Westminster Hall Sitting of 5 December 2001

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Public Services
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ringer.]
9.30 am
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call Helen Jones, I wish to explain to the Chamber that there is a problem with the annunciator system. The power is down. When it comes back, there is a danger that it will be at high volume until it can be adjusted. Please do not be scared.
Helen Jones: I open the debate as a member of two unions that recruit in the public sector: the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union and Unison. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about public services, which are often taken for granted and sometimes criticised. They were neglected for 18 years under the Conservative Government. Nevertheless, they continue to deliver major improvements to people's lives. Despite the problems, those services provide excellent services for the majority of people every day. They represent some of the best aspects of our society, such as a sense of civic responsibility, a commitment to communal action and a belief that we all have a responsibility to one another. I am part of the generation that has always expected good public services. I am also old enough to remember the great changes that they made in people's lives.
It is a cliché to use one's family in a debate, but I shall do so because mine is representative of millions of other families. My grandparents brought up their children in the most appalling poverty. Although they worked hard all their lives, they lived in slum housing and there was no chance for their elder children to stay on at school past the age of 14, let alone to aspire to higher education. My older uncles and aunts still remember what it was like to struggle to pay a doctor's bill after a new baby was born or when a child had been seriously ill.
Yet my grandmother lived to see her grandchildren born under a national health service, grow up in decent local authority housing, and go to university. We did not go there because we were more clever—we were not—or because we were more prudent. I could not manage on the budget on which my grandmother had to manage. It certainly was not because we worked harder. It happened because public provision made it possible. Public services allowed families to move forward and improve their lives, which could never have been achieved by individual effort alone.
Over two generations, lives completely changed—so much so that my son now finds it difficult to believe the stories that his grandmother tells him. People live longer. We have wiped out many infectious diseases. Educational attainment is higher. People now have higher aspirations, and rightly so. That has come about through public provision. Meeting those higher aspirations is the next challenge that faces our public services.
70WH
We must remember the lessons taught by those people who set up public services. They were not afraid to have a vision. They thought on a grand scale. That was true not only of the founders of the welfare state, but of the great Victorians who set up the public water and sewerage systems in our major cities. It is true of the people who built cities with big public buildings and open spaces. They thought big and were able to do that because they had the support of the public. They kept that support by meeting those aspirations and by fostering a sense of confidence, which enabled people to make changes with the belief that they could achieve their aims.
This country had that in full measure. That was why, even in the midst of the second world war, it could plan for a health service and a welfare state, and have the determination to implement it afterwards, even in times of economic problems. People did that because they believed that they could, and people are coming round to that view again. They are ready to take the steps needed to improve our public services. Years of constant privatisation have told them that there are some things that they cannot buy for themselves. Years of under-investment in transport led to jammed roads and a collapsing railway system. The privatisation of hospital cleaning services resulted in dirtier wards and an increase in hospital-acquired infections, for which, at the end of the day, we all pay.
The scandalous neglect of public housing was one of the little noticed effects of the Conservative Government. The decline and social problems on many estates affected not only the people living there, but the whole community. That was the price we paid. With the collapse of Railtrack, people saw that the theme that private was always good and public always bad was no longer tenable. There have to be changes, but our public services are already demonstrating that they can rise to that challenge. Services such as NHS Direct and the university for industry demonstrate that flexible and responsive public sector services can be delivered when people need them.
There are many examples of innovation and service delivery of the highest standard in my constituency. Our libraries are now installing computers so that even those who cannot afford computers in their homes can have access to the internet. Health visitors in my area set up a project called "tackling men's health", where they worked with the local rugby league club to raise awareness of men's health issues. In Orford in the middle of my constituency, a personal medical services pilot demonstrates some of the best practice. By changing the way it works, it has met the health needs of the area. For example, under the direction of the practice nurse, it offers a good smoking cessation service. Its front-line staff have been retrained. Receptionists have become primary care assistants and can check blood pressure or test urine samples. They can then take NVQs, allowing them to do other tasks such as taking blood samples or nebulising asthma patients. In doing so, they free up the time of other practice staff. A patient who is worried about whether he should come to the surgery can have a telephone consultation with a general practitioner. That is the sort of public service innovation that we want to encourage.
Some believe that our public services are in decline but I do not buy that. Of course, there are problems and there is much more to be done. However, many of them

71WH
still deliver excellence every day. We tend to appreciate such services only when they are not there: for example, refuse collection or the much talked about health service.
My wonderful secretary, Lynn, has given me permission to use her recent experience of the health service as an example. A year last July, she had a brain haemorrhage. She could have died, but was treated in the Walton neurosurgery unit and in Warrington hospital. She later developed eye problems and was treated at St. Paul's eye unit in the Royal Liverpool University hospital. Throughout that time, she received excellent nursing and medical care. The surgeons not only saved her life but restored her sight and got her back to work.
When Lynn later developed cataracts, as she was warned that she would, they were dealt with speedily and efficiently. She went to see the consultant on Tuesday 26 November about the last of her cataracts. She was in hospital the following Sunday, and the operation was performed on Monday. She could not have bought that kind of care in the private sector, however hard she tried. She could never have met the costs at the point of use.
Lynn compared her most recent hospital experience with the time that she went for a minor operation in 1994. She said that the wards are cleaner, the food has improved, and staff morale is much better. It is better because we believe in and support public services whereas the previous Government did not. They opposed the creation of many hospitals, neglected them for 18 years and then tried to privatise them.
I give an example, taken from my constituency, of the result of that neglect. The previous Government allowed the creation of a private wing in the grounds of Warrington hospital. The wing went bust because no one could afford to use it, so we bought it for the NHS. Its facilities are now available for all local people according to need, not ability to pay. It is officially called the Daresbury wing, although staff refer to it as the Dobson wing, after the person who bought it.
My message is that public services can deliver and, for most people, they can deliver well. Of course, we must make changes. We are investing in public services in order to make those changes and to put right 18 years of neglect. Spending, particularly on health and education, is now increasing faster than it is in most European countries. An extra £43 billion is to be spent on public services between this year and 2004, besides the extra £ 1 billion for the health service announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget report. We expect that reform will accompany that investment.
My examples have demonstrated that staff in the public sector are ready to make changes to the way in which they work. That is right, because most of our services were designed for the 1950s. Society has changed irrevocably since then. People expect more. They are no longer so grateful to have any service at all that they will put up with long waits and shabby premises. Our staff know that and are working to meet expectations.
We should not duck the need for change; it offers us great opportunities. We should lay down the principles that underlie public provision, even when we make
72WH
changes. The first of those principles is that public services should support and help those who help themselves and allow them to move forward. However, public services must also recognise their duty to care for the weakest in our society, who cannot help themselves.
We can make public services more responsive to local needs and local demands by investing in and supporting front-line staff. In my experience, staff on the front line often know more about what is needed and what works in public services than anyone else. Staff are fizzing with ideas, which we must allow them to try out. We must be adult enough and honest enough to admit that, although most of those ideas will work, some may not. Change is always a risk.
We should recognise the expertise of staff who have spent many years in the public sector, often on low pay. We should be rewarding them and building on their commitment to ensure that we make the best use of their experience. The Government have taken steps in that direction by allowing health care assistants to train as nurses, for example, and classroom assistants to become teachers. However, a lot more needs to be done. The Government must examine the matter. People who make a commitment to public service should be rewarded with a proper career path.
We must create a proper public sector management ethos. We need to recruit the best and brightest managers, and to find ways to encourage them to be committed to a career in public service. We should explore the possibility of establishing a public sector management college that will attract the best and brightest, taking as our model the French Grands Ecoles, a prestigious institution that enables people who enter public service to have a good career. Managers who deliver must be rewarded.
Our public services must develop a greater culture of openness and accountability. They should be willing to learn from their mistakes; they should be able to admit it when things go wrong and to put them right. We are making great strides in the national health service, for example, in that respect. However, a lot more needs to be done.
The culture of accountability must be taken further. Local authorities must be freed, so that they can invest in reform and make improvements. I am glad that the Government have made a commitment to allow them to borrow, because we need to give real choices to the people on the ground. People who work in housing, for example, need to be able to choose between trusts, arm's length companies and staying with the council. They can have that choice only if local councils can invest in repairs and improvements in the same way as housing trusts can.
We should not be afraid of that. We should recognise that, in different parts of the country, that will result in different conditions and in different ways of doing things. That is local democracy: if a local authority gets things wrong, it will pay the price at the ballot box, just as hon. Members do.
We need to have a grown-up debate with voters about public servicesߞabout what our priorities are and how we are going to pay for them. We must be honest politicians and admit that we cannot perform miracles. There is a price to be paid for everything, and it is impossible to have American levels of taxation and

73WH
European levels of public service. We need to say to people that if they are not prepared to fund public services, there is another price to pay, which we experienced under the last Conservative Government: not only poor services, but a fractured society.
The price that is paid for public services is a subscription for belonging to a decent society. Public services have delivered that consistently, for many years. They have delivered excellence and care, and have allowed many people to improve their lives in ways that were previously unimaginable. We should celebrate that, and look at ways to allow our public services to go forward, working with their staff to do an even better job in the future.
9.48 am
Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and, in particular, to follow the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). I agree with everything that she has said. Her eloquence is matched only by that of the 13 empty chairs that are facing us this morning. That speaks volumes about the Opposition's attitude to the celebration of public services. It is great to celebrate public services, and we should do emphatically.
My background is as a social worker with children and families in local authorities. That profession is the epitome of public service. Social workers with children and families carry out the fundamental role that is given to local government: the role of "corporate parent"—an appalling and horrible phrase—to young people in care. It is a good parent to young people who must be looked after. Social work is a service that practises unconditional positive regard: people are worthy of respect, hard work and compassion whatever they have done, and they have dignity, something to offer and can be worked with.
Social work with children and families is a service that attends to the needs of the needy and vulnerable and those whose behaviour can be extremely challenging and difficult. The service reaches out to people who have been bereaved, abused, wronged and hurt. It represents the last line of defence for many people; sometimes it is the only line of defence that they ever have. The service reaches out to people in custody and prison, those who suffer from mental illness and those who have absolutely nothing. Hundreds of thousands of people do social work with children and families in many ways. We must acknowledge that cleaners, domestics or handymen, who may not think that they have skills in social work but who can build good relationships, can often do the best work with children in children's homes. Their practical activities may strike a chord with people whom others have been unable to touch.
Many people work in social services and some are the best people I know or will ever know. They work with children and families not as a job, but as a vocation. They always go the extra mile and never give up on people. They keep on keeping on, work antisocial hours and always and unequivocally put the needs of children and their families first.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something very precious about the public services to which he has referred? The public service ethos cannot be bought. People have a real commitment to those for whom they care, which goes beyond mere payment. It is not only about remuneration. It would be bad to lose that ethos.
Mr. Dawson: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes my point for me, but he leads me in another direction. The spirit of public service and the vocational emphasis have often been abused in the past, and people have not been properly paid or treated well at work.
We rarely hear about people who simply go about their ordinary lives and the business of social work, however high quality and heroic the work may be. I use the word "heroic" in its proper sense. Frankly, the world seems interested in many public services, certainly in social services, only when things go wrong. People are interested in failures and scandals, workers' incompetence, and villains. Every activity—social work, public service, every other activity in the world—has those features. It is right that incompetence, bad practice and downright criminal behaviour should be exposed but, for once, we have an opportunity to celebrate public service.
Paddy Tipping: An important point is being made about failure. Does my hon. Friend agree that, through the Office for Standards in Education, the Audit Commission and others, far too much focus is on identifying failure rather than looking for success, good practice and promoting, praising and celebrating that success and good practice?
Mr. Dawson: I could not agree more. That is an exceptionally important point. Far too often, we examine to detect failure and define problems when we could be looking at the details of day-to-day work, which is of high quality, and bringing it to the fore. It always amazes me to see the Oscar ceremonies and awards on television, when well paid and famous people queue up to slap each other on the back. I want to see loads of social workers getting awards for the good jobs that they do day in, day out.
Mr. Mark Oaten: I think that the hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the concept of the Audit Commission. Every Audit Commission report is based on looking at good practice, celebrating public service and saying, "If it can be done well in one part of the public sector, why can it not be matched in another part?" It is not about doing down the public services. It is about celebrating them when something is done well, and asking others to match that quality.
Mr. Dawson: To tell the truth, I do not recall mentioning the Audit Commission. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about its role. However, the culture in which so much inspection takes place is about finding fault. There should be an emphasis on looking at good quality, extending it and supporting those who carry out such work, sometimes in the most difficult circumstances, where resources are poor and management structures are not as good as they should be.

