those that are likely to occur in future.
    I shall not be able to afford that generosity to the railways, however—and I say that as someone who regularly travels with my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) on the west coast service from Holyhead to Euston. Although I welcome the increased UK spending, from £2.1 billion in 2001–02 to £4.3 billion in 2005–06, performance and reliability are not good. There is a general feeling that the fragmentation of the rail industry is hampering recovery, after more than 20 years of under-investment. The component parts of the industry—Railtrack, Network Rail, the regulator, the Strategic Rail Authority and the rail operators—merely seem to blame one another when confronted with difficulties.
    There are great concerns about the west coast main line service. On 9 October 2002, the SRA published its west coast strategy. Under the heading "North Wales", it states:
    384
    "From 2004 there will be a London-Holyhead through 125 mile/h Voyager service every two hours. There are further options to review the overall pattern of services on the route, including integrating the London timetable with services between Birmingham/Manchester and the North Wales Coast."
    That fine strategy was echoed by the chief executive of Virgin Trains in his evidence to the Select Committee and in a meeting with the north Wales group of Labour MPs.
    Excellent! That meant seven return journeys to the capital of England from north-west Wales. But in 2003, in a letter to me and other MPs and stakeholders, from which I shall quote selectively, the SRA stated:
    "The original plans by Virgin Trains were to provide a total of seven services each way between North Wales and London, but it has now become apparent from more detailed analysis that this level of services cannot be delivered to North Wales as originally planned … The core problem is that an inadequate number of units were ordered originally to operate the enhanced level planned by Virgin Trains, including its services to Holyhead … The current assumption is that there will be three or four new 125 mph trains each way from … 004."
    Why has Virgin Trains been awarded record compensation and made huge profits when it is unwilling to fulfil its original commitment?
    Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the planned level of service is little better than the service from north Wales that we have at present, which is tempting people like me, who are committed users of the rail, to use cars? That is a disaster for Virgin Trains and for the environment, as well as for the economy in north Wales, because of the disincentive effect of such a poor service on inward investment.
    Albert Owen: I agree that the proposed service, as outlined in that last letter from the SRA, is not going to encourage people to use the railways. The new trains might be faster, but they might also be smaller and have less capacity than the present ones. That, too, is a great worry.
    The port of Holyhead is a major employer in my constituency, and it obviously relies on an efficient rail service just as much as it does on the new enhanced road service that has been developed since 1997 under the Labour Government. In recent months there has been excellent news of record investment in the port. Some £13 million has been invested in its infrastructure, and a £3 million objective 1 grant will be topped up with private cash, showing that objective 1 really is working for north-west Wales. I am going to make an overtly political point here, because whenever the Assembly Member for my constituency of Ynys Môn—the president of Plaid Cymru—gets to his feet in Cardiff, hesays that there is no evidence of objective 1 working in north-west Wales. Yet that same individual is happy to have his photo taken outside the port with the managers, saying how good the delivery is locally for Anglesey. That says a lot about the double standards of the president of the party of which the hon. Member for Caernarfon is a member.
    This investment will secure jobs and create new jobs, creating a world-class port—the largest on the westernseaboard of the United Kingdom and the fourth largest in the UK-which is dubbed the European Celtic gateway. This new investment has already been earmarked as a catalyst for a further £33 million in road,

    385
    port and town improvements. Some 2.5 million passengers travel through the port of Holyhead each year, and the planned expansion under objective I will result in a further 347,000. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) for his help in ensuring that the objective 1 bid was successful. Cruise liners berth in the port of Holyhead because it has excellent 24-hour tidal usage. Marine development is also taking place there, and it is well placed strategically to serve the Irish sea offshore wind industry, which I know will please my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn). Investment locations close to the port are also planned. This proves that investing in our transport infrastructure and our ports results in good news.
    In my remaining time I shall talk about air services—I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has been very helpful in supporting my bid for the Anglesey airport at Valley. The Liberal Democrats have also assisted us in our bid to get a link between north-west Wales and the south-east. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Transport, in a statement to the House on the future of air transport in the UK on 23 July, said:
    "Because two thirds of passengers living in Wales fly from airports in England, the consultation covers improved surface surface links to airports in both Wales and England, and looks at the potential to start up internal flights within Wales, which would improve access where surface journeys are lengthy."—[Official Report, 23 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 848.]
    Anybody who has travelled on the A470 knows how lengthy the journey is between north and south Wales.
    Will the Minister in his winding-up speech reassure me that the idea of an airport in RAF Valley, with which he is familiar, will be part of the consultation, so that we can advertise the facilities there? If we are looking for a model in which an RAF airfield has been used commercially, we need go no further than Newquay and RAF St. Mawgan, which is now a major and successful airport on the periphery of Cornwall, bringing thousands of tourists to the area and helping to stimulate economic regeneration. I want to echo that in north-west Wales.
    6.20 pm
    Mr. Wayne David: The future of Wales depends on the success of our economy. We have heard a great deal over the years about objective 1 status for west Wales and the valleys, and it is extremely heartening that genuine results are being achieved in that programme. For example, 579 projects in Wales are funded by objective 1 resources, and £336 million has already been allocated to those projects. In my constituency of Caerphilly, the Tredomen business park, the new sports hall in Abertridwr, the new training courses at Ystrad Mynach college, the youth cyber cafe in Bargoed and many other projects have been funded by objective 1 moneys. That is one of the main reasons why there has been a dramatic 36.9 per cent. reduction in unemployment in Caerphilly. I was delighted by the announcement two weeks ago that 300 jobs would be
    386
    created in Caerphilly with a new computer manufacturer. The previous week it was announced that 149 extra jobs would be created by three employers. That is tremendous news, and it is a fair reflection of how well the economy is doing in major areas of south Wales.
    My constituents' quality of life is improving dramatically because of the policies of central Government and the National Assembly. More jobs have been created, and there are more training opportunities, more policemen on the beat and better health provision. However, there is still a huge problem: Caerphilly county borough council, a nationalist-controlled local authority. It is not just me, the people of Caerphilly and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who say that it is a problem, but the external auditors.
    A few weeks ago PricewaterhouseCoopers prepared a devastating report that said quite clearly that Caerphilly county borough council was underperforming, and was one of the worst local authorities in Wales. In a third of all performance indicators the local authority was in the bottom 25 per cent. The report singled out poor education standards, and also said that the authority's social services regime was appalling. That nationalist local authority lacks coherent policies, vision and a sense of social purpose. It claims to be a listening council, yet only the other day, despite the presentation of a petition signed by 1,000 people against the location of a waste transfer station in the village of Bedwas, it went ahead, completely ignoring public opinion.
    The person who has to take responsibility for that underperforming council is the leader of the council, Councillor Lindsay Whittle. There is a saying in Caerphilly—"Antisocial behaviour is a real problem". It is, but it comes not from disaffected young people, but from an underperforming local authority. Lindsay Whittle, the leader of the nationalist council, having made a complete mess of the local authority, now wants to stand for the National Assembly for Wales and represent Caerphilly. I can tell the House that he has tried and tried again to secure a parliamentary seat, and lost every time. I can also tell the House that he will fail to be elected to the National Assembly.
    As we go into the elections we must not rest on our laurels, for although much has been achieved in Wales we should look to the future and what we might achieve over the next few years. We should concentrate on tackling economic inactivity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) has said. That means doing three things. We need innovative policies: we need, for instance, to develop intermediate labour markets to bridge the gap between welfare and work. We need more complementarity between policy areas such as health and economic development. Finally, we need better coordination between the Assembly and central Government, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions. I am confident that those things will be done in the future.

    387
    I can honestly say that I am proud of the Assembly's achievements since 1999. We have a proud record there—and, indeed, in central Government. I have no doubt that on 1 May we will secure a Labour majority in the Assembly—and we will, of course, hold Caerphilly.
    6.26 pm
    Llew Smith: I join the Secretary of State in congratulating Rowan Williams on becoming Archbishop of Canterbury. Anyone with the good sense and decency to oppose a war in the Gulf deserves to be listened to. I am sure that Rowan Williams would support those of us who say there is something wrong with our priorities when we are willing to devote some £ 1,750 million to preparing for war when that money could be used in communities not just in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom, to provide better homes, hospitals and schools. Indeed, the list is endless, but we could certainly use a lot of that money in Blaenau Gwent. It would enable us to transform our communities.
    We have real problems in Blaenau Gwent, many of which—such as bad health and poverty—areinterrelated. Everyone now accepts that although the national health service needs more money, and although we welcome the extra money that has been provided, tackling bad health is not enough: poverty must be tackled as well, and we have poverty in abundance in Blaenau Gwent. If we are to tackle poverty, we must tackle the causes of poverty, one of which is unemployment. Our unemployment rate is still unacceptable. We have lost big manufacturing plants-Bosal, Faurecia and Wyvern Furniture. We have lost the coal industry, and more recently we have lost Corus—and, indeed, the steel industry.
    It is interesting to hear the Secretary of State talk of possible further redundancies at Corus, and the need to try to persuade the directors to change their plans. In my opinion, talking to Corus is an utter waste of time. It was set up for one reason and one reason only: to asset-strip the industry—and in that regard it has been successful. Sadly, while the directors became millionaires overnight, the people who built the steel industry and took pride in it were thrown on the scrapheap. The Labour Government are doing as much as possible to begin to rectify that wrong.
    When we fought the 1992 election we used the slogan, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". I supported that slogan, and with it in mind I consider that what Corus has done for the steel industry constitutes a criminal act. I think, and I know that the rest of my community shares this sentiment, that we should jail the directors—jail the lot of them. They have not only inflicted a terrible crime on my community; they are increasingly doing the same in communities throughout the United Kingdom.
    It is clear that this Labour Government have done many good things to begin to rectify poverty, of which the minimum wage is one. If we build on that, it will be the most important legislation produced by this Government since we came to power in 1997. The Government have also negotiated objective 1 funding, and the central Government public spending settlement for the Welsh Assembly is certainly one of the best for Wales that I can remember since becoming involved in
    388
    politics. Sadly, much still needs to be done, and the Welsh Assembly needs to change its priorities in terms of how that money is spent. It is true that many good things have been done. In my community there is the reintroduction of the passenger rail service, the Cwm bypass, the redevelopment of the old Dunlop Semtex site, and the proposed new hospital. However, we must compare that with the money that is being invested in the millennium arts centre in Cardiff bay: £100 million, and a £2 million a year subsidy for ever and a day. The cost of that arts centre far outweighs all the investment in the projects that I have mentioned.
    Another problem that my local authority faces is the local government formula, which determines how much money goes to each local authority. Each local authority throughout Wales produces broadly the same range and level of services. However, council tax levels vary widely, with the poorest valley region often having to pay nearly twice the lowest level. Indeed, the valley regions suffer the highest levels of deprivation in Wales. For the poorest communities in Wales to have some of the highest council tax levels is an unsustainable position.
    Whatever criticisms I may have of the Welsh Assembly are as nothing, however, when compared with my criticisms of the nationalists. We all remember valley communities asking the Welsh Assembly two or three years ago for some form of damping grant, to begin to rectify the wrongs and deal with the deprivation that they face. Sadly, the Welsh nationalists refused to vote for that additional money. They refused to support an initiative that gave more money to communities such as ours.
    I suppose that the nationalists are in a somewhat difficult position. Deep down, they believe not in a partnership between the Welsh Assembly and this Parliament, but in separation and independence. I know that they are reluctant to put that argument, but it is difficult for them to hold back their enthusiasm for it. Some years ago, their glorious leader, Ieuan Wyn Jones, said:
    "Labour are clearly unable to win a general election and self-government for Wales is the only answer."
    I think that he got that slightly wrong.
    Sadly, Ieuan did not tell his good friend Cynog Dafis, who then said:
    "Plaid's aspirations remain full self-government … the status that used to be called independence."
    Not to be outsmarted, Ieuan hit back and declared:
    "I think self-government now needs to be redefined. I much prefer to use"
    the term "full national status."
    That seemed to resolve the problem and to overcome some of their difficulties. However, in a nationalist leaflet that was distributed to my home a few days ago—it was one of the first, if not the first, in the party's attempt to win the constituency—Ieuan declared that what his nationalist party stands for is "self-government". So national self-determination, home rule and the many other phrases that the nationalists have used in their lifetime have suddenly been thrown out of the window. They now accept that they stand for self-government, and as Cynog said, self-government actually means independence.