75WH
The best way to celebrate public services is to talk about the ways in which we can support public services better. In many cases, extremely valuable staff performing an important function are let down by a range of people. Often they are let down by local politicians—I speak as someone who has been a local politician—who do not value properly the services that they carry out, and sometimes do not understand the fundamental importance of their role. Sometimes, they need to be reminded forcefully, as they were only a couple of years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), about their fundamental role in relation to corporate parenting. It must be emphasised and re-emphasised over and again that local councillors have the most important role to play in relation to the parenting of children in care and many other services.
Staff at the front line and the sharp end are often let down enormously by the grievous bureaucracy that still prevails, unfortunately, in many parts of the public sector, and in other areas, by inflexibility, departmentalism, and—my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North made this point extremely well—management who fail to listen to, value, understand and empower those staff at the coal face who know the job inside out, are utterly committed to their work and have brilliant ideas about how to develop and improve the service.
We should trust and empower people more and give them proper support. Giving those who do some of the lowest-paid jobs in public services their head would bring about far greater improvements to public services than the Fancy Dan, top-down approaches of privatisation and external management techniques. If we trust those who are committed to working in public services and support them properly, we will make much greater progress.
We must provide support by offering precisely the career structure to which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North referred, and by paying such people properly. Every Wednesday, the "Society" pages of The Guardian advertise social work posts. Today's advertisements are asking for experienced people to work in child protection, with offenders with mental disorders, with children who need preparation for longterm placements, and with children and adults whose terrible disabilities have undermined their lives. However, we are offering such people between £16.000 and £23,000 a year.
On Tuesdays, The Guardian carries many advertisements for jobs in the media, in marketing and cultural services. Important and good as those jobs undoubtedly are, they do not hold a candle to those advertised in The Guardian today, yet they are paid tremendously better than front-line social work posts. We should pay those who work in public services a decent rate, particularly given that the economy is so successful and that a wide range of employment opportunities exists. No wonder we are finding it difficult to recruit staff for important public services.
We must ensure that our public services are staffed not only by paragons—those for whom such work is a vocation, and who will work all day, every day because
76WH
that is what they want to do—but by competent, highly intelligent, well-motivated, career-minded people who see in such work a good way to earn a living throughout their entire working life. I hope that this debate contributes to that process.
10.3 am
Rachel Squire: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on securing this debate, on making an excellent speech, and on giving us the opportunity to celebrate public services. I apologise for the fact that, unfortunately, I must leave before the end of the debate to attend a Select Committee meeting. I shall be brief so that others can contribute.
As has been said, we all tend to take for granted the invaluable contribution that those who work in public services make to our daily lives. We certainly need to give them greater reward and recognition. In particular, we need to tackle the continuing inequality in pay, which has been highlighted in today's news and which affects many women workers. I liked the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson): why should we not have a national Oscar awards-type ceremony every year for every sort and grade of public service worker ?
I should declare an interest: I am a member of Unison, the largest public service union. I came into politics through my activity as a shop steward; later I became a full-time official representing public service workers. I wanted to tackle the injustices that I saw in society in general, and particularly the injustices and inequalities that were affecting public service workers and the people to whom they gave such commitment.
I can offer one or two examples of public service workers from my own experience. I worked with and represented hospital domestics in Liverpool, Ayrshire, Renfrewshire and Fife. Prior to privatisation, they treated hospital wards as though they were their own homes. They were low-paid, part-time women workers but they knew the names of every single patient and would take the time to stop to say hello and have a chat. They would pay for from their own pockets and bring in a card or small present for an elderly patient whose birthday it was. They would provide comfort and support to patients and families, as well as the same high standard of cleanliness as they expected and provided in their homes.
They were not there for the money; they were on very low pay. They were there because of a genuine commitment. As my hon. Friends have said, when the last Conservative Government started to privatise cleaning, catering and other services, we lost those standards and that quality. Report after report has demonstrated that what we predicted at the time has happened: hygiene quality and standards have suffered. We must now show our commitment to restoring that quality and those standards and to giving women such as those hospital domestics a feeling that they are recognised and valued as equal members of our society.
Another example of such commitment comes from my contact with home helps and home carers throughout the country. Again, the vast majority were women working part time who balanced low-paid jobs with bringing up their families. They were often carers for adult, elderly or disabled relatives and, in areas such

77WH
as Fife and Ayrshire, had to deal with the horrendous consequences of the miners' strike: a year without pay and the devastation that that brought to their families and communities. However, time and again, they went beyond their contractual hours. They would call in at weekends, on public holidays, at Christmas and new year to ensure that wee Jeanie or wee Jimmie were all right and had all that they needed.
As we all look forward to settling down in our warm comfortable homes at the Christmas and new year break, we should remember that every day of the week, 24 hours a day, public service workers are out there providing services that we take for granted. We all give an occasional thought to ambulance staff, the fire service and the police, but it is too easy to forget the many other public service workers: those in residential and nursing homes; those who provide all sorts of hospital care; those who provide emergency repairs to the roof when stormy winds have blown it off; those who come out to tackle problems with and restore gas, electricity and water supplies affected by stormy weather.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North has said, we must also remember those who collect our refuse. We are all desperate to have our bins emptied after Christmas because they are full of turkey bones and wrapping paper, and we expect the bin men to provide that service. The refuse collectors in my area take time to check that people who are on their own are all right. If their bin has not been put out, they will ensure that someone knocks on the door to check that they are well.
I represent a Scottish constituency which is known for bad weather during the winter months and I want to mention the road gritters and the services that they provide in more remote and rural communities. They go out in blizzard conditions when the rest of us are told to stay at home and not venture out. They put their lives at risk to accompany ambulances, fire engines and other vehicles that may be trying to reach people trapped in their cars, or to get people to hospital for emergency or urgent treatment.
I back the excellent speeches and suggestions of my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, North and for Lancaster and Wyre. I am proud to be a citizen of a country in which hundreds of thousands of people show a daily commitment to others. I am proud to be a member of a union that seeks to give equal worth and value to those people. I am proud and accept the responsibility of having been given the opportunity to be a Member of Parliament. We must deliver greater reward and recognition for our public service workers and give them the opportunities that public services give to us.
10.11 am
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on securing this debate and on her excellent speech, in which she spoke passionately about the magnificent public services in Britain and the workers who are employed in them. My hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) also made admirable speeches. I endorse everything they said.
78WH
I shall focus on privatisation. I urge the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister to keep public services public and not to pursue privatisation. Some weeks ago in this Chamber, I described the private finance initiative as irrational nonsense. I do not retract from that at all and was pleased that it gained some currency in the broadsheet journals. Since then, more evidence has come to light, demonstrating that what I said was correct.
I want to quote some research from Unison, which estimates that
"for every £1 bn of PFI contracts, the cost to the public purse is £50 million per year more than if the public sector could borrow directly. The costs of PFI have been met by cuts in services and in the employment conditions of public sector workers."
Thus we get 5 per cent. extra costs or, to put it another way, 5 per cent. less for our money by using PFI schemes.
Other aspects of privatisation have been touched on. Contracting-out of services inevitably means that profits are paid from costs, public service workers' pay is squeezed and staffing levels are cut. The quality of services gets worse. Reference has been made to hospital cleaning. At Luton and Dunstable hospital, we have come to the point of taking cleaning services back in-house. We have deprivatised them and the hospital is becoming cleaner. It has recently had a magnificent report; it is one of the hospitals that received three stars in the Government's assessment. I understand that it is the 11th best hospital in the country.
There is other research evidence on privatisation and private sector costs. Public and private health care costs in the United States of America have been compared. Administrative costs as a percentage of total hospital costs in the USA are 22.9 per cent. in the public sector and 34 per cent. in the private sector. We all know what a bloated, over-expensive health service the Americans have in the private sector.
Australian evidence shows that the estimated average cost per medical episode in Australia is 10 per cent. higher in private than in public hospitals. Where does the money go? It goes into profits and into vast payments for company executives. Statistics provided by the Labour research department show where the money goes and what remuneration executives receive. At Rentokil, one of the contracting companies, Sir Clive Thompson receives a salary of £1,076,000 per annum. In Jarvis plc, Paris Moayedi receives £509,000 per year; last year he received a 46.7 per cent. increase on the previous year, as well as dividends of £368,000.
Comparisons can be made between that remuneration and the average pay of workers in the contracting companies; for example, the chief executive of Compass, Francis McKay, receives £660,250 per year, while his average employee is paid £8,545. That is 77 times greater, which is grotesque. The great majority of workers in such companies are low-paid women.
When we increase public spending, we want the money to go into service provision and patient care, not into the bloated profits of a private contractor or fat-cat executive payments. The problem is decades of underfunding of our public services. One example is health. We can refer to the European Union average, to which much reference has been made recently. During the past 30 years, we have spent nearly £10 billion a year

79WH
less on our health service than the European average; the precise figure is £9.2 billion. That is the equivalent of £14 million per constituency every year for 30 years. The situation is getting worse: the difference between France, which allegedly has the best health service in the world—not the most expensive, but the best—and us is the equivalent of £40 million per constituency every year. No wonder we have stresses and problems such as queues in the health service, and health service workers not being paid as they should be.
GPs and consultants have visited me to ask me to intervene to solve some of the problems that they face daily. I frequently write to Ministers at the Department of Health, who know that my letters are sometimes intemperate in language, which I regret. However, we must sometimes speak the truth.
Recently, a friend retired from being a teacher and needed a bypass operation, which he could not get. He had to wait while in danger of having a heart attack and perhaps dying. A friend of his had a house in France and said, "Come and stay with me for a few weeks. If after dinner one night you have a slight pain in the chest, the local hospital will give you a bypass overnight. After that, you can spend a while longer with me and then return home." He could have a bypass in France free of charge, but could not do so in his own country. That is a shame. The health service is not unwilling, but the resources are simply not there.
Luton and Dunstable hospital in my constituency is a fine one with dedicated people working for it. I am in regular contact with them and praise them to the skies for their work. None the less, they admit that their cardiac department is half the size that it should be. It is no wonder that there are problems and that a GP should contact me asking what to do when a patient needs an angioplasty and cannot get one because of lack of resources.
We must invest in the public sector and consider what has happened to it during the past 30 years. The figures provided by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which were recently published in a report, are incredible and show how public investment has fallen in Britain during that time. Since 1975, when it peaked, investment in the public sector has fallen from 9 per cent. of gross domestic product to 2 per cent. of GDP in 2000. No wonder we have difficulties. Spending must rise substantially, but it must go into public services and decent pay for public sector workers, not into private finance initiatives or private contracting.
I refer to a campaign recently started by Unison. I should declare an interest: I am associated both with the General Municipal Boilermakers union and Unison, two unions in the public sector, although I speak entirely for myself and my constituents. There is a campaign called "Remember 83". For Labour Members, remembering 1983 is a painful experience. I was a Labour candidate for Parliament that year, and I did well narrowly to beat the third-placed candidate in the same constituency where I now have a majority of some 10,000. That is how badly we did in 1983. The "Remember 83" campaign is about not 1983, but the 83 per cent. of the population who oppose introducing the private sector into public services. They do not want privatisation of the health service.
80WH
I urge the Minister to remember that we must not lose the public service ethos—the sense of commitment to public service and to our fellow human beings. When people work for other people, they feel better about themselves than they would if they worked simply for money. Money goes only so far. We all need it to live on, so it seems right that people should be properly remunerated. However, when people are working for other people, they feel that what they are doing is of immense value, particularly when those people are vulnerable, young, old, sick or disabled. That is when they are at their best and when human beings are at their most noble. It is Labour Members' job to remember that and to promote it for the future, not to go down the route of privatisation.
10.24 am
Mr. Harold Best: I was delighted to discover that the time for this debate had been obtained through the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). I thought that her speech this morning was first class.
I am standing here today because of the success of public services. Two factors allowing me to stand here are due to the national health service. First, cardiology was important to me just a few years ago; I might not be standing here otherwise. Secondly, this summer, I had my left hip replaced again. That operation involved some re-engineering of work done 15 years ago by the NHS. Therefore, I stand here as a representative of the success of the NHS, one of the finest public services that it is possible to imagine. However, public services are not always as well run as one might anticipate or hope for.
There is a tendency for us sometimes to forget experiences that we have had in the past. I would like to tell the Chamber about an experience I had in the 1970s—a long time ago. My wife and I were going to be godparents in a town in Yorkshire called Knaresborough, which is not far from Harrogate. We had to travel from Leeds. We checked the timetable for the train on Sunday, and found the train we wanted. We turned up at the station, only to discover there was no train at that time.
I went to complain to the people in the railway station, and the man said, "There normally is a train, but the trouble is that we're doing some maintenance work on the track and we forgot to amend the timetable. Just a moment." He disappeared and then returned to say, " I've just cleared this with my boss." He climbed over the counter and said, "Follow me." We got into his car and within half an hour we were in Knaresborough.
That sort of dedication from a public servant in providing customer satisfaction cannot be beaten. Imagine that same type of service being provided by Arriva—those who know the area know what I am talking about. Arriva cannot even get the drivers to run the trains. Every day, at Leeds station, there is an announcement saying, "We regret to inform people wishing to travel to Huddersfield that there is no train because there is no driver. However, there is a bus running from Leeds station to Huddersfield station." Those are the essential benefits that one can get from a public service, as opposed to some examples of private service.
I do not want to be seen as someone who knocks private services. I am talking about successful public services. We all experience successful private services at

81WH
some stage in our normal working day: one enters a corner shop and the service is first class because there is direct contact with the public. Shopkeepers need to know that they are satisfying their customers in a personal, direct way. There are similar examples. It is a case not of one against the other, but of managing the most intelligent form of service that is required to meet particular needs. We must maintain that balanced view.
Public service means more than the health service and the railway system. Today, we are taking part in perhaps the most important public service: that which democracy renders to the people, whom it claims to represent and work for. Regrettably, there has been a serious decline in the ability of local democracy to deliver for the people it is elected to represent. We must redress that balance in favour of public servants in local government. If we can do that, we shall be committing a great act in defence of public services. The demoralisation of local government by spending controls has been terrible to witness, and we must give back the power to deliver to public services such as democracy.
If hon. Members' constituencies are like mine, there will be problems with street litter. My constituency has a serious problem in that regard. More than 50 per cent. of my constituency's residents are transients, most of whom are students; shortly, they will vacate the area in which I live for Christmas. There is a huge take-away industry in my constituency, although it is really a throw-away industry. Vast quantities of material are deposited in public places, and it is deeply offensive to the public eye. It is time that we took action to defend those public spaces, which are ours. We should be able to do that through local government, which is the greatest public service.
Because I feel passionate about local government's role in public services and the democratic values that flow from the public service that councillors give, I want to give other hon. Members an opportunity to speak. I shall sit down, but I want hon. Members to notice how smoothly I do so, which is due to the success of the NHS.
10.28 am
Paddy Tipping: I am always keen to follow a smooth act, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best), I am keen to stress the importance of high-quality, world-class public services. We are on the road to achieving that.
Real investment is going into public services. Alongside that investment, we must reform the public services. Social workers, teachers and refuse cleaners are committed to that.
World-class public services are provided by involving the work force. The Government's position on public services seems to be linked to earlier reforms by previous Governments. That is dangerous. It is vital to consider how good public services are managed. There is a role for the private sector in the delivery of public services, but it is up to Ministers with responsibility for health, education and other matters to define what it is. Uncertainty about that definition is leading to a lack of morale in public services. There is still a feeling that public service delivery is bad and private sector delivery is good. It is important to ensure that services work for the communities that they serve.
82WH
Yesterday, I met a group of Unison stewards from Nottinghamshire. I must confess that I am a Unison member; I have been involved in the delivery of public services all my life. What struck me was their determination that services should meet the needs of families and communities.
In strengthening the resources of the Cabinet Office and the delivery unit, we should be aware that setting targets can create problems. Resources should be devolved to a local level to let local people deliver local solutions to local problems. We should celebrate the fact that people in Luton, Lancaster, Leeds, Nottingham, Newcastle or Nuneaton come up with different solutions and responses, but there is some anxiety about that. We hear a lot about the control freak tendency. I say on the record very quickly that I do not think that that exists. However, unless we empower local people we will lose the commitment of public sector workers.
Regulatory bodies such as Ofsted, the police inspectorate and the Audit Commission focus too much on the nuts and bolts of service delivery. They are good at looking for efficiency measures, but not so good at identifying and promoting success. I accept that the Audit Commission has changed its position, but the district auditor's approach to best value continues to focus on failure. If there is one body that has created a lack of morale in the education service it is Ofsted, with its consistent focus on failure. We need to identify success and to treat the work force who are producing it as beacons of excellence.
We should celebrate what is good in public services. There is a great deal of it about. We should be proud to use public servants to roll forward our public services to ensure that they meet local needs. Investment is taking place and the work force are committed to reform. The messages that we send out to them, both at national and local level, must aim to facilitate and encourage them in their work.
The central focus on targets is a danger. Let us loosen the lead a little, devolve resources, and let local people and work forces consider local problems and introduce local solutions. That really would be a celebration of success in our public services.
10.34 am
Mr. Mark Oaten: I am delighted to take part in this excellent debate. I congratulate warmly the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on bringing us together to focus on success and to celebrate public services. All too often, Members of Parliament hear in their constituency surgeries about the bad side and the difficulties. All too often, the debate is about the problems. It is important to celebrate the good work that takes place.
The hon. Lady was right to say that we often take public services for granted. She was also right to highlight current innovation, use of the internet and development. Public services are moving on. I agree that we need a mature and sensible debate about their future.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was right to talk about the need to empower staff. Front-line staff know a lot about what is involved in their work day to day. We should trust and empower those individuals more, so that they have a greater say. He was right to touch on the issue of pay,

83WH
and to compare the salaries for jobs advertised in The Guardian on Monday with those for jobs advertised in that newspaper on Wednesday.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) highlighted the public sector ethos—on Christmas day, people nip in to see the folks for whom they care, and are prepared to put their hand into their pockets to pay for a Christmas card and a present. That is an important point.
I disagree with several points made by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). He did not have an open mind on private sector involvement. I agree that PFI is not a satisfactory model, but there are many other ways in which the public sector can become involved in public services apart from PFI. We are too hung up on thinking that PFI is the only way in which that can be achieved. I would describe the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) as the bionic man—I am delighted that the operations have been successful—and I was pleased that he had an open mind about private sector involvement.
It is a big disappointment that we did not have a chance to hear more from the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). If he had had more time to speak, we would have heard much more interesting information. I agree entirely with his remarks about Ofsted and his critical point about falling into the trap of assuming that everything that the private sector does is good, and everything that the public sector does is bad. There is good and bad on all sides. In a mature debate, we need to look at best practice.
I want to focus on a few key issues in relation to public services, and to allow time for the two winding-up speeches. Money is an issue. I quote one example that had a profound impact on me. A couple of years ago, I visited the pathology department in my local hospital. I was able to avoid passing out at seeing blood everywhere, but the other big impact was made by the comments of two individuals who worked in that department. The first person said that he was going to leave the department to work for a food manufacturer and to test chicken for bacteria. He was going to earn more money doing that. I looked at the second person and said that she looked absolutely exhausted, and that she must be working extremely hard. She said that she did work hard, but the reason why she was exhausted was that she finished her pub job at midnight the night before. She had to do that job to be able to work in the pathology department. What a ridiculous situation.
Another issue is to try to reward some of the people who work in public services. Currently, there is a Queen's police medal and a Queen's fire service medal. That leaves a big gap. Will the Minister consider the idea of a Queen's ambulance service medal? The work carried out by the ambulance service is phenomenal. It is often the first service on the scene, and is involved in horrendously difficult situations such as air and rail accidents. The people who work in that service put themselves into difficult situations with great bravery. I tabled an early-day motion on that issue during the previous Parliament, which attracted about 100 names. Support also comes from the Red Cross, the fire service and the police, who want their colleagues in the emergency services to be rewarded.
84WH
I want to speak briefly about work loads. We can talk about pay, awards and rewarding staff, but the other big issue is the amount of legislation and initiatives coming from central Government, which impact on our public services. Since this Government came to power, 4,500 targets have been set in the key area of education. The first thing that happens to me when I visit a school is that the head takes me into an office and shows me a pile of legislation and initiatives. Heads would probably say that the individual ideas are good and worthy. However, the problem is the collective amount of stuff that comes through. I hope that the Government recognise that they could help those who work in the public service by pacing change more and acknowledging that the pile of red tape and legislation is too great.
It is important to involve and engage some of the professions. They would be prepared to move with change, and many public service workers would be prepared to examine a model using the private sector. It is critical to have an open mind, to involve those individuals in the debate and to listen to them more. We hear the criticism that the Government do not appear to want to listen to them.
Mr. Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman mentioned my speech in passing and talked generally about the success of the private sector in public services without giving specific examples. I have dozens of examples of the failure of the private sector in public services. Will he tell me about the successes?
Mr. Oaten: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of his friend who went to France and had a successful operation. However, the French model is not purely funded by public money because parts of the model work differently. That is a classic example from the hon. Gentleman's speech.
I make a plea on the difficulty of recruiting individuals to public services. In Winchester and the south-east, property prices are phenomenally high and we have major difficulties recruiting police, care workers and hospital workers. We have to recruit people from abroad to work in hospitals and desperately try to fill gaps and vacancies in the police service. The Government have introduced concepts about key workers' salaries, but they must try harder to tackle the issue. Although we wish to celebrate public services and reward individuals, if we cannot recruit people, we are in a real mess.
10.41 am
Mr. Tim Collins: I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on securing the debate and on her passionate and informed speech. I was struck by what she said about how public services have helped to improve peoples' lives over recent decades and the changing experiences in her grandmother's lifetime. I am sure that she would acknowledge that Conservatives have formed the Government for 49 of the past 71 years. Therefore, the improvement is not wholly the Labour party's achievement.
In these debates, we should move away from slightly sterile exchanges in which the party in government claims that everything is perfect when it is in office and

85WH
everything was dreadful when the other lot were in, while the party in opposition claims the reverse—everything was wonderful until it left office and has been dreadful ever since. There is excellence in the public services under this Government, and there was excellence under the last Conservative Government. There were problems in the past and there are problems now. The question is how we can address those problems and build on the successes.
I have often heard the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who is not quite a neighbour of mine, speak and he brings extraordinary knowledge, passion and care to all debates on social services. He has the greatest experience and expertise of any hon. Member on such matters and, yet again, he spoke with vim and vigour. He was correct to say that if we trusted public servants on the ground more, we would get more out of them and public services would run more smoothly.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) spoke from a background of considerable experience about injustices and inequalities that relate to public service workers.
Like the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), I was struck by the remarks of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). He started in a nonpartisan fashion with his scathing criticism of the private finance initiative, because that attacks both my party and his own Government. However, he described the French system as probably the best health service in the world. We must learn from the experience of other European countries.
Although many excellent people work in our national heath service—I would say that because my sister is an NHS GP—there are problems with our service. Health care outcomes are not as good as those in most other European countries. We should learn lessons from what works on the continent, and apply those lessons in Britain. If we reach non-partisan consensus on that, we will have made some progress.
Mr. Hopkins: As we all know, the problem is underfinancing. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that French compulsory insurance, which makes a larger contribution to public services than direct taxation, is little different from British national insurance contributions? Compulsory insurance is less progressive than income tax, but because of France's more equal income structure, that is less of a problem. The French taxation system is less regressive.
Mr. Collins: I do not particularly want to intrude on the grief that apparently exists between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In last week's Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister talked about social insurance in similar terms to those used by the hon. Gentleman, who may yet receive a call from 10 Downing street. The hon. Gentleman is back on the party line, as far as Downing street is concerned. In the pre-Budget report, the Chancellor was a little more scathing about funding health care by any method other than taxation. That debate is raging within Government, and we should discuss the issue, too.
I was delighted to see that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) stood up and sat down smoothly. He mentioned that his first hip operation,
86WH
which was performed successfully under the NHS, occurred 15 years ago. A Conservative Government were then in power, and that reflects the fact that there has been excellence and success under both Conservative and Labour Governments. It is not the case that public services were a terrible tragedy before 1997, or that there has been total excellence since then.
Mr. Best: I want the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that a public service provided that service in both cases.
Mr. Collins: I do, and in the hon. Gentleman's case, it was a public service run by a Conservative Government, so we are all happy. What a delightful non-partisan note on which to proceed.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) talked about the dangers of the Government's approach to health services. He was right to say that we must move away from the idea that the private sector is always good and the public sector is always bad. We should also move away from the opposite stance. The Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping was right to say that it does not matter whether a cat is black or white; what matters is whether it catches mice. We should pragmatically consider what works.
We should reflect on the fact that our public services are important and are the fabric that holds our society together, whether their business is to save lives, defend national security, prevent crime, care for the vulnerable or pass on knowledge from one generation to another. I agree with the point about the importance of local government, which provides a vital public service by representing local communities.
We must move forward with clear principles. Many hon. Members have set out some of those. I should like to add a few, some of which are similar to those that we have heard. We must respect the professionalism of public servants. We must allow them to exercise independent judgment and to give those who depend on their services the benefit of their training and experience. That has implications for the quantity of regulation and inspection applied to public servants.
We must provide proper resources for our public services but we must also give them financial discretion. For example, there has been much debate on the state of cleanliness of our hospitals. Many hospitals in my constituency and elsewhere are grateful to the Government for providing additional resources for cleaning their hospitals but resent being told that the money can be spent on cleaning only those parts of the hospital that are visible to the public. Staff point out that to reduce the risk of disease or infection, they must clean the whole hospital, not just the bits that are on public display.
We must provide management and structures that ease, not hinder, the tasks of public servants. We must increase the choice available to those who use the services. That does not go against the public service ethos; the best public servants are strongly in favour of increased choice. We should thank our public servants, in a non-partisan way, for all that they do for us, our constituents, and residents and citizens of this country. Public servants are appreciated. Although hon. Members differ on many issues, Parliament strongly endorses, welcomes and supports the work of our excellent public services, and it looks forward to building on the best throughout the country.
10.49 am
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate, and I am glad that hon. Members have had an opportunity to examine the principles that underpin public services. It is impossible for me to address adequately in the remaining 10 minutes the many issues that have been raised.
The Trades Union Congress rally which took place in Westminster yesterday rightly sought to celebrate the virtues of the public services, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on securing today's debate. She spoke passionately about her experiences of the public services and those of her family. She also mentioned the high ambitions and ideals of the founding fathers—and mothers—of our public services.
Opportunities to examine in detail the fundamental philosophy that underpins the public services occur too infrequently. As elected representatives—and, in some cases, holders of public office who help to run the public services—hon. Members should grasp every one of them. We should address several key questions. Why do we choose to deliver public services? Who is best placed to deliver them? What services should we deliver collectively? How do we make decisions about those services?
The most famous touchstone remark is that of Baroness Thatcher that there is no such thing as society. That comment has frequently been cited, because it exemplifies the fundamental divide in British politics between those who see the nation as a random collection of individuals, and those of us who cherish the reality of communities, families and networks of interdependency, and who acknowledge that they make up the society in which we live and our collective consciousness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) memorably commented on the tradition of community spirit that has been demonstrated by our historic decisions to form Parliament, Government and local authorities and to deliver public services, which is a more tangible expression of that community ethos.
Our public services are rightly cherished. The public have a great affection for them and hold them in the highest esteem. We should underline the value of the role that is performed by those individuals who provide basic services for the nation such as health, schooling, policing, protecting the environment and ensuring that Britain keeps going at all times. We should pay tribute to their hard work and commitment.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and for Warrington, North referred to the quiet stories of excellence that occur every day in our public services. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) talked about the vocation of social work, and about how, day in and day out, social workers put the needs of children and families first. He used the word "heroic". That is the right term, and I pay tribute to those people. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) spoke about her experience of working in the
88WH
public sector, and reminded us that we must not take for granted day-to-day services such as road gritting and refuse collection, as they are also important. As has been mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West is a walking testament to the virtues of the national health service and other public services.
Why do we come together, through Government, to provide public services? At root, we do that because of our common recognition that, as a civilised society, we constantly advance if we create a climate that is conducive to fostering opportunities for all. Everyone should be able to realise their potential. Everyone should be able to learn and to develop their skills for work and for self-improvement. Everyone should enjoy good health and longer and more comfortable lives. Everyone should be able to travel more safely in a decent environment and to have security so that they can lead peaceful lives that are free from crime. The importance of fun, leisure and recreation should not be forgotten.
All those reasons and more justify our delivery of public services. They do not benefit only the less fortunate and the more needy in society; we all benefit collectively from public services. We do not have public services for altruistic reasons alone. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) pointed out that economies of scale can be gained from collective provision, which sometimes cannot be so easily gained through individual insurance-based provision. In addition, efficiencies and cost savings can be made. Those are all reasons for having mutually provided public services rather than services based purely on profit extraction.
Helen Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the minute people begin to use widespread private insurance services, they become more reluctant to pay for public services for the people who cannot afford it? The key to good public services is that they are provided for everyone.
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend has touched on the points that we have debated, particularly in the past few days, about the national health service, comparative ways of funding and raising resources, and the efficiencies involved. Social insurance and other forms of private insurance need to be examined in more depth. I agree with the points that she has made.
These are testing times for public services; there is no doubt about that. Demands are high, pressures are constant and capacity is always being strained. In schools, there is a drive for ever higher standards of achievement. In the national health service, there are more operations and higher expectations because the population is living longer than ever before. In transport, there are more commuters and higher car ownership. There are great problems in meeting the ever-increasing expectations of our public services, and they need to be dealt with. In some quarters, there is a history of poor management and perhaps back-burner attention from previous Administrations. There has been chronic under-investment, asset stripping and a failed dogma of unjustified privatisation.
There are stark realities that we need to face. Cures will not come simply or overnight. We must find better ways of developing true partnerships between managers