    389
    People are not stupid, and they understand what the nationalists are all about. No matter what words they use to hide their true feelings, the party wants Wales to be separated from the rest of the UK. That would be counter-productive. We must realize that there is no difference between unemployed people in south Wales and those in London, or between unemployed steel workers in south Wales and those in the north of England. Rural workers in mid-Wales are no different from rural workers elsewhere in the UK or England.
    The problem is not one of nationality. We must change the system under which we live. Sadly for the nationalists, what they argue for would cause further problems for us as a community. It would split one part of the UK from the rest, when we should be united in recognising who the enemy is. The English are not the enemy. The enemy are the Coruses of this world, and such companies are raping our communities, as they were raped many years ago.
    6.36 pm
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: It is a tremendous honour to wind up such a well-attended and wide-ranging debate. Hon. Members from all of Wales have contributed, and I shall try to do them justice.
    Contributions were made by the Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies). The hon. Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence), for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik), for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) also spoke. There was an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) about the important subject of midwifery and childbirth in Wales—an important subject but, sadly, a short speech.
    Other speeches were made by the hon. Members for Gower (Mr. Caton), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard), for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith). The last named made a weighty contribution.
    My personal fondness for Wales began when I attended Bangor university and served with the Royal Welch Fusiliers. All our thoughts will be with our service personnel in the Gulf, especially with those from Wales.
    I was delighted when the hon. Member for Aberavon said that my constituency, being on the borders, had a real Welsh name and he was kind enough to mention that that name is Llanllieni. In the true spirit of bilingualism, I thought that that would look very good next to the word "Leominster" on the annunciator screen. You can imagine my disappointment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the powers that be in the House told me that such a gesture of unity with Wales was not allowed. I hope that you will look into that rather strict rule.
    390
    The Government have a passion for devolution. That is clear from the amount of money, time and effort that they have put into forming and funding the National Assembly. It is a shame that their enthusiasm for the institution has not been more widely shared by the people of Wales. Indeed, the coming Assembly election will be a litmus test for the Labour party in Wales and the Welsh Assembly itself.
    Before the siren voices of the nationalists call for more powers, I believe that the Welsh people will give credit where it is due. If they feel that the Assembly has used its powers wisely and credibly, I hope that they will turn out in support. Last time, turnout was only 46 per cent. If people see the Assembly as a stepping-stone for independence, they will be hesitant in their support. Hon. Members have rightly voiced their reservations, based on the problem that revenue earned in Wales does not equate to revenue spent in Wales.
    The Government have other problems to deal with in Wales, as well as across the UK. Their railway policy has changed dramatically. The Wales and Borders franchise has been delayed for bureaucratic reasons. That is unforgivable, particularly when the Government and their Liberal Democrat helpers have gone to so much trouble to blame previous Conservative Governments for difficulties with rail travel. Now we have the Labour-created Strategic Rail Authority—
    Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Wiggin: No, I will not.
    The hon. Gentleman spent his speech telling us how important it was to be inclusive and not personal and then decided to attack Conservatives by quoting directly. He always does that.
    In my constituency, we still do not have disabled access at Leominster station, so it is particularly disheartening when we find that the Labour-created Strategic Rail Authority is taking trains out of service and cutting£312 million from the rail budget. It is time for the Government to take some responsibility for undermining our railways.
    Everyone in Wales, in some way or other, is a victim of the way in which the Government run Welsh affairs. I wish to turn to crime—[Laughter.] Solely for the duration of the debate. Crime is another issue on which the Labour Government have failed. It is no secret that crime in Wales has risen significantly since Labour assumed power in 1997. There has been a 27 per cent. increase in robberies, a figure that has grown steadily and continues to do so. From 1998 to 2002, violent crime rose by 13.7 per cent.
    Those figures contrast with the fact that, since 1997, there has been a steady decline in the number of special constables serving in Wales. In 1997, there were 1,150 special constables, which decreased in 1999 to 940, in 2000 to 811 and finally to 701 in 2002. How can reducing the number of serving special police constables in Wales possibly be conducive to reducing crime in Wales?
    Increased gun crime and the illegal drugs trade are serious issues throughout Wales. The Western Mail reported that, in Gwent, firearms offences increased by more than 64 per cent. last year. Again, how can a reduction in the number of serving special constables be helpful in that regard?

    391
    I now want to turn to health, another example of how, despite taxes going up in this country, public services do not appear to be getting any better. The Conservatives continue to press the Government on the rising waiting lists and GP shortages in Wales. The Government, with their Lib Dem coalition partners in Cardiff, appear to be oblivious to the horrendous waiting lists in Wales, which have risen by an average of 1,000 people every month since 1997. The number of people waiting over 18 months for in-patient treatment has risen by 240 per cent. since 1997, while the number waiting over six months for out-patient treatment has grown by a staggering 1,300 per cent.
    The Welsh Assembly coalition has broken an important promise. They vowed that these waiting lists would be eradicated by the end of Labour's first Assembly term. We find that the Government have less than two months to fulfil that promise; it seems highly unlikely that they will. The latest figures, published last year, reveal that 1,747 NHS posts have been vacant for three months or more. That represents an 18 per cent. increase on the figure published just six months earlier.
    Despite all the overwhelming evidence that the Government's tax-and-spend policy is not working, the Welsh Assembly Government are continuing to press ahead with further plans to restructure the health service and further bureaucratise and regulate the activities of hard-working doctors and nurses. Jane Hutt, the Welsh Assembly Health Minister, promised that this so-called restructuring would be cost-neutral. The crystal-clear reality is that there is nothing neutral about it at all. As we learned from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley, it will cost Welsh taxpayers at least £15.5 million.
    Economic issues in Wales must cause extreme concern to us all. A recently published report by the Institute for Public Policy Research, "A new regional policy for the UK", shows that Wales has the second lowest level of business start-ups in the UK, the third highest unemployment rate, the third lowest levels of income and the highest percentage of people on sickness or disability benefits.
    In manufacturing, the situation goes from bad to worse. Welsh manufacturers have been the victims of sharper falls in new orders than the rest of the UK. Orders fell by 24 per cent in Wales, compared with 19 per cent. in Scotland, the next worst affected area. That contradicts the Secretary of State's assertion that the Welsh economy continues to hold its own against the UK regions. Furthermore, the Welsh economy has lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs over the past year. I note yesterday's foreboding of a strong chance of closure of the Corus steel plant in Port Talbot, with the potential for another 3,000 jobs to be lost—[Interruption.] I am delighted if that is not the case, but that is what I read in the newspapers. That is what is published. I confess that I find it hard to reconcile such a gloomy outlook with the remarkable picture that the Secretary of State claims that he can paint of the Welsh economy.
    The CBI in Wales also points out a stark picture and states:
    "Welsh output … is predicted to decline over the next four months …business finances are significantly under pressure. This partly reflects the difficult economic climate, but policy-driven cost increases, including business tax rises, have also played a key role."
    If that is not proof that the Labour Government are a business-wrecking Government, nothing is.
    392
    I turn to the impending council tax increases. It is not only business that the Government are taxing into the ground but the ordinary people of Wales. Council taxes are set to increase by a staggering 14 per cent., which is yet another example of the Chancellor's tax-and-spend policies. The Welsh Assembly Government persist in telling us that council tax increases are nothing to do with them but are at the discretion of individual local authorities. The trouble is that local authorities must pay for the extravagant, wasteful policies initiated by the Assembly, not least the ridiculous, monstrous waste of money that is the plan for the new Assembly building in Cardiff bay.
    The bottom line is that this Government, in their capacity at Westminster and in the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff, have failed the people of Wales. The Government's approach to so many issues—crime, health, education, industry, agriculture, local government—is fundamentally flawed. Their policies are failing the people of Wales because they do not work.
    What would it take to reverse that pattern of decline in Wales? There is only one answer: a radical rethink of how Government policy is implemented in Wales, and a radical revision of the approach that this Government have taken. That radical revision and new approach can come only from the Conservative party. Only the Conservatives have the vision to take stock of what is happening in Wales and reverse the decline by radically changing the policy approach.
    6.47 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): This debate has once again demonstrated the important role that Welsh matters play in the affairs of the House. I am delighted that so many Members have taken the opportunity to contribute to a wide-ranging debate. Let me remind hon. Members of the progress relating to Wales that we have been making in this place in the last year.
    The Health (Wales) Bill has come before Parliament: the first Wales-only Bill to be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. Other Bills containing important provisions for Wales, such as the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill and the Local Government Bill, have been debated. In the post-devolution world, therefore, Wales's voice at Westminster remains strong, which is what the people of Wales want: a strong voice in Parliament and an influential and strong voice in Government. They would not support proposals from other parties to dilute that influence and weaken Wales's voice. The Tory sham of supporting devolution while constantly sniping at it is not the answer, nor is the nationalists' efforts to undermine it in their claims for separation and for the break up of Britain. The Liberal Democrats agree with everybodyb—as they always do, depending on whom they are speaking to—and have no answer either.
    Many of the speeches today have reflected the progress that the Government, working in partnership with the Labour-led Assembly, have made over the past year.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Touhig: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not do so, as I must try to make many responses.

    393
    Let us make no mistake: we have a good story to tell. I am far happier talking about the record of our Government than about that of our rugby team at present. Confident and ever-optimistic, however, I believe that the Welsh rugby team, like the phoenix, will rise from the ashes.

    There are over 60,000 more people in employment in Wales now than there were a year ago. The agricultural and tourism sectors are making a strong recovery from the setbacks of previous years and exciting projects in both private and public sectors are being developed across Wales, such as Airbus, DARA. at St. Athan, the Wales millennium centre, the Baglan energy park, and the proposed film studios near Bridgend.
    General Dynamics' investment in my constituency is another success story. The Labour Government, working in partnership with the Labour-led Assembly, are delivering results in better jobs and more prosperity for the people of Wales. Those examples are part of our success story and they show the partnership between a strong Labour Government in Westminster and a Labour-led Assembly.
    I wish to highlight three areas in which I have personally witnessed the benefits of that partnership in recent weeks. Only last Friday I attended an event to mark the new deal helping 50,000 people into work. I remember the Opposition saying that the new deal would not help to reduce unemployment. What do they say now about the 50,000 people in Wales who have jobs as a result of Labour's new deal initiative? They have no answer. Secondly, we are delivering results in fighting crime. Our investment has delivered a record 600 extra police officers in Wales and overall crime levels are down by 15 per cent.
    Thirdly, by working together, we are delivering compensation to miners, and their widows and families, whose lives were damaged by working in the coal industry. Under the two miners' compensation schemes, we have seen almost 25,000 claims settled and £281 million paid out. We are now paying out £3 million a week to miners and their widows in the Welsh coalfields. However, there is much that still has to be done and we must not give up until justice has been delivered to all our miners and their families.
    The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) talked about the problems in manufacturing, and I agree that it has had problems. However, 20,000 new jobs have been created in manufacturing in Wales. One in eight jobs in manufacturing have been created since 2000. The Welsh economy is now much more diverse than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Public investment is important to that, and it is enabling the building of new schools and hospitals as well as providing work in the construction industry. What would a 20 per cent. cut in public investment do for the economy of Wales? Not much. The hon. Gentleman also complained about the council tax. As a result of the support given by this Government to our colleagues in the Assembly, funding for councils in the next year will increase by more than 9 per cent. in Wales, which is almost three times the rate of inflation. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) mentioned council tax increases, but one of the biggest increases is in the Conservative-run Vale of Glamorgan. Its council tax will go up by 10 per cent.
    394
    It is important that we ensure that funding goes to our local authorities to deliver improvements in services. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley also expressed concern about waiting lists, but 200,000 more people have been treated in Wales since Labour came into government. We have had to correct 18 years of under-investment. We remember the Conservatives in government, when 70 hospitals were closed between 1979 and 1997 and 8,000 general acute beds were lost as a result of their policies. The hon. Gentleman is also clearly at odds with the Tory health spokesman in the Assembly who has said that the NHS needs extra resources, which should be funded from taxation. That is not what the Tories say when we increase national insurance to fund the health service.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) made two important points. She talked about the exciting Petroplus project in her constituency. I recently visited it and I wish it every success. She also mentioned the Bluestone development, which is an important tourist initiative. I hope that the planning authorities will do everything possible to speed up the decision on that development.
    The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik) outlined the achievements of the National Assembly, and they are Labour achievements. Labour promises were made and delivered by the National Assembly.
    Lembit öpik: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Touhig: I regret that I cannot give way, because I have to respond to so many contributions to the debate.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) talked about the economic problems that we still have, but he acknowledged that we have made a good start. He made a powerful case for exercising caution before making the further constitutional changes advocated by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.
    The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) also raised the issue of waiting lists. Long waiting lists are not acceptable and my colleagues in the Assembly are taking steps to meet that challenge. Vast sums of money are going into the NHS, and reforms are being made, so that we can deliver. My colleague Edwina Hart, the Assembly Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities, has called in Derek Wanless, who will carry out a review of NHS spending in Wales, and we look forward to that.
    The hon. Gentleman also talked about the problems of match funding. Well, this Government said that we would not let Wales down when we won objective 1 funding, and we did not. The spending review in 2001–02 delivered above-Barnett consequentials for funding in Wales, and we have benefited from that. His criticism of the WDA was unfair. The WDA is setting higher targets; next year, it aims to create or safeguard 48,000 jobs in Wales. That is important to the Welsh economy and we should welcome it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) welcomed the way in which pre-legislative scrutiny has been handled. He mentioned the Health (Wales) Bill in particular and I thank his Committee for its work. I suspect that further work for it will be coming down the track.