89WH
and front-line staff to foster the feeling of shared common endeavour. We need to look at restructuring management systems and building the management skills that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North mentioned. Nothing is free in public services and ways must be found of paying for them. The pre-Budget report talked about how new resources should be matched with public services reform.
There are lots of solutions, many of which have been mentioned today. In the reform of public services, the existing system must be shored up with better recruitment and retention of key workers. Salaries must be improved. There should be performance incentives, but there must also be flexible working, child care assistance and so on. We must ensure that we make the capital investment necessary to improve the infrastructure that public servants work with day in, day out.
The Prime Minister set out four clear principles of public services reform. First, a framework of national standards, inspection and accountability, not simply to find fault, but to highlight good practice, needs to be devised. Secondly, we must devolve more freedom to front-line staff. Thirdly, the work of front-line staff should be more readily recognised and the value and professionalism of public sector workers acknowledged through pay awards and better conditions. The
90WH
suggestion about an ambulance service medal made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) is certainly one that I will take back to my colleagues in the Department of Health. Fourthly, we must consider ways of widening choice for public services users, increasing variety and expanding those areas that are especially successful.
Private sector involvement it is not about dogmatic privatising. It is not a panacea or magical device. Nor is it about changing the ethos of public services. We must bring the best customer-oriented aspects of the private sector into the public sector. The public should be treated as individual consumers who deserve and expect respect and the highest quality of service, rather than as faceless recipients of product.
I understand some of the misgivings that have been voiced about public-private partnerships. However, we must look not only at the costs of borrowing, but at project management, servicing and the transfer of risk in those areas. There are too many issues for me to discuss all of them today. There are great things going on in public services. The notion of the public service ethos is extremely important. I believe that public services encapsulate mutual interdependence at local and national levels. That proves that public services are a good way of delivering what we need throughout our communities.

Government of Wales Act 1998
11 am
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am pleased to have secured time for such an important debate. As we know, the creation of the National Assembly for Wales carried some high hopes. It was to be a new age for Welsh politics and the Assembly would make practical improvements to everyday life in Wales. Some positive things have happened. There is a more open and accountable system than was in place previously. We have got rid of testing for seven-year-olds. We have seen the end of the publishing of school league tables. I am delighted that we have a Children's Commissioner, a post for which I have worked hard over the years. We have free prescriptions and dental checks for under-25s.
Such achievements are laudable, but a recent headline in the South Wales Echo said "Scrap the Assembly". The paper published a survey that showed that 46 per cent. of people in Wales did not want the Assembly. Apparently, the majority view of people under 40 was that we should increase the Assembly's powers. The survey made it clear that people are not happy with the Assembly as it is at present.
What are the problems? Let us consider first the myth of inclusive politics. The Assembly is supposed to be a collective body, with each elected Member taking responsibility for its decisions. In practice, the power to make decisions has been transferred to the First Minister under section 62 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. Under section 63, the First Minister has deputised specific responsibilities to various Ministers who then deputise decision making to the civil service. The ethos of the civil service is to serve the Government. not the collective body. Instead of decisions being taken by a collective body, we have created a cabinet system that is similar to Westminster's.
It could be argued that the committee system provides inclusive politics, but under section 57, Ministers sit on subject Committees, because the cabinet structure was put in place after the legislation was made for Committees. As a consequence, Committees have no independence from the Minister. They influence the agenda. All briefing papers to the Committee are sourced from the ministerial Department and the Minister takes part in all the discussions. Will a briefing paper from the Department contain anything that conflicts with current policy? Ministers over-influence the Committees because the devolution legislation did not, as in Scotland, create a legislature and a Government. It created instead a corporate body that on Fantasy Island would have led to consensus politics but that has in fact led to tension, frustration and lack of delivery.
Recently, Rosemary Butler—then Secretary for Education and Children, with responsibility for the under-16s—revealed what the Government really think of the Committees. She said that she listens to the views of the Committees as she listens to the views of any other body or institute that she discusses matters with. Clearly, that is not a partnership, and although section 62 allows the Minister to delegate responsibilities to the Committee, that has not happened yet.
The National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill that is currently before the House of Commons contains the proposals of Jane Hutt—the
92WH
Minister for Health and Social Services in the Assembly—about local health boards—before the Assembly has agreed to them. She has told the media that we will be moving immediately towards implementation, and that is before the Assembly has even discussed the plans, never mind agreed to them.
A further problem is that the Assembly is too weak. On 29 October 2001, giving evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Secretary of State for Wales said:
"I believe that in the last two years we have seen and experienced quite a dramatic change in how legislation for Wales is made, as compared to what had happened before devolution."
How much secondary legislation for Wales is actually passed by the Assembly and how much is really different from what is passed in England? Even in the areas that are supposed to be devolved, there have been more Statutory Instruments passed for Wales in Westminster than in the Assembly. In 2000, the Assembly passed 70 SIs, 30 of them for education or health. Westminster passed 40 SIs relating education or health in Wales. In 2001, up to 31 July, the Assembly passed 28 SIs for education and health whereas Westminster passed 22. We are pulling ahead a little, but those figures do not include instruments passed for both Wales and England. Research on that has not yet been concluded.
The way in which the foot and mouth crisis was handled brings the matter into focus. The National Assembly for Wales took de facto control, but had to wait for permission from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in certain cases, which caused delay. As we all know, delay was the worst thing in the circumstances. The Assembly did not have sufficient powers to react adequately: for example, it could not decide to reopen livestock markets. Carwyn Jones, the Welsh Minister for Rural Affairs, said in the Assembly on 8 November:
"The Assembly cannot take that decision"—;
that is, to open livestock markets.
"We are aware of the discussion, and the whole Assembly is it agreed that must have such powers for itself."—[National Assembly for Wales Official Record, 8 November 2001; p.23]
Llew Smith: The hon. Gentleman argues that the Assembly has been given too few powers, but some would argue that the problem is that it has not been willing to use what powers it has. Some of us remember the great debate at the time of the referendum and the promise that we would make a bonfire of the quangos. The Assembly has the power to make that bonfire, but all we have had is a damp squib. It has not happened.
Mr. Llwyd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I quote from The Western Mail today, in which a Labour insider said:
"While we can't be sure how many Labour AMs favour increased powers, it seems that not a single one would take the Assembly in the reverse direction. No one backs the line taken for so long and so unsuccessfully by Llew Smith, MP for Blaenau Gwent."
That might put that matter in context.
The Assembly could not make the decision on foot and mouth, although it has been asking for the necessary powers. In another example, it is pressing for powers over animal health, but that is being ignored.

93WH
The Assembly still has to rely too often on Westminster for primary legislation. Whitehall appears to ignore the wishes of the Assembly on the Animal Health Bill, which will give the Government far-reaching powers, for example, to reduce compensation to farmers in special cases, and stronger powers to slaughter animals. The Secretary of State has admitted that there has been no consultation, and the Assembly is not mentioned. The Bill gives the Assembly none of the powers for which it has called. The Executive are calling for them and the subject Committee is calling for them. In a recent debate on the Queen's Speech, the whole Assembly voted for them. A perfect opportunity for devolving those powers has again been ignored.
In higher education, the Assembly is responsible for access grants and bursaries, but student fees and loans are still the responsibility of Westminster. How can the Assembly develop a proper policy on student and university funding when it has responsibility for only half the tools involved?
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, if he is so concerned about the way in which this House deals with primary legislation that has been requested by the Assembly, he as leader of his parliamentary party has not attended the debates on education and health relating to Wales that we have had in the past couple of weeks? Not a single member of his party said anything at all in the important debate on health that he has just mentioned.
Mr. Llwyd: It is quite simple. I cannot be everywhere at once. We are a team, and the matter was being covered. Such comments come well from a Labour Member. Let us look at Welsh Grand Committee attendance. Fewer than a third of Welsh Labour Members turned up. Where were they?
On 26 November, the Welsh Executive published their action plan on tax incentives. It is a helpful document, including proposals to the United Kingdom Government on how to improve incentives for business through the UK tax system. How many of those proposals were included in the pre-Budget statement? Only two or three. Calls for such things as broad-band incentives and national insurance credit were not mentioned in the pre-Budget statement.
Under the Transport Act 2000, Parliament and the Scottish Executive can nominate a member of the Strategic Rail Authority, yet the Assembly has the right only to be consulted, even though it asked for the same right to nominate. It is true that the public had high expectations of the Assembly.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason why there has been a 10-month delay in the establishment of a single rail franchise for Wales is precisely that we do not enjoy the representation in the railway infrastructure that, for example, the Scottish Executive enjoys?
Mr. Llwyd: I am sure that that is right. Once again, we are lagging behind. We are being let down and our public services are faltering through no fault of the Assembly itself but simply because of the way in which it was constructed.
94WH
There is some confusion about the way in which the devolution settlement was put together. For example, two years ago a calf processing scheme was established to help dairy farmers who could not export calves because of BSE. Although the United Kingdom Government discontinued the scheme, the Assembly's Agriculture and Rural Development Committee looked at whether Wales could proceed with it. After a great deal of confusion, it became clear that such a scheme had to operate everywhere in the UK—it could not operate in only part of a European Union member state. In other words, because it did not function elsewhere, it could not do so in Wales.
There is the further example of pay and conditions for teachers. For a while, the Assembly was unsure whether it was empowered to deal with such matters and in the end it was decided that it was not. However, the Assembly is responsible for appraisals and therefore for performance-related pay. Teachers find that very confusing and it is difficult for them to know who to complain to. Even in respect of matters that are supposedly devolved, many responsibilities remain with Westminster.
Another good example is building regulations. At one time, the Welsh Office dealt with such matters, but during the reign of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) the relevant expert retired—probably late on in life—and the powers were returned to Westminster.
Unfortunately, an anti-devolution attitude exists in Whitehall, and Westminster has clawed back powers that were devolved. There is the example of the Local Government Act 2000, section 6 of which enables the Secretary of State for Wales to amend or repeal statutory requirements on local authorities to produce particular plans, so that they can streamline their planning by reducing the number of separate plans required. In an Assembly debate of 4 July 2000, Peter Law, the then Local Government and Planning Secretary, called for those powers to be extended to the Assembly. The Westminster Government responded by giving it such powers in a few specific areas, but Peter Law argued that that was not a satisfactory response to the strong representations that were made. He said that
the Assembly would be unable to offer local authorities the same flexibility without the UK Government's consent, although these plans relate to powers that have been transferred or granted to the Assembly…We should keep control over plans that are already within the Assembly's responsibility."—[National Assembly for Wales Official Record 4 July 2000; p.20.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) has mentioned railways, and it would make sense if powers relating to our railways were devolved to Wales. As a result, the Barnett formula grant would itself increase—although that is a debate for another day and I shall not get into it now. We have made no secret of the fact that we want stronger powers for the Assembly. In customary fashion, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) said that we cannot expect to have those powers, and that we must learn to walk before we can run. There are many obstacles in the Assembly's path, however, that make its operations difficult. Of course, we would argue that for the time being we need parity with Scotland—the power to pass primary legislation and to vary taxes.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of another referendum, or does he believe that such powers should be granted without consulting the people of Wales?
Mr. Llwyd: I am not entirely sure whether a referendum is called for, although we might have to consider that idea. At the moment, the Assembly is undoubtedly underperforming, but not through any fault of its own.
Let us compare the Government of Wales Act 1998 with the Scotland Act 1998. The Government of Wales Act lists exactly what is devolved and the minutiae of various statutes; the Scotland Act merely states which powers remain with Westminster and, unless something is mentioned in the Act, the Scottish Parliament is automatically responsible. That is much more clear-cut than the confusion in the Government of Wales Act. The Assembly cannot assume discretion, but the Scottish Parliament can. The Scotland Act keeps the door open for further devolution by including a section allowing devolution in other matters if and when needed; the Government of Wales Act does not say how future Acts of Parliament shall confer further powers on the Assembly, but there is an assumption that the Assembly will be able to debate Westminster's intentions and influence further legislation. However, we saw how that worked on the Animal Health Bill.
Future Westminster Governments could reduce the Assembly's powers without further legislation. There is no protection because of the complete lack of a logical basis for the current pattern of powers. Had subject areas been devolved, matters would be simpler. The coalition Government in the Assembly have appointed an independent commission to look into powers and electoral arrangements for the Assembly—we welcome that—because they can see a problem, but the commission is not due to report until 2004.
Edwina Hart, the Minister for Finance and Communities in the Assembly said in a BBC report on 29 September 2000:
"I am sick and tired of Whitehall civil servants drawing up schemes which include Wales without consulting us.
This shows contempt for the people of Wales and for the principle of devolution which was supposed to be a central plank of Government policy.
Following the announcement by the UK Government"
Welsh cars
"will not be allowed to have Welsh flags on their number plates."
Christine Gwyther, the late lamented Agriculture and the Rural Economy Secretary, claimed that Whitehall had kept her in the dark about a mix-up over genetically modified seeds being sold in the United Kingdom by mistake. She put that on the record on 19 May 2000.
I know that several hon. Members want to speak in this debate, but I want to raise two further matters. One is a quotation from an article entitled, "The New Model Wales" in the Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 25, No. 4 of December 1998, which was, of course, before devolution. Richard Rawlings of the law department at the London School of Economics said:
"There remains, however, the uncomfortable prospect of the Assembly as supplicant or lobbyist in the Westminster process. In the words of the White Paper, 'the Assembly will need to establish
96WH
a close partnership with Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies'. This is very different from the situation of the Welsh Office as part of central Government."
He continued:
There is, none the less, too much about the scheme that disappoints. It is not simply that Wales has once again been treated as a second-class member of the Union. The product has been prejudiced by the nature of the decision-making process. Old governmental assumptions have held true, a rich constitutional discourse has not had the opportunity to develop. So let us, in conclusion, focus on the way in which the new model Wales has been produced."
He also refers to the
high dependency of the Welsh scheme of devolution on administrative and political goodwill. It is to this effect a flimsy construction, which presupposes consensus and co-operation for legitimacy and effective operations."
I shall conclude by referring to today's edition of The Western Mail. Mr. Alun Pugh, a Deputy Minister at the National Assembly for Wales, is a Labour Member who can hardly be called Plaid Cymru's friend, or perhaps anyone's friend. The paper says:
"The present situation is a 'constitutional time-bomb' set to go off shortly after administrations of different political persuasions are returned in Cardiff and London.
The warning and subsequent demand for full powers by 2010 from Alun Pugh, deputy minister for education, will be repeated next week in slightly different terms by the heavy-weight and highly regarded Constitution Unit of the University of London.
Mr. Pugh … makes his demand at the University of Glamorgan in Pontypridd",
where he discussed the completion of
"Keir Hardie's unfinished business…Mr. Hardie was of course MP for Merthyr Tydfil, Labour's parliamentary leader until his death in 1915, and a fervent advocate of home rule.
The Constitution Unit looks to the future in its The State of the Nations 2001 … the present secondary law-making powers held by Cardiff are inherently unstable".
The article further says:
"The unit blames the crooked interface between powers held by London and those enjoyed by Cardiff"
and informs us that Mr. Pugh will tell students that
"Having no law-making powers in Cardiff means that in the event of the Tories returning to power in Westminster"—
heaven forbid
"we in Wales could be steamrollered by laws whipped through by English Tories."
A senior Assembly Member said:
"I suppose about one quarter of the 29 AMs have during plenary sessions or in public speeches said or hinted at the need for such a change."
Again, I shall refer to the closing words of the article:
"No-one backs the line taken for so long and so unsuccessfully by Llew Smith, MP for Blaenau Gwent."
11.21 am
Llew Smith: Hon Members will not be surprised that the nationalists have called this debate. It is another opportunity to push the arguments for a Welsh parliament, with the ultimate goal being a separatist Welsh state. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) would deny that, and he uses moderate language to hide his agenda because he knows that the goals of separatism and independence are utterly unacceptable to the electorate.