    395
    The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) raised concerns about his unitary development plan. New legislation that is going through the House may help his constituency, but I was very concerned about his remarks. If he has not already done so, I suggest that he brings these matters to the attention of Assembly Ministers. I will undertake to ensure that a transcript of his comments is passed on to Assembly Ministers.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) welcomed a number of measures, such as the working families tax credit and the minimum income guarantee, mentioning the benefit that they have brought to his constituents. I pay tribute to him for his campaign to improve the health of air passengers on long-haul flights. He has done a tremendous job.
    The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) popped up and made a contribution. He was concerned about maternity services. His party, when in Government, presided over a 25 per cent. cut in nursing and midwifery training. That is his party's record. We were left to clean up the mess and to overcome the nursing shortages that we inherited. Our target is to employ 6,000 more nurses in Wales by 2010. We are on target.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) spoke about the dramatic cut in unemployment in his constituency and about the importance of the minimum wage. I agree with what he said. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) spoke about KTH at Llanidloes. I know that Team Wales has been asked to see what it can do to save those jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) mentioned that today's debate is closer to St. Patrick's day than St. David's day. He should not worry too much about that because St. Patrick was a Welshman. He came from Gwent. I know that for a fact.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) talked about economic inactivity. He is right: 300,000 people in Wales are economically inactive. We have to use projects such as workstep to find ways of getting them into work. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) spoke passionately about the steel industry in his constituency. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will do all that we can to help to protect the jobs at Corus in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) spoke about the importance of manufacturing, training and modern apprenticeships, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) spoke about equal pay. I share her hopes and aspirations on that.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) reminded us of the suffering inflicted on communities as a result of steel job losses. That suffering has been all too stark in parts of Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) raised important issues to do with rail transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) welcomed the improvements in his area as a result of objective 1. He also highlighted the fact that we have a terribly badly run Welsh nationalist council in Caerphilly; we have good officers and staff in Caerphilly but a lousy council leadership that is failing the people of Caerphilly. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) welcomed the minimum wage. It is right that we should build on that.
    396
    People in Wales face a choice on 1 May. They can return a Labour Administration to the Assembly, based on our record of managing a sound economy and improving the health and education services. They can choose a Wales that is going forward and working in partnership with the Government here in Westminster—a Labour Government that is undoing the legacy of the Tory years. That is choice that they face. We want no more Thatcher policies in Wales. We will ensure that the people of Wales understand that as we come towards the election.
    There is something else that people will have to remember in a few weeks' time. Our own daffodil Tories, the nationalist party, would take us back to the time of Redwood and Thatcher. The nationalists' choice is a path of separation and isolation, leading to mass unemployment and a divided society. The nationalists' vision is a Wales of elites and divisions—a country savaged by unemployment and cut off from our closest friends and neigh hours just to satisfy the delusions of an extremist nationalist elite. The people of Wales will certainly turn that down. That vision is a nightmare.
    On 1 May, the people of Wales will have a choice of returning a Labour Administration or of returning a Tory Administration that is committed to 20 per cent. cuts in public expenditure. They will have a choice of returning a Labour Administration in Wales that will give Wales a world-class economy, or of returning a nationalist party that will cut Wales off from the rest of the United Kingdom, leaving a barren outcrop of deprivation, unemployment and poverty. Labour wants a Wales in which the people of Wales can be confident of their future. I believe that the people of Wales will make the right choice on 1 May. I believe that they will turn out in their thousands to elect a Labour Administration in Cardiff.
    It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

    INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL
    Ordered,
    That, during proceedings on the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill, the Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Mr. Ainger.]

  PETITIONS

    Pharmacies
    7 pm
    Mr. Kerry Pollard: This petition— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I advise Members not to cross in front of an hon. Member when he is addressing the House.
    Mr. Pollard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This petition from Janet Smith and other citizens of St. Albans declares:
    That proposals to allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense national health service prescriptions would undermine the excellent service provided by communities pharmacists.

    397
    The Petitioners therefore call upon the House of Commons to reject those proposals.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.
    7.1 pm
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan:s I wish to present a petition from more than 1,000 residents in Chesham and Amersham who use the Collins and Jervie pharmacy at 52 Sycamore road, Amersham and members of Chesham and Amersharr, who use the Fox pharmacy in Holmer Green. The petition declares:
    The proposals made by the Office of Fair Trading to allow supermarkets a bigger role in dispensing NHS prescriptions will endanger the viability of neighbourhood pharmacies in local high streets which serve the needs of local people; notes that neighbourhood pharmacies provide many services for their customers such as stocking oxygen cylinders and organising repeat prescriptions; further notes that the pharmacy is a fount of advice for patients, particularly mothers with babies and elderly people and that the supermarket is not necessarily more convenient for either of these age groups to visit.
    The Petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to reject the proposals by the Office of Fair Trading to allow supermarkets a bigger role in dispensing NH S prescriptions.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

Rail Services (Wilmslow)
7.2 pm
Mr. George Osborne: I am delighted to present a petition of the residents of Wilmslow, Alderley Edge and the surrounding area that was organised by Andrew Stephenson, Jim Crockatt, Joan Barnes, Rod Menlove and Keith Chapman. The petition declares:
That they believe that Wilmslow's direct rail service to London is of vital importance to the local community and the local economy, notes that it is used by 78,000 passengers a year, further notes that Virgin Trains wishes to maintain the service, and therefore strongly oppose the arbitrary decision by the Strategic Rail Authority to scrap the service without any local consultation and for no good reason.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Secretary of State for Transport to instruct the Strategic Rail Authority to maintain the popular and important direct train service between Wilmslow and London.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Rail Services (Hassocks)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
7.3 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the issue of the problems on the railway service from London to Hassocks, the main commuter station in my constituency. Those problems also touch on all the stations and commuters served by the Brighton line south of Gatwick, in particular the station at Burgess Hill.
I raise the issue at the request and with the support of the Hassocks amenity association, which is backed by Hassocks parish council, a number of other parish councils, the Hassocks village action plan and all three political parties. We are all looking to improve the train service and to campaign to reverse the significant deterioration that has been experienced in recent years.
There are specific objectives as well as specific problems. The specific objectives are to reintroduce the off-peak services to London Victoria that are no longer available, to increase weekend services, to introduce a Sunday Thameslink service, to restore a late-night service from Brighton, to introduce a shuttle service to Gatwick and to introduce more direct services to Hove.
Major problems need to be addressed, however. Cancelled services and trains not stopping at Hassocks as a result of congestion affect, in particular, mid-morning Thameslink services north and south. The extent of the delays has resulted in a considerable increase in the use of cars, with people travelling to Gatwick to get a reliable train service. The number of carriages has been reduced from eight to four, which has caused considerable passenger congestion, resulting in people sometimes being unable to get on trains.
The recent decision by the Strategic Rail Authority to stop the through-service to Bournemouth at Southampton means that citizens of the area who travel south and west no longer have direct access to Bournemouth. There are occasional problems with power supplies and the station is a derelict 30-year-old prefab. The station premises, including the platform, are dangerous for disabled people and the platform itself is inadequate, which is one reason for the reduced number of carriages.
A year ago I was enormously heartened when I met the managing director of the new operator who was negotiating the franchise. One merged company, the Go-Ahead Group, now represents South Central, Thameslink and Thames Trains. The new operator wanted to address key fundamental, as well as operating, problems. The biggest single problem is congestion at Gatwick. The Gatwick special service to London gets priority because of its success, as a result of which trains to the commuter stations down the line are delayed or cancelled if there are pressures to do so. In addition, the number of trains that can use the line in both directions is increasingly limited by extra services to Gatwick.
I mentioned the infrastructure problems at Hassocks station. It is necessary to replace outdated and dangerous rolling stock. There were also problems with

399
cancelled trains because drivers were sick or did not turn up. The operators have dealt with the number of drivers and are going ahead with investment in new rolling stock, with 700 new carriages due to be installed by the end of next year, but as a result of having been granted a seven-year franchise rather than a 20-year franchise, that is the extent of the capital investment that they are willing to make. The rest of the capital investment falls entirely at the door of the SRA. That is the fundamental problem.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: My hon. Friend and I share the same problem with the line, especially as far as Burgess Hill is concerned. Does he agree that there is confusion in people's minds because they think that the operator is responsible for the infrastructure and the stations? Those who are responsible for the work that needs to be conducted, to a much greater extent, at Hassocks and, to a lesser extent—although it is by no means unimportant—at Burgess Hill, are unsure and unclear when the money will be forthcoming. Does my hon. Friend know when the SRA will provide it?
Mr. Flight: There seems to be no idea whatsoever about when the money will be forthcoming. That issue arose at a major meeting at Hassocks with representatives of the SRA, the operators and various others. I feel slightly sorry for the operators. They get the blame for everything that people object to but, with only a seven-year franchise, they do not have the power to address some of the major issues.
As I was saying, all infrastructure investment seems to fall at the door of the SRA, and there seems no prospect of Network Rail taking on responsibility for the station. Indeed, the SRA said bluntly at the meeting in Hassocks that, given the additional cost of the west coast main line, there was no prospect of it affording in the foreseeable future the necessary capital investment to build a new station, make other infrastructure improvements, or address the major need for—to use rather simplistic language—a bypass in the train line around Gatwick in order to avoid the bottleneck.
The operators have made some improvements. There are now three trains an hour to London—two Thameslink services to London Bridge and one to Clapham Junction—but there is no prospect of a direct train to Victoria, which is one of the main central London destinations for commuters. Commuters still have to change trains in order to get to Victoria. The SRA and others made the point that, in addition to the Gatwick bottleneck, limited capacity at stations in London was a major problem.
It is fair to say that the reaction of a large number of citizens who gathered at the meeting with the parties that I have mentioned was one of acute depression. In effect, they were told that, other than marginal improvements that the operators can make, there was no prospect of relieving the rest of the problems.
West Sussex is to be obliged to cope with a substantial number of new houses, and some 3,000 of them are to be adjacent to Hassocks, west of Burgess Hill. Two new runways could be built at Gatwick, which would greatly increase the demand for trains to and from the airport. If Gatwick expands, there will be a big increase in the number of commuters on the line from Hassocks.
400
Indeed, if the growth in use of the network continued at the rate of the past decade, there would be a 90 per cent. increase in traffic by 2016. There is absolutely no way that the infrastructure or the operators can address that growth without the required major investment. Indeed, the Government's objective of increasing traffic by 50 per cent. by 2010 cannot possibly be delivered on the present run-down infrastructure.
The key question is this: why on earth was a seven-year rather than a 20-year franchise granted? That has frustrated the delivery by the operators of quite a deal of capital investment. There is clearly insufficient funding for the SRA, or the SRA is giving priority to other needs at the expense of a congested area of the south-east, particularly the Brighton line. The prospect for rail transport serving my existing constituents and the new constituents who will come to the area as new housing is developed-indeed for the whole of the mid—Sussex area—is disastrous. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) would point to problems of equal magnitude that are encountered on the service to Burgess Hill and commuter stations close to it.
We have been told that there is no prospect of the SRA addressing the capital investment and infrastructure needs that will be required to cope with the increased population. What on earth is the Government's transport policy? Why are the basic rail needs of a part of the world that is required to cope with a great deal more housing and many more citizens to be completely ignored?
I am grateful for the opportunity to present the problems on behalf' of my constituents. I hope that the Minister will take note in a constructive way and discuss with the SRA what might be considered, especially bearing in mind the rising need as a result of the likely expansion of Gatwick airport.
7.15 pm
The Parliamentary Unde-rSecretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on securing the debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss train services to Hassocks.
Hassocks is a station on the busy London to Brighton line between Burgess Hill and Preston Park, a suburb of Brighton. Train services to Hassocks are provided by Thameslink and South Central. Station facilities, such as staffing for the booking office, are provided by South Central. The passenger service requirements for the relevant franchises set out the minimum level of service that must be provided. In the case of Hassocks, there must be a half-hourly service to London Bridge on the Thameslink franchise, and an hourly service to Victoria on the South Central franchise. All these trains originate from or continue to Brighton.
During the morning and evening peaks, trains are more frequent and serve a wider range of destinations. In the morning— between 6.30 and 8.30 am, for example—12 trains call at Hassocks on their way to London, and in the evening 14 trains from London call in the down direction between 5.30 and 7.30 pm. I do not underestimate the frustration that can be caused when trains are late or do not run at all, but the current level of service being provided on the line does not seem unreasonable.