97WH
The nationalists' misuse of language is obvious in their attempts to project a more moderate image, and it is wise to recall a few examples of that.
Ieuan Wyn Jones, who was then a Member of Parliament, was obviously having trouble with his crystal ball it was probably not bilingual—when he predicted:
"Labour are clearly unable to win a general election."
If Labour was unelectable there was no need to worry because Ieuan and his fellow nationalists had the answer, which was independence. However, that idea had to be couched in sweet and moderate language to make it acceptable to a hostile electorate. The buzzwords that Ieuan used to hide his aim of independence were:
"self-government for Wales is the only answer."
Sadly for Ieuan, he forgot to tell his mate Cynog Dafis, again a former MP, who proceeded to announce that self-government, which used to be called independence, remained Plaid's aspiration.
Determined not to be beaten, and equally determined to make a fool of himself for a second time, Ieuan, recognising the flexibility of human nature and ideas, was pleased to announce:
"I think self-government now needs to be redefined. I much prefer to use 'full national status'".
On that occasion he learned from history and told his party's members the reasoning behind the new line of full national status. Unfortunately, the members failed to keep those discussions secret and proceeded to tell the world, or least their recent party conference. When David Senior, a conference delegate, referred to independence, he said:
"Apparently it means the same as full national status, but you see, I can't say it because it is not our policy … Hang on, if it means the same thing, it is our policy and therefore I can say it."
Mr. Llwyd: Once again, the hon. Gentleman has quoted a junior party member and portrayed his view as being somehow representative. Far from trying to keep the discussion secret, all the media, including HTV and BBC, had been invited in.
Llew Smith: I am unsure how Cynog Dafis will respond to the accusation that he is a junior member of the Welsh nationalist party. If we have time, and certainly after this debate, I am willing to refer the hon. Gentleman to quotation after quotation from both junior and senior members of the Welsh nationalist party, where they use such language to cover the aims of their party, which obviously involve separatism.
There are other nationalists who are equally confused about their aims or, more accurately, determined to hide the truth. That became even more obvious to me shortly after the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) was elected, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said:
"I watched the television when he made his victory speech. He said that he wanted to work himself out of a job and that although he was going to Westminster, he did not want to be there."
98WH
It is amazing the sacrifices the nationalists are willing to make to represent this great nation of ours. My right hon. Friend went on:
"I can understand that. Even the post-modern Welsh nationalist party believes in some form of separatism and Welsh membership of the European Union. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) nods. I am not sure, but I believe that he also wants to work himself out of a job eventually. To paraphrase a famous saying. 'Make me chaste my lord, but not yet."
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy replied:
"Yes, I am trying to work myself out ofjob.'"—[Official Report, 2 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 6331
How can Plaid Cymru deny that it is the party of separatism and independence, when it concedes that its future plans do not involve having representation in the House of Commons? Are we expected to believe that the nationalists would have supported the Assembly if that was the end of the process? It would be the equivalent of signing their own death warrant if they were to support a halfway house, and not press for a parliament and ultimately independence. Anyone foolish enough to consider working politically with the nationalists should also remember that they helped to keep the Tories in power by voting with the Tory Government on the Maastricht treaty in exchange for a seat on the European Committee of the Regions. Indeed—
Mr. Llwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I have been listening for the past six minutes to this rant, and so far there has been nothing about the Government of Wales Act 1998. Others are waiting to speak about the Act. With great respect it really is out of order.
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): I remind the Chamber that there are a number of hon. Members who are waiting to speak. It is my intention to get everyone in.
Llew Smith: I am sure that you do not need reminding, Mr. Amess, but the hon. Gentleman may have been listening to me for six minutes, but I had to listen to more than 20 minutes of his drivel, so time is certainly on my side. If we are going to discuss the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the role of the National Assembly for Wales, it is important that we examine the alternative, which is a Welsh parliament in a separate state. We should discuss why the Welsh nationalists want a separatist state and why they want independence.
We were consistently told that the failure to achieve independence was preventing additional European money, such as objective 1 funds, from being allocated to large parts of Wales. This was obviously another cheap attempt by the nationalists to con people into supporting independence, because the Labour Government delivered objective 1 for Wales and made a mockery of the nationalist claim. Those who are pressing for a Welsh parliament should recognise that once it has been achieved, the next demand will be for a separatist Welsh state divorced from the rest of the United Kingdom.

99WH
The present demand by a few for a Welsh parliament is often justified with the argument that it was an insult to Wales to be given fewer powers than the Scottish Parliament. That is once again a nationalist argument. I am still not sympathetic to an Assembly, but I am of the opinion that the powers should be based on the most effective form of decision making. We want good government, not nationalism. Are we so unsure of ourselves in Wales that we have to copy the Scots, when we were informed that one of the reasons for devolution was that we were different from the rest of the United Kingdom?
In my opinion, the Government must now consider decreasing the powers of the National Assembly for Wales and devolving them to local authorities. Unlike the creation of the National Assembly for Wales, that would be an act of real devolution, not nationalism. It is also necessary for central Government to devolve a number of their powers to local authorities.
The Assembly has been unwilling to use all its powers to keep promises that it made to justify its existence. We all remember the promise to make a bonfire of the quangos, but that has not happened and we have seen only a damp squib. During the referendum, some of us said that we did not need an Assembly to make a bonfire of the quangos, just a one-line Bill from this Parliament. At that time, many nationalists extolled the virtues of an Assembly by informing us that it would be a miracle cure for all our economic, social and constitutional ills—you name it, the Assembly would cure it. No explanation was provided as to how that could happen—the mere existence of an Assembly would be sufficient. No matter what nationalists might dream up, we all recognise that their aims are separatism and independence.
It is important that we understand the reasons for the demands of the nationalists and why they are pushing for independence. Anti-English prejudices have run throughout their party since its birth. Saunders Lewis, a founding member and former leader, saw the Jews and the English as enemies, while admiring Hitler and Mussolini. [Interruption.] Of course, the nationalists do not want to hear this. Of Hitler, Saunders Lewis declared:
"At once he fulfilled his promise—a promise which was greatly mocked by the London papers months before that—to completely abolish the financial strength of the Jews in the economic life of Germany."
The Welsh nationalist attitude to the English is also seen in their opposition to English children being evacuated to Wales to avoid the bombing of their homes during the second world war. They said that that would
"completely submerge and destroy all of Welsh national tradition."
Saunders Lewis went on to say that the
"movement on population is one of the most horrible threats to the continuation and to the life of the Welsh nation that has ever been suggested in history."
So, there we are. Hitler and Mussolini were friends of the nationalists, but English children escaping the ravages of war were the enemy. The anti-English prejudices of the Welsh nationalist party have changed
100WH
little over the years and can be witnessed from the statements of some of its members. Gwilym ap Loan referred to the English in Wales as an
"alien culture within our nation."
and Simon Glyn referred to retired people moving into Wales as a "drain on our resources."
So deep was the nationalist hatred of the English that they originally opposed the building of the Severn bridge and referred to it as a "suicidal policy". Then, as now, jobs are not important to the nationalists compared with the need to break the link with England and all things English. Nationalists in the Chamber may want to clarify their position today.
I do not want to give the impression that Welsh nationalists hate the English to the extent of taking a principled stand against any English involvement. Certainly not, because although they want independence, they also want English money to subsidise their aims. Hardly a day goes by without their taking the begging bowl to demand more money. One of my predecessors, Aneurin Bevan, rejected the anti-English sentiments of the nationalists and never failed to emphasise the common goals that unite us. Leo Abse, referring to Nye, reminded us:
"he believed, as I believe, that a miner is a miner, whether he works in Durham or Glamorgan, that a steel worker is a steel worker, whether he works at Ebbw Vale, Llanwern, Scunthorpe or Sheffield".—[Official Report, 16 December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 1793.]
That is why, as a socialist, I reject nationalism and separatism: it would take us down the road to a Welsh parliament. The problem is not nationality but economics and the system and, as a socialist, I will always base my ideas and action on that fact.
11.34 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: It is a great pleasure to follow the socialist hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith)—he is one of the few socialists left in the Labour party. During his regurgitation, mixed with bile, of the future of Wales, we were given no idea what his constitutional settlement or his party's idea of a constitutional future would be.
I welcome the Secretary of State for Wales. I attend Westminster Hall fairly regularly and this is the first time that I have seen a Cabinet Minister here to respond to the debate. We are grateful for that acknowledgement that this is a serious debate—despite the contribution of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent.
In reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Students (Mr. Jones)—
Mr. Llwyd: Cardiff, Cannabis.
Mr. Thomas: Yes, perhaps it should be Cardiff, Cannabis.
My hon. Friends the Members for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) were present at the debates on both the Education Bill and the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr spoke in the Education Bill debate, which is

101WH
more than any Wales Office Minister did. Those debates had important Welsh aspects and merited some ministerial contribution.
I want to consider a narrow aspect of the operation of the Government of Wales Act 1998 to show how its failings have meant that we have not been able to achieve what we should like to achieve in Wales. Section 121 places a duty on the National Assembly to make a scheme promoting sustainable development. In response, it produced a paper entitled "Learning to Live Differently"—a positive document containing many ideas about how to use sustainable development as an opportunity to improve the quality of life instead of viewing it as a barrier or hurdle to economic development. We need to build on our burgeoning industries. There are few coal miners or steelworkers left, thanks to the Government's policies.
Llew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Thomas: No. The hon. Gentleman did not want to debate with me and I do not want to debate with him.
Llew Smith: What about the miners' strike?
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order.
Mr. Thomas: We must base a new economy on new industries such as renewable energy, which will benefit both the economy and the environment, and introduce the knowledge economy more fully. It is sad that Wales lags far behind in that respect.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I wish to make a serious point as the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central and Cannabis. The hon. Gentleman is about to argue that the constitutional process does not allow sustainable development to take place as was intended. However, does he not agree that there is no bar on the Welsh Assembly setting up renewable energy plans? Before devolution, the Welsh Office agreed several plans for wind power stations, but the Assembly has not proceeded with them—not because of any constitutional bar, but because it decided not to.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman obviously thinks that he knows what I am going to say and is trying to take advantage of that. In fact he is wrong, and I intend to deal with the points that he raised. He is right to say that the Assembly has not seen fit to give the go-ahead to some important renewable energy projects, but that is nothing to do with the constitutional settlement—it is the result of a political decision by the Labour-Liberal coalition to thwart those developments. I suspect that he is as disappointed about that as I am.
However, the constitutional settlement also thwarts such developments. For example, on energy policy, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Assembly is responsible for planning for electricity generating plants of less than 50 MW. Unfortunately, these days that is virtually nothing—any new renewable energy projects have to generate more than 50 MW if they are to pay their way—so although the Assembly may be consulted, the decision making remains here in London with the Department of Trade and Industry. That becomes even
102WH
more worrying when one considers that nuclear power stations generate at least 1,000 MW, so the role of the Assembly in deciding whether there should be a new nuclear power station in Wales is negligible, if not nil. Can the Assembly deliver the coherent energy policy that it is supposedly putting together, which is compatible with sustainable development, when it is responsible only for small-scale energy generation?
On renewable energy, Wales already contributes 40 per cent. of the wind energy produced in the United Kingdom. However, there is an increasing likelihood that a new nuclear power station will be foisted on the people of Wales against our will. If that happens, it will be akin to the foisting of Tryweryn on us in the 1960s against our will. It is interesting that the interconnector that has been suggested for renewable energy, pitched as an interconnector to link renewable energy sites along the west coast of Britain, also links the sites of existing and potential nuclear power stations. There is no reason why an interconnector could not be used for nuclear energy as well as energy produced by renewables.
In my constituency, an application has been made for a large new wind farm at Cefn Croes, which would generate something like 59 MW—1 per cent. of Wales's electricity needs. The decision on that rests with the Department of Trade and Industry and not with the National Assembly. Hon. Members might say that at least the Assembly has a consultative role, but it has not seen fit to say yea or nay to the Cefn Croes application. That might be a political problem in the Assembly, but I suggest that it is also a constitutional problem. It feels that it does not have the right level of decision making over such processes, and because it is not responsible for the outcomes it shirks away from taking decisions.
Things would be bad enough if that remained the situation. However, if we pry further into the future of renewables in Wales, we find that the DTI has produced a consultation paper for offshore wind or water-driven electricity stations in Wales. Not content with relying on its ability to decide on projects of more than 50 MW, the DTI is suggesting that it should decide all applications for projects of more than 1 MW in London. That might happen in consultation with the Assembly, but it is removing from Wales to the DTI powers that currently reside with the National Assembly and local authorities in Wales.
The consultation process on that recently ended and, lo and behold, the Government have decided to go ahead. Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 will be expanded and the Government response simply states that
"detailed handling procedures will be drawn up to show the roles of the different Government Departments and other bodies."
The role of the National Assembly as a statutory consultee in the process will be covered by detailed guidance, and any change in the National Assembly's overall position in the devolved arrangements will have to be separately considered by Ministers. Now, the Assembly is passing from being a decision-making body to being a consultee body.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The hon. Gentleman is discussing renewable energy. He will know that those who promote renewable energy argue, and have argued