401
I mentioned the range of destinations served. Most southbound trains terminate at Brighton, with the exception of a few peak-hour services that run on to destinations such as Hove and Littlehampton. Northbound, there are regular through services to Luton, Luton airport and Bedford via Thameslink. That provides connections to the east midlands, Sheffield and Leeds. The regular South Central service runs to Watford junction, calling at Kensington Olympia. Connections can be made there for Virgin Cross Country and west coast main line services to the north-west, the north-east and Scotland. All those services can be accessed without the need to cross London or change stations. The Brighton to Watford Junction trains also provide the hourly service to Victoria by way of connections that can be made at Haywards Heath, Gatwick Airport, East Croydon or Clapham Junction.
Of course, this complex web of services brings its own problems, some of which were highlighted by the hon. Gentleman. One is that Thameslink trains, in particular, have to thread their way through a complicated series of stations and junctions in the London area and on to routes carrying the trains of a number of other operators. The inevitable result is that they are sometimes delayed, often because of the late running of other operators' services. Decisions then have to be made about how that lost time can be made up. One way of doing that is to run trains fast between Brighton and Haywards Heath or vice versa. Unfortunately, the result is that passengers wishing to use Hassocks are occasionally inconvenienced.
The Strategic Rail Authority stresses to all train operating companies the need to run their trains as advertised. It also emphasises the need to keep passengers informed of disruptions, cancellations and any late running that may occur. There will inevitably be cases when it is preferable either to cancel a service that is running late or to run it fast through some stations. It can then start its next journey on time and not add to delays elsewhere on the network by being late. There is a delicate balance to be struck between inconveniencing a small number of passengers so that a larger number elsewhere on the network are not delayed by knock-on effects.
Thameslink recognises the importance of striking the correct balance, and with that in mind, has out-stationed a team of managers at Brighton to advise on late running and make decisions on the ground. The hon. Gentleman might well respond that it is always his constituents who lose out. I am afraid that such decisions will always involve hard choices, but the fact is that Hassocks is comfortably smaller than most of the other stops that could be missed out in that way, and Thameslink ensures that it resorts to station-skipping only when an alternative train is available within a short time. My information is that the number of occasions when trains do not stop at Hassocks is fairly low. If the hon. Gentleman knows otherwise or has other information, I am sure that he will bring it to my Department's attention.
I appreciate that schoolchildren rely on the stopping services to go to schools in and around Hassocks. I also know that with new house building the population is
402
rising, and that existing roads are already close to capacity. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that Hassocks, like Burgess Hill, was developed as a railway commuter town. Its station continues to serve a substantial rural area, including many other areas as well as Hassocks itself. I am sure that Thameslink will keep arrangements under review, so that if relative passenger numbers at the stations concerned change significantly, operational practice can be modified to match those changes. Of course, it is our ambition throughout the country to keep services under review so that they match any changes and are appropriate to any population shifts.
On track capacity, the Strategic Rail Authority has undertaken extensive consultation about capacity utilisation. That is relevant to a number of suggestions that have been made about increased services from Hassocks. The time to consider those suggestions will be when the Strategic Rail Authority is conducting its review of track capacity on the London to Brighton line. At present, the line is being used to its maximum track capacity and opportunities to introduce new services or add extra station calls to existing services are very limited indeed.
The hon. Gentleman may think that that sounds less than encouraging, but we are clear that the priority for Network Rail, the Strategic Rail Authority and the train operating companies should be to ensure that existing rail services operate consistently, reliably and punctually. We need services that passengers can rely on. In fact, one of passengers' main criticisms about our train services is lack of predictability. Of course, that is very important.
The rolling stock used on the great majority of trains that call at Hassocks is accessible to those with disabilities, including wheelchair users—an issue that I think the hon. Gentleman has raised with my Department in the past. However, some services—mostly the peak period ones—are still provided with slam-door stock that is not accessible in that way. The good news is that those trains will progressively be replaced with Electrostar trains, which are fully accessible and have wheelchair-accessible toilets.
Hassocks station is not fully accessible to all those with disabilities, but the necessary work will take place to make it so. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that priority for such work is given to the busiest stations that are not easily accessible—Clapham Junction is a good example—but the focus is now shifting to the smaller and less busy stations such as Hassocks.
When the Strategic Rail Authority was negotiating the new South Central franchise agreement, it arranged for Go Via to take over the franchise from Connex in August 2001. It then began work with Go Via to specify a range of infrastructure enhancements. Later, when a decision was made to reduce the length of the franchise, there were knock-on effects for that infrastructure programme. That does not mean that the work will not take place, because the Strategic Rail Authority is taking over sponsorship of some of it. A proposal for capacity enhancement at Gatwick, including what has come to be known as the Gatwick bypass, is among the schemes that have been put forward, but it is too soon to say whether it will go ahead. Notwithstanding the

403
outcome of the current consultation on air services, that scheme will be another consideration in future years should a decision be made arising from the consultation.
It is clear that the Brighton line needs improvement to achieve greater capacity, better signalling and higher speeds. It is a busy stretch of railway that runs through growing centres of population, so anything that can be done to increase capacity and improve reliability will bring major benefits. Some signaling enhancement has already been completed, and more is in progress. There is also a continuing track maintenance and replacement programme. The vast majority of the track slowings caused by gauge corner cracking have now been removed, but old track and sleepers still need to be replaced in certain areas. Coupled with the major track upgrades on both the Brighton line and the Arun valley line, that will allow improved frequency and journey times to the Sussex coast. Enhancements are also taking place at Gatwick Airport station to provide further performance and capacity gains.
The power supply arrangements for the introduction of new rolling stock are not satisfactory. Upgrading the supply to cater for the higher-performance trains ordered for the south-east was not factored into the investment programme by the industry parties involved as quickly or as clearly as it ought to have been. The Strategic Rail Authority has now taken the lead—as it has with the west coast route modernisation project—and, in partnership with the industry, has produced a plan to co-ordinate the work. This is a multi-million pound project that will be authorised and funded in stages. It involves upgrading and replacing substations, replacing cables and conductor rails, and upgrading electrical control centres. All that work is necessary because the new trains need more power. They are heavier and have extra features such as air conditioning—bringing—better conditions for travellers—and modern traction systems. The work is already under way. High-voltage cables have already been laid in the inner-London area and the main power supply contracts are now being awarded by Network Rail.
We want to deliver a bigger, better and safer railway with increased punctuality and reliability, reduced journey times and higher standards of customer services. That applies to the services we have been discussing today as much as to the network in general.
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) mentioned the physical infrastructure of Hassocks station. Although the news about the upgrading of the lines is welcome, is the Minister aware that it is not only Hassocks that faces a major problem? To a lesser extent, Burgess Hill and
404
Haywards Heath have requirements for the most basic improvements to station facilities, which, to the travelling public, are every bit as important as improvements of the kind that he is talking about.
Mr. Jamieson: Yes, I am aware of that. That is why I said that improvements were being made progressively. The Government have made very substantial investment, but it is progressive. The problem to which the hon. Gentleman alludes is not new. It goes back many years, and certainly predates this Government.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs queried the seven-year franchise. As he knows, it was to have been a 20-year franchise, but the Strategic ail Authority decided that the 20-year deal was poor value for money, so it was renegotiated at seven years. He asked about the Government's policy on railways and said that there was clearly insufficient funding for the Strategic Rail Authority. That may or may not be the case, but I can tell him that the funding that has been made available to the Strategic Rail Authority is at record levels. Never, throughout many years of neglect, was so much money invested in our rail service. Just after Christmas, the hon. Gentleman was quoted in The Daily Telegraph as saying:
"I am digging through current spending, finding opportunities for cuts. It's too early to say how much but it could be up to 20 per cent."
I assume that when he does his digging, cuts will not be identified in the services that would affect his constituents.
Mr. Flight: If the Minister had continued to read the article he would have noticed that I said that it was in order to have the funds for necessary areas of additional investment.
Mr. Jamieson: At another time, I would be interested in arguing with the hon. Gentleman about how we can make 20 per cent. cuts while continuing the level of investment that the Government are making in the rail system. I must politely point out that the two aims are inconsistent, but I am sure that he will argue his case convincingly in some other place at some other time.
The Brighton line is an important link in the southeast rail network. Although the hon. Gentleman may not have been entirely encouraged by everything that I have said, I hope that he will at least feel that our plans will deliver the service that his constituents have every right to expect. The debate has provided a useful opportunity to air some important issues, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for initiating it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

Deferred Divisions

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.
  The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 58.

  Division No.113]

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Ainger, Nick

  Cummings, John

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Allen, Graham

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Davidson, Ian

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Austin, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Banks, Tony

  Dawson, Hilton

  Barnes, Harry

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bayley, Hugh

  Denham, rh John

  Beard, Nigel

  Dhanda, parmjit

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Berry, Roger

  Doran, Frank

  Best, Harold

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Blackman, Liz

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Blair, rh Tony

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Edwards, Huw

  Blunkett, rh David

  Efford, Clive

  Borrow, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Browne, Desmond

  Follett, Barbara

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, rh Derek

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Cairns, David

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  George, rh Burce (Walsall S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gerrard, Neil

  Casale, Roger

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Caton, Martin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

  Clelland, David

  Hanson, David

  Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Coleman, Iain

  Colman, Tony

  Healey, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Corston, Jean

  Heppell, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Hermon, Lady

  Crausby, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cruddas, Jon

  Heyes, David

  406

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Organ, Diana

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Owen, Albert

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Pearson, Ian

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Perham, Linda

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Picking, Anne

  Hutton, rh John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jamieson, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Prescott, rh John

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Kidney, David

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Ruane, Chris

  Knight Jim (S Dorset)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Salter, Martin

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Sawford, Phill

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lepper, David

  Sheridan, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Skinner, Dennis

  Linton, Martin

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Soley, Clive

  MacDonald, Calum

  Southworth, Helen

  MacDougall, John

  Spellar, rh John

  McGrady, Eddie

  Squire, Rachel

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  McIsaac, Shona

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McKechin, Ann

  Stevenson, George

  McNulty, Tony

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  McWalter, Tony

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stringer, Graham

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Martlew, Eric

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Merron, Gillian

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Miliband, David

  Thomas, gareth (Clwyd W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Mole, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Truswell, Paul

  Morgan, Julie

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mudie, George

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Mullin, Chris

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  407

  Vaz Keith (Leicester E)

  Wilson, Brian

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Winnick, David

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Woolas, Phil

  Ward, Claire

  Worthington, Tony

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Watts, David

  White, Brian

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wyatt, Derek

  NOES

  Barrett, John

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Cotter, Brian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Breed, Colin

  Dodds, Nigel

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Burnett, John

  Doughty, Sue

  Burnside, David

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Burstow, Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Cable, Dr.Vincent

  Gidley, Sandra

  Calton,Mrs Patsy

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  408

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Harvey, Nick

  Shepherd, Richard

  Heath, David

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)

  Holmes, Paul

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Keetch, Paul

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Lamb, Norman

  Stunell, Andrew

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Thurso, John

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Weir, Michael

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Pugh, Dr.John

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Buie)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Rendel, David

  Wishart, Pete

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Question accordingly agreed to.