103WH
for some time, that the primary problem in gaining permission for renewable energy sites is the difficulty with planning. Organisations calling for more renewable energy have asked the Government to remove the ability to restrict planning easily, by taking decision making to a higher level. I cannot see how it is consistent for him on the one hand to promote renewable energy but on the other to argue that planning permission decisions should not have been taken to a higher level.
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order. There are 47 minutes left, and six people, including the Secretary of State, waiting to catch my eye. I would be grateful if we could have shorter interventions.
Mr. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Amess. I will deal briefly with the intervention.
I know that the hon. Gentleman takes such matters seriously, but the outcome of what he just advocated would be the reverse of devolution and democracy. He is advocating that all decisions be taken at the highest level and not at the most appropriate level for the local people concerned. If the people in Wales say that they do not want renewable energy, I, though an advocate of renewable energy, have to accept that as the democratic view of the people of Wales. I do not think that the current constitutional arrangements allow them to express that will properly and fully.
The change in procedures for renewable energy was opposed by my county council. It has also caused concern to the Association of National Park Authorities, the Countryside Council for Wales, the National Trust and Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority. They were all concerned to see that a level of democracy was being taken away from them and the Assembly and given to the Department of Trade and Industry. A parallel process is taking place, whereby the Government are consulting the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about a change in planning law. They want to get rid of public inquiries—admittedly, they can prove lengthy, wasteful and expensive—and introduce a fast-track process for large-scale applications. That could benefit some renewable energy applications, but it could also benefit nuclear power stations.
I should also remind hon. Members that the application for the Kielder Forest renewable energy wind farm has been with the DTI since 1992, but the fact that it has taken the DTI nine years to reach a decision has nothing to do with the public inquiry—it is the DTI's decision alone. Raising the level at which decisions are taken does not necessarily lead to greater efficiency.
Many of us are criticised for wanting the famous process of devolution to be a bit like a Benny Hill sketch and move at a fast pace. Some say, "Whoa! That's too fast—let's see things happen at a normal pace." Perhaps there are a few hon. Members who want matters to
104WH
progress in slow motion, but I doubt whether many—other than the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent—want the reels to run backwards.
Llew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Thomas: No. I want to—
Llew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman is clearly not giving way.
Mr. Thomas: I want to make two final points, on the environment and on the failure of the present constitutional settlements. A decision was taken overnight by the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to allow the planting of genetically modified crops on three sites in Wales. There was no consultation with Members of the Assembly, the Welsh Executive, local Members of Parliament or Opposition spokespeople on the environment. In fact, there was no consultation at all.
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman will know that two of the three sites were in my constituency, and he will also be familiar with the frustrations arising from the Assembly's lack of powers. However, if he has done his homework he will surely acknowledge that it was not a question of the DETR's retaining such powers, given that it, too, did not have them. They were given away in 1991 on implementation of environment legislation by the then Tory Government.
Mr. Thomas: I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution, but she is not entirely right in implying that her Government's hands are clean. It was a committee established by the then DETR that decided to plant GM crops in Pembrokeshire. Although I am pleased that planting on the two Pembrokeshire sites has not gone ahead, she will be aware that there remains a site in Wales on which such crops are being grown. That has thrown into complete disarray the Assembly's policy of a GM-free Wales, and its vision of Welsh agriculture based on a green, increasingly organic concept. If it is to have one hand tied behind its back and be thwarted at every opportunity by decisions taken in Whitehall, the Assembly will be unable to develop a sustainable future for Welsh agriculture.
The biggest issue in Wales this year has been access to rural housing. Unfortunately, the debate has been coloured by the use of extreme language on both sides of the argument. However, there is a solution. A number of reasonable proposals can be made in support of greater access to rural housing that enjoy the support of, say, people in Exmoor national park and in Cumbria. I included such proposals in a private Member's Bill that I wanted to present to Parliament. The Bill was thwarted by the arcane procedures of the House, to the extent that we did not even debate its merits. Nevertheless, during that process it became clear that simple matters such as planning the number of second homes in Wales could be decided not at Welsh level but only a Westminster level. Such problems underline the frustration felt by many in Wales. The Assembly could,

105WH
and should, be doing a better job, and it should be given the necessary powers. That is why we need a review of the Government of Wales Act 1998.
11.49 am
Dr. Hywel Francis: I am a long-standing campaigner for democratic devolution. In 1979 I was the treasurer of the West Glamorgan campaign and in 1997 I was the national convener of the cross-party "Yes for Wales" campaign. I mention that not because I am keen to indulge in veteranism, but to remind hon. Members that the Labour party and the Labour Government come to the question from our vision as democrats and our respect for the democratic will of the people of Wales and the people of Britain. In that spirit, hon. Members should be reminded of the words of the current Secretary of State for Wales in October 1999 when he said that devolution is "a settled question." Many chose to misunderstand the meaning of that statement, which was borrowed from the late John Smith's memorable words,
"the settled will of the Scottish people".
For us in Wales, the settled question means that there is no going back. One of the new responsibilities of the Secretary of State is to safeguard the new constitutional settlement, as represented by the referendum result and the Government of Wales Act 1998. We should all, whether we were for or against devolution, now work with the Secretary of State and Assembly Members to make the present democratic settlement work.
The settled question in Wales also means that it is the democratic will of the Welsh people. The people voted, albeit narrowly, for democratic devolution and we must respect our democratic decision. It is disingenuous now, and it was disingenuous immediately after the referendum result, to call for additional powers. Our task in Westminster and the Assembly is to make the democratic devolution settlement work. It is inappropriate to call for additional powers without recognising the need for a further democratic mandate.
The task before us is simple. First, we must stop talking down the Assembly. The democratic partnership between the Assembly and Westminster is working, as evidenced, for example, by the creation of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the additional funding achieved for objective 1 areas. Secondly, we must remind ourselves that our main task as Welsh Members of Parliament and Welsh Assembly Members is to improve the quality of life of the Welsh people. My distinguished predecessor, Lord Morris of Aberavon, said that we must achieve
"the repatriation of democracy to Wales".
That has now been achieved, and it is our task to make it work for the benefit of the people of Wales.
11.52 am
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), I have always supported the principle of devolution. However, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) missed the point—I may not have made myself clear—that if devolution had been in place in 1991, the Assembly would have had the powers, because it would have had to be consulted.
106WH
The hon. Gentleman also referred to nuclear power stations. There is great fear in my constituency in west Wales at the prospect of a nuclear power station, but I cannot help thinking that he is scaremongering. He will be aware that although the nuclear installations inspectorate is still the responsibility of Westminster, the Environment Agency and the planning aspects of any applications are devolved to the Assembly.
Mr. Simon Thomas: We are debating the Government of Wales Act and the hon. Lady should be aware that the Environment Agency is not devolved to Wales. It may have a Welsh branch or arm, but it is not devolved. She should also be aware that the Minister in the Welsh Grand Committee refused to rule out a new nuclear power station in Wales.
Mrs. Lawrence: My understanding is that the functions of the Environment Agency in Wales are devolved to the Assembly, perhaps the Secretary of State will expand on that.
On nuclear waste, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the consultation document on the management of nuclear waste, it is clear that the Assembly will have its say in the matter.
Given the opening statement by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), one is tempted to ask why he voted yes in the devolution referendum. He referred to the Welsh Grand Committee, but he does not seem to be aware that there was a three-day sitting of the Welsh Affairs Committee when the Welsh Grand Committee met last week. At the Welsh Grand Committee meeting of July 2000, only one Plaid Cymru Member was present. It was an important occasion on which we debated the comprehensive spending review, and he may wish to explain why he was not there.
I support devolution and I have always supported devolution. I tabled amendments to the Government of Wales Act 1998 on behalf of business in Wales. Those amendments were accepted in principle, and they were the only amendments that were accepted during the Act's passage through the House of Commons. I support devolution because actions such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) sending £100 million back from Wales could not happen under the Assembly. The decimation of NHS management under the former Welsh Office, which is a fundamental problem for the NHS, could not happen under devolution.
Llew Smith: Putting aside whether an Assembly is right or wrong, or whether we should have voted yes or no, does my hon. Friend agree that the reason why the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy voted yes was that he and his party saw it as a step down the road to a separatist, independent Wales?
Mrs. Lawrence: One is tempted to believe that.
Nursery vouchers, which were anathema to the Welsh people, could not have been imposed with the Assembly as it is now.
The issue of secondary powers, on which I did some research, was raised by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy in last week's Welsh Grand Committee. The Assembly is not using its existing

107WH
powers on secondary legislation, and my information, which comes from the House of Commons Library and the Assembly, reveals that the Assembly passed 29 statutory instruments in 1999.
There are three systems for handling secondary legislation in the Assembly. I shall describe them as outlined by John Osmond, director of the Institute of Welsh Affairs. There is a full-length process, there is a foreshortened process and there is an emergency process. In 1999, there were 29 statutory instruments of which 15 were subject to the emergency system; in 2000, there were 119 statutory instruments of which 40 were subject to the emergency system; in 2001, there were 221 statutory instruments—that is a different figure from the one cited by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—of which 48 related to foot and mouth disease and 93 were subject to the emergency system. In two years, there were 369 pieces of secondary legislation, of which only eight were dealt with by the full system, while 148, approximately half, were dealt with by the emergency system.
We must examine what those three systems do. The full procedure means that secondary legislation goes in front of the business unit, the subject Committee and the Legislation Committee before being debated in plenary. Eight of those 369 statutory instruments were dealt with through the full process. The emergency procedure involves a decision made by the Welsh Executive subject to scrutiny by the Legislation Committee after the instrument is made.
On that subject, John Osmond states:
"So far much of the secondary legislation considered by the National Assembly has been dealt with by the third, emergency, route. This may be because the Assembly's committees had too much on their plates in the early months to get round to such detailed matters. On the other hand, if the precedent is followed in the future, it will mean that one of the purposes of devolution, to make the legislative process more transparent, accountable and open to amendment, will be lost."
The number of statutory instruments dealt with by the Assembly during the first months was low compared with former Welsh Office's activity.
Mr. Llwyd: I am listening intently to what the hon. Lady is saying, and it is constructive. Can she tell us how many such instruments were passed in that time by the House of Commons?
Mrs. Lawrence: I understand that the hon. Gentleman alleged that 60 had been passed by the House of Commons, but I am talking about legislation dealt with by the Assembly. It seems that there has been a lack of time to examine secondary legislation with the degree of scrutiny that those who support devolution, and supported it during the passage of the Government of Wales Act, expected. Here, we have one and a half hours for statutory instruments in Committee, but there, because of the lack of time, such decisions have not been given sufficient scrutiny. We must ask the hon. Gentleman and his party why that is so.
I looked at the debates in the Welsh Assembly during that period; the majority had been secured by Plaid Cymru. We should consider the Assembly's responsibilities. Labour Members want the Assembly
108WH
and devolution to work and when the Government of Wales Bill was proceeding through the House, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues said that that was also their position—if we can believe what they say. Now, the leader of Plaid Cymru is saying that devolution is doomed to failure. The only reason why it is doomed is that instead of handling secondary legislation openly and transparently in the Assembly, which it has a responsibility to do, the party introduces debates on UK Government fiscal and public expenditure, royal commission and Lords reform, new deal, relief of world debt and the up-to-date situation in Afghanistan. Any council or local authority could discuss those subjects if it wanted to, but if the ordinary population of this country felt that their local authority was discussing such matters and avoiding the problems of rubbish collection, transport, street lighting and so forth, there would be an outcry.
Labour Members want the Assembly to work and to have the opportunity to do the job that we voted for it to do, and that was the purpose of the Government of Wales Act 1998: to have devolved, transparent decision making, which is as near as possible to the people it serves. That is the purpose of devolution. If the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and his party co-operated in the manner in which they said that they would when we were enacting the legislation, rather than calling for debates for which the Assembly has no responsibility, it would work effectively and could progress in its job.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I am going to call the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), but I ask him to speak for no more than three minutes, or I may not use such discretion in future.
12.2 pm
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Thank you, Mr. Winterton.
I want to concentrate on how the constitutional settlement is working. In the past fortnight, two major Bills that will effect health and education provision in Wales have been discussed. Plaid Cymru showed poor attendance in debates on both.
The system is not working as well as it could. Both Bills had Welsh clauses that are considerably different from major English clauses. Yesterday's debate on the Education Bill revealed many differences. The best way to give scrutiny to a Bill, whose major provisions affect Welsh constituencies in a different way from English ones is not to be obliged to vote on the whole package on Second Reading, when it includes entirely contradictory things for different parts of the country.
The reason why the Welsh provisions are appended to bigger Bills is to do with the constraints on time in the House. I understand why that is a practical necessity if we deal with legislation as we do. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, Wales Office Ministers were unable to respond to the issues raised in the debates on both Bills. That may not have been the best way to deal with them.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider again whether mechanisms could be introduced whereby we could deal with Welsh legislation in a separate way that did not take time away from the rest of the Government's

109WH
programme. They want to implement the programme and will be understandably reluctant to introduce Welsh Bills that will take up precious time. We have discussed before whether we could introduce some fast-track mechanism or use the Welsh Grand Committee.
We must consider how to make the settlement work. I am sure that that is a great priority for the Secretary of State and he will have thought about it deeply for some time. Although the existing mechanism is better than nothing, it is not working as it well as it could in respect of those two Bills, and we need to make progress on improving it. It would be useful if other parties offered help and suggestions, rather than simply saying, "Scrap the whole thing."
12.6 pm
Lembit Öpik: Let me first say how pleased I am that Plaid Cymru Members have secured a debate—in a way, it has enabled us to celebrate the success of the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition in Cardiff—and how appropriate it is that representatives of the two parties of government in Wales should make the last two speeches.
Devolution was a Liberal idea, a long time ago. Many believe that it was a consequence of Liberals dragging their feet that Plaid Cymru came into existence, partly as a pressure group to drive Wales towards devolution. I am concerned about Plaid Cymru's entirely negative attitude to the early years of the devolution project in Wales. I have listened with interest and some confusion to what its members have said about its position. For a long time, I mistakenly believed that its policy was to support independence. That was clarified when a former Member of Parliament, Dafydd Wigley, said that the party had never supported independence, much to the surprise of many of its members and the rest of us.
The confusion remains. Plaid Cymru has a very close working relationship with the Scottish National party, which is committed to independence for Scotland. Hon. Members and the public can be forgiven for being somewhat confused about why two parties with such different objectives in principle choose to align themselves in the House of Commons.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Perhaps it would help the hon. Gentleman's confusion if he could explain why last night his party voted against the Education Bill, including Welsh clauses that his party had put in and supported in Wales. Does that not show that his party is not only two different parties, but a different party in any given constituency?
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman has failed to clarify the question of independence.
Mr. Thomas: He has failed to clarify his voting record.
Lembit Öpik: I assure him that independence involves making difficult decisions and trying to find a balance between the best interests of the UK and those of Wales. [Interruption.] We try to draw a responsible line, part of which involves not shouting down Members who are trying to make a sensible and constructive contributions.
Llew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in reality there is no confusion in the nationalist party
110WH
about its position on independence? Indeed, Dafydd Wigley, to whom he referred, is on record as saying that an independent Wales would leave NATO.
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Although we can all be entertained by the contradictions, it is a serious matter, because it is hard to gauge exactly how one should view Plaid Cymru's position on devolution. The hon. Gentleman has been a long-time opponent of devolution. [Interruption.] I am sorry: of the settlement in Wales. That is a respectable position, although I do not necessarily agree with it.
It was symptomatic of Plaid Cymru's approach that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) intervened after six minutes to imply that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) had no right to make his points. That summarises what many feel is the attitude of Plaid Cymru Members. They try to shout down any opposition, including me when I was speaking a few minutes ago, rather than respecting the right to a different opinion.
We should all remember what was said at the time of the devolution debate: new politics requires new attitudes and a willingness to operate in a different way. That willingness is not apparent among Welsh nationalists. For example, Plaid Cymru Members tabled three amendments on the child care debate in the Assembly. The amendments were on matters that were about to be addressed anyway. They tabled four amendments on the ministerial code; that subject too, was already in hand. Tomorrow, Plaid Cymru Members will lead a debate on economic development. All those issues are already on the agenda.
It seems to Liberal Democrat Members that although Plaid Cymru Members take a negative attitude towards the devolution settlement, they want to steal the clothes of the coalition for the many positive things that are being achieved. The two parties in the coalition have embraced a new kind of politics by operating together and trying to provide political stability in the devolution settlement in Wales.
The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) made an insightful point. Eight out of the past 10 minority party debates awarded to Plaid Cymru were wasted on matters that Plaid Cymru Members know that the Assembly could not influence significantly. The nationalists are entitled to spend that debating time as they wish, but it seems to the Liberal Democrats that Plaid Cymru Members are more interested in posturing and playing at party politics than in spending debate time constructively and making a helpful contribution to the government of Wales.
Mr. Llwyd: Mike German.
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman says the name as though it were a mantra that evokes the devil himself. That is an example of Plaid Cymru seeking opportunistic advantage, even though Mike German has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing throughout what has been, in my view, an overly long and drawn-out inquiry. [Interruption.]
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. I do not want to hear sedentary conversations. I am trying to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
Lembit Öpik: I am sure that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is supporting me from his sedentary position. He is so angry about the injustice meted out to Mike German by Plaid Cymru that he felt the need to shout out. He can be forgiven for that.
Plaid Cymru Members have attempted to score a party political point against Mike German and the Liberal Democrats, even though in this country a person is innocent until proven guilty. The fact that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is willing to drag that up is symptomatic of the attitude that bedevils the nationalist contribution to the government of Wales.
In response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, almost out of frustration with the Government of Wales Act 1998, said that Plaid Cymru cannot be everywhere at once. That is true. Plaid Cymru's long list of criticisms, complaints and frustrations cannot be resolved by the four Plaid Cymru Members of Parliament, although it is not the party's fault that it has only four seats. The Liberal Democrats have 52 Members of Parliament, all of whom are committed to devolution. All Liberal Democrat Members take a federalist attitude toward the United Kingdom, and are willing to engage in devolution—not just for Wales, but for England and Scotland, too.
I suggest to Plaid Cymru that it seek allies carefully, rather than making enemies of potential allies. It should be willing to engage with those who are committed to devolution and its expansion, as are many—not all—of the hon. Members present.
I remind the Chamber of the long list of triumphs achieved by the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition. They include the Reece report on student funding, which pushes for a more generous settlement for students. Farming Connect was a significant achievement of my colleague, Mick Bates. We provided free school milk, which many feel was a great step forward in health provision for young people. On economic development, the Assembly's efforts made a significant contribution to save many jobs in Llanidloes—to be parochial for a moment. I am sure that there are many other examples.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy rightly praised the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition for its proposals on free prescriptions and dental charges for a proportion of the population. That is another Liberal Democrat policy, as was the introduction of the Children's Commissioner. Even when condemning and criticising the Assembly for its performance, hon. Members cite some of its successes.
I recognise that Plaid Cymru has a legitimate right to try to maximise its power and the number of votes that it can secure in Wales. However, I suggest to Plaid Cymru and all parties that we have a higher responsibility: to make devolution work. To do that, we must think positively about the opportunities that it brings, rather than simply run it down. I invite Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives to enter into the coalition of ideas that can put the public first, rather than engage
112WH
in a cynical and incessant attempt to drag down an institution that so many of us worked side by side to try to convince the Welsh people was worth while.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Before I call the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), I shall say that I want to give the Minister 10 minutes to wind up this important debate. If the hon. Gentleman can use self-discipline—I know that he can—the Chamber will be very happy.
12.16 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: I will make a brief contribution, Mr. Winterton.
This is an important debate, but part of the problem is the high expectations of devolution that existed when the process was introduced. We all remember the debates. We were all told how wonderful everything was going to be—we would have a cure for the common cold, and the Welsh rugby team would never lose again if only we had a Welsh Assembly. Look at what happened. I shall not talk about Welsh rugby, because I have only four minutes. The fact is that the expectations could not possibly have been met.
We now know—we expected to hear this from Plaid Cymru—that devolution was a journey and not a destination in itself. Now Plaid Cymru thinks that the reason for the Welsh Assembly's not working properly is that it has not gone far enough—it should have primary legislative powers, and if only it had them, we would have a cure for the common cold and the Welsh rugby team would never lose another match. We have been there before. Yes, we should make devolution work—it is a reality, because the Assembly has powers—and we should use the powers that we have, and stop whingeing. The Assembly has sufficient powers to make a difference in many fields, but they are being used as a vehicle to try to push devolution even further.
I was in Corwen this week, and I saw the North Wales group having a meeting on the Welsh language with Dafydd Iwan. It seemed successful, and a lot of people were there. That is one area where devolution has worked. The Children's Commissioner has already been mentioned, and the Assembly gave the Westminster Parliament a lot of evidence which enabled it to introduce the post through primary legislative powers.
My goodness, though, what a load of piffle the Assembly concentrates on. It has a hole in the ground that cost £ million to £10 million, when we were told that the whole thing would cost only £17 million. Why does the Assembly not scrap it and spend the money on the people instead? Assembly Secretaries have renamed themselves Ministers, and Rhodri has renamed the whole organisation WAG—the Welsh Assembly Government. Instead of navel gazing, why does the Assembly not focus on the requirements of the people, not the politicians or institutions, and start delivering?
In the national health service, which is a clear example of the way in which the Assembly could have made a difference, waiting lists of six months or more have increased by 900 per cent. The situation is far worse that it was before devolution. It is pointless for the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) to look

113WH
smug, because he is part of the coalition that brought that about. He should have taken some of the responsibility and blame in that regard.
Part of Rhodri Morgan's problem is that he has too many jobs. Mike German has been mentioned before—he was put to one side, and Rhodri Morgan took on the responsibility. Manufacturing is in meltdown, agriculture is in crisis and tourism has been hit because of foot and mouth. We need somebody at the top who takes a clearly focused interest in the economy of Wales rather than one person trying to juggle too many jobs at one time. Frankly, it is Rhodri in Wonderland, and he must ensure that he gives a proper opportunity for other people to delegate the responsibility. I understand why he does not want to delegate responsibility when he looks at those who sit around him, but they are his Members and it is time that he did.
The National Assembly for Wales must not be given taxation powers because the referendum did not grant that, and it must not be given primary legislative powers without the people of Wales having their say. They did not vote for that last time, and there is no desire for it now. The Assembly should use and concentrate on the powers that it has. The National Assembly for Wales will be judged on what it does.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity.
12.20 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): We have had an interesting and informative debate. This is the first time that I have spoken in Westminster Hall, and if it is always as cold as this, I will not return in a hurry.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) made reference to my presence as Secretary of State—the debate is important. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office is not here because he is Cardiff discussing the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill that is currently going through the House with a National Assembly for Wales Committee. The purpose of his journey to Cardiff is to ensure the progression of the partnership in shared government that the devolution settlement is all about. When I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), I wondered whether his party wants that partnership and sharing of government. On the basis that Plaid Cymru's aim is independence or full national status, does he want the sharing of government between Members of Parliament who represent Wales and Assembly Members?
Mr. Llwyd: With respect, partnership must be equal. The example that the Secretary of State cites is not good. The Under-Secretary is at the National Assembly for Wales today discussing a Bill that has received its Second Reading, and surely it is now too late to change it. The Assembly expressed a view against the Bill before Second Reading.
Mr. Murphy: Although the Assembly had some differences of opinion about structure, there are opportunities for both Assembly Members and
114WH
Members of Parliament to deal with many aspects of that Bill and the draft NHS Bill that will come before us soon.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Assembly was weakened because powers were transferred to the First Minister. The Assembly itself voted in plenary to delegate power to the First Minister. He also said that the Government of Wales Act 1998 does not provide further powers to the Assembly, unlike the Scottish equivalent. However, section 22 provides for the transfer of functions, and other functions may go to the National Assembly for Wales.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned statutory instruments and, specifically, those that are made in Westminster but affect Wales. In 2000, 225 SIs were made in the National Assembly for Wales and seven were made in Westminster. In 2001, 308 SIs have been made in the Assembly and nine in Westminster. All the statutory instruments that are made in the House of Commons either transfer powers to the Assembly, or concern the law—the hon. Gentleman's profession—language or education. Such statutory instruments give extra powers and responsibilities to the National Assembly for Wales, which he would presumably endorse.
Plaid Cymru Members questioned whether the settlement is working. Of course it is. It works better each year. They and others have called me a dinosaur, but I am told that dinosaurs lasted for millions of years. The people of Wales voted for the Assembly only four years ago and it has operated for just over two years. I read in the South Wales Argus about Professor Hazell from the university of London who said that the settlement is not working. I have never met him, and I do not know who he is. All I know is that the Prime Minister has charged me with the responsibility of ensuring that the devolution settlement works. It does, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) has said. I agree with him that there are ways in which we can improve it, and we will look carefully at them in the years ahead. However, a comparison between 2001 and 2000 shows that the Assembly has been given more enabling clauses, so that it can decide how to deal with matters such as education.
Education provides a good example. There are 31 clauses that refer specifically to Wales in the Education Bill that yesterday had its Second Reading in Parliament. That Bill also proposes to enable the Assembly, if it so wishes, to have various powers. The Children's Commissioner for Wales Act 2001 has been derided by some people, who said that it was tagged on to another piece of legislation at Westminster. That was not the case. An opportunity was provided to introduce a Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill quickly, and that was supported by every party. Matters such as legislation on the national health service and on post-16 education could also serve to illustrate my point that not a single piece of primary legislation of importance to Wales has been refused in the past two years.
More importantly, the working relationships between the House and the Assembly are continuing to improve. What the people of Wales are concerned about above all else is the delivery of the services that affect their lives—as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said. However, they voted in the referendum of 1997 for a particular form of settlement:

115WH
a partnership in government between the House and the Assembly. They voted for primary legislative powers to remain at Westminster, on the basis that there is a reason for that, which is the partnership. That is what they voted for.
I have read the proceedings on the Government of Wales Bill—and I advise hon. Members to do the same. Those proceedings, on the Floor of the House and in the other place, are peppered with references to the fact that the people of Wales voted for the settlement, and to the fact that that is why—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) mentioned—the settlement is settled. It is not settled in concrete for many years to come—nobody has ever suggested that—but it is settled in the sense that only very recently people decided to vote for a particular type of devolution settlement.
Of course we have had teething problems, and there will be more to come. There will be occasions when the Government and the Parliament disagree on certain matters with the National Assembly for Wales. That will always happen, so long as Wales remains within the United Kingdom, and so long as the devolution settlement that the people of Wales voted for is in place.
Parliament is sovereign; it agreed to ensure that the legislation was passed, but did so on the basis that a majority of the Welsh people said that that is what they wanted. I say to Opposition Members that, although there have been difficulties, it is important that the Ministers and Members of the Assembly should be able to ensure that we get better services in health, schools, local government, transport and the environment, by sharing the responsibility for them with hon. Members at Westminster. The people of Wales want that settlement. It is working well and it will improve in the coming years.
The big test will come in 18 months. It is essential that we do not allow ourselves to get into a position where we use the constitutional questions to obfuscate the importance of the services themselves and the delivery of them. We must not carry on talking so much about constitutional issues—frankly, they turn off most of our constituents, important though we think they are.
Our constituents want a genuine improvement in the quality of their lives. We want to achieve that in a special way, by means of a devolution settlement—a constitutional arrangement—that has been operating for only a short while. That sharing of power and responsibilities between hon. Members and the Assembly is crucial to the success of the working of the Assembly—and, above all, to the success of the improvement of the quality of life of women, men and children. All hon. Members, along with Members of the Assembly are jointly responsible for that.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): As we have finished early, we can now move on to the next debate. It is a good day for the Welsh. I call Mr. Gareth Thomas.

Gas Network
12.29 pm
Gareth Thomas: I am pleased to have the opportunity to present a debate on a subject that is of interest not only to Wales, but to many people throughout the United Kingdom. I am also pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), in the Chamber. I hope that she can respond positively to some of the issues that I raise.
There are approximately 25 million households in the United Kingdom, 5 million of which—that is, 20 per cent—are not currently connected to the gas network. It is a large network that has been developed over a long time to a high engineering standard, but it needs to be expanded. Many of the households to which I have referred are fuel poor according to the definition adopted by the Government in their strategy for tackling fuel poverty. In other words, those households spend more than 10 per cent. of their income on energy to maintain an adequate standard of warmth. Many of those households are in rural communities. Moreover, many of them are close to a gas main. That is a cause of frustration.
In fact, Transco has estimated that no fewer than 1,300 communities with more than 150 households have no gas, but are within 2 km of the gas network. To use the jargon, they are infill communities. Gas is being supplied by gas transporters to new developments where there is competition. However, there is a problem with getting gas transporters to pipe gas into the communities that the network has not so far reached. Many of the communities to which I have referred are in my constituency, which is quite rural. I refer to Llysfaen, Betws yn Rhos and Gellifor in the community of Llangynhafal.
Mr. John Lloyd Roberts, the clerk to the Llangynhafal community council, recently wrote to me, and I shall quote briefly from his letter because it crystallises the frustration felt by many of my constituents. It states:
"The Community Council, on behalf of over 100 local residents, has been in discussion with Transco Wales Ltd over the past 6 months regarding the provision of mains gas to the village of Gellifor. I would like to emphasise that the main gas supply line passes very close to the village and a number of properties on the edge of the village have already been connected.
A quotation was recently received from Transco requesting a charge of £2001.00 per property—dependent upon receiving 30 quotations."
Mr. Roberts makes the point that prior to the deregulation of the gas industry,
"villages much further away from the pipeline were connected at a cost of less than £200 per property.
He goes on:
"The Community Council and local residents are extremely disappointed that the estimated cost has turned out so high and arrangements have been made to obtain alternative quotations from other public gas transporters. However, the alternative quotations are all similar to the price quoted by Transco. We have also investigated the possibility of obtaining assistance under the Objective I Scheme but have been told by the County Council that a Scheme of this nature would not qualify for Objective 1 funding … We find it difficult to believe that it was the Governments intention that the introduction of competition in the gas industry

117WH
should result in connection charges for rural communities increasing from the previous £200 to the current figure of £2,000 per property."
The community council has asked me to pursue the issue and to see what can be done to improve the regulatory framework.
The industry is highly regulated, and the system should be made more conducive gas transporters extending the network not just to rural communities but communities on the edges of towns. There seems to be a fair measure of consensus that the network should be extended, although it would be entirely unrealistic to expect all communities throughout the United Kingdom to be connected to gas.
Energywatch, the successor to the old gas and electricity community councils, accepts that there is a strong case for the gas network to be extended. The regulator, Ofgem—the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—accepts that there is a problem, which has prompted it to embark on a consultation process in relation to amendments to the arcanely titled Gas (Connection Charges) Regulations 2001. Those regulations are important if not crucial to the problem. In its letter to consultees on 21 August 2001, Ofgem said:
"Ofgem has become aware of a significant reduction in the extension of gas network extensions to rural areas, or `infills', and the limited level of competition in this market".
The Lattice Group, the parent company of Transco, which operates the national gas network, agrees. Mr. Richard Grant, head of environmental affairs in that organisation, noted:
"introducing gas to non-gas areas forms part of Lattice's overall sustainability agenda".
I am sure that the Minister will have no trouble in agreeing, as a basic principle, that that is also part of the Government's agenda for tackling fuel poverty—I refer to the fuel poverty strategy document, which was published in November.
The Minister will know that the industry has been involved in a working group chaired by the Department of Trade and Industry and involving the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other organisations, which was set up to consider the issue. I understand that an initial report has been presented to the Department. Will the Minister say when that final report will be published and how the Government propose to proceed?
Ofgem has also referred to the social action plan—which forms part of the parameters laid down by Government—that governs the role of the regulators. The Government have referred to the need to bear in mind some main objectives when dealing with regulation of the electricity and gas industry. One of those was to tackle poverty and social exclusion in order to improve the health of the population overall. The Government do seem to be concerned, and I acknowledge the progress that they have made in tackling fuel poverty to date. They accept that vulnerable customers should not be at risk of suffering adverse effects from the operation of competitive markets.
In a way, the debate encapsulates a classic problem. The Government believe in opening up markets and the virtue of competition, because that is in the overall interests of most consumers, including poorer families
118WH
and low-income households. The price of gas and electricity has gone down as a result. There are occasions, however, when the Government must intervene in the market to deal with distortions that have occurred and are occurring. The subject of this debate is a classic example of that.
Ofgem's social action plan goes on to say that it has to identify barriers to disadvantaged customers who participate in a competitive market, and that it would like to develop policy initiatives to allow such people greater access. I would be interested in what the Minister has to say on how we deal with fuel poverty overall. Gas has a part to play. It is a cleaner fuel, so it has an environmental advantage, and it is cheaper. A lot of people in my constituency have to buy oil, including me. It is messy and tends to be more expensive. Gas is an all-round option that many people would like to have.
I accept that the extension of the network requires the Government to deal with the structure of the industry and amend the regulations within which it operates. The current structure of the gas industry, which was brought about by the Gas Act 1986, as amended by the Utilities Act 2000 and other legislation, separates the function of gas supply from that of providing gas infrastructure such as pipes and pressure units. A company cannot hold a licence for two functions such as supply and transportation.
Before the 1986 Act, the old British Gas was an integrated business able to provide all gas services to its customers, including gas connections, supply and transportation. Many people fail to understand that. There is some confusion about titles and the new structure of the industry, although it has been in operation for some time. Transco, Lattice, Centrica and British Gas, not to mention other gas transporters, have a problem on their hands. I do not advocate that we go back to the old regime, but it is fair to say that it was able to recover the capital costs of extending the network in other sectors of its gas business, which was primarily based on the supply of gas. It is generally accepted that British Gas under the old regime provided a substantial cross-subsidy for the installation and extension of the network. However, we live in a different climate, and I accept the need for competition.
A gas transporter—a GT—is obliged to provide gas infrastructure to premises only where it is economical to do so. Of course, there is a 23 m rule whereby if someone lives within 23 m of a gas main, the GT has to connect him or her up to the mains. When the GTs determine the charges that they must apply, they are guided by the Gas (Connection Charges) Regulations, especially regulations 2(a) and 2(e). To make those extensions economically feasible, GTs have to recover the full cost of the mains installed within five years. That period is stipulated by the regulations, and the rule is inflexible and causes difficulties. It is clearly hampering the extension of the network to infill areas. It means that people like those living in Gellifor find the costs charged by GTs prohibitively expensive.
I would like to mention one other interesting aspect of the regulatory framework, which is condition 6 of the standard gas transporter's licence. It allows a GT to recover the costs of extending the network directly from the shipper, so that the shipper can recover it in due course from customers by billing them. The cost often does not appear on the bill. For many, that is a more

119WH
palatable and straightforward way to proceed. I know that Ofgem will examine condition 6 of the GT licence, but I would like to know whether the Government have any views. I suspect that we will have to extend the prescribed period. That would help, but we may have to go further. We may have to introduce innovative projects to deal with fuel poverty and examine the licensing regime and conditions.
The Minister knows what I am looking for. First, I want the Government to acknowledge that there is a problem. Secondly, I want them to do something about it. Thirdly, I want them to publish the findings of the working party to which I have referred. Do they accept the case that I have made for greater flexibility? In broader terms, do they accept that relaxing the regulatory framework will help them to pursue their broader agenda of tackling social exclusion and fuel poverty, as well as ensuring that rural communities feel part of our wider community?
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) on securing this debate. He has raised a matter of general concern, not only to his constituents but to many people without access to mains gas.
In response to my hon. Friend about our acknowledgement of the problem, we certainly agree that around 4.5 million British households—roughly 20 per cent. of the total according to my figures, which may be slightly different from his—do not have access to mains gas. Some of them would be able to take up a connection if they wished, but most would not.
Those households do not have access to what is seen as the cheapest and most convenient conventional fuel. I agree with my hon. Friend about that, although it could be said that there have been times when gas was not the cheapest alternative. There are other factors that determine the relative costs of fuels from time to time, such as the environment, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and convenience.
I turn to the statutory position, which is of concern to my hon. Friend. Without losing him and myself in a snow storm of detail, it may be helpful if I first say a little about regulation and what it has and has not delivered. Connections to the gas network are governed by a range of primary and secondary legislation, and in particular by the Gas Act 1986. Companies are obliged to connect within 23 m of an existing main. The energy regulator, Ofgem, is required to encourage reasonable requests for connection where it is economically feasible.
As a result of the range of legislation, and most recently the Utilities Act 2000, the provision of connections is now fully competitive. My hon. Friend espouses the values of competition. As I am, among other things, the Minister for competition, I must encourage him to get behind the notion that competition benefits consumers and has done so tremendously. I am sure that competition is the way forward.
120WH
Communities and individuals are no longer forced to use Transco, but may access one of the dozen independent gas transporters. That relates to my hon. Friend's point about Mr. Lloyd Roberts's letter, to which I will return later. Consumers may also use self-lay companies. As a result of competition, 70 to 75 per cent. of connections to new housing developments are now carried out by companies other than Transco.
There is a lot of competition in the area, and it is working. However, competition alone cannot deliver connections to the bulk of communities and households outside the network—or rather, it can, but the costs involved in providing connections are often beyond what households are prepared to pay. That in turn means that potential take-up is not high enough to make it worth while for the transporter to make the connection.
In the past, a monopoly, did not have to respond to costs, or it could spread them across its operations. Now, in charging householders for connections, Transco must reflect the cost of doing so in order to avoid abuse of its dominant position—none of the independent transporters can afford to subsidise connections. That point relates to research undertaken by Mr. Lloyd Roberts into the options and various fees quoted in the constituency case cited by my hon. Friend. That has led to concerns about lack of access to mains gas and the cost of connection to it being raised on behalf of two sets of people—although the two may overlap. The first is of those communities that wish to be connected but who find the cost prohibitive. The second is the fuel poor. It has been argued that lack of access to the network keeps households in fuel poverty by denying them access to the cheapest, most efficient fuel.
I turn to a couple of specific points raised my hon. Friend about regulation. Ofgem is consulting on changes to the Gas (Connection Charges) Regulations 2001. Although change of the type proposed by Ofgem to encourage the taking up of new connections would help, the Government believe that the change would have only a marginal impact on the problems that we are discussing. The regulator's duty to help people on low incomes does not override its primary duty to protect the interests of all consumers. The balance is ultimately a matter for the regulator. As my hon. Friend is aware, the regulator is independent of the Government.
I turn to work done by the gas network group and the report mentioned by my hon. Friend. As he acknowledged, the Government are particularly concerned to address issues surrounding social exclusion and disadvantage. The fuel-poverty strategy, which was published recently, reflects that concern. That is why when drafting the strategy we gave a commitment that we would work with Ofgem to ensure that, whenever possible, the gas network provided the widest viable coverage and the fullest viable capacity.
Rather than have an introverted debate between the DTI and Ofgem, we decided to establish a working group to consider the issues surrounding the network in the context of fuel poverty. The group, which met for the first time in May, therefore included representatives of the Government, the regulator, the gas transportation and supply industries, consumer bodies and organisations with an interest in energy efficiency. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy,

121WH
received its report last month, and it will be published shortly on the DTI's website. We expect it to be published before Christmas.
I shall not discuss the findings of the report, because it is yet to be published, but the statistical information available to the group suggested that, for the 900,000 English fuel-poor households without gas, the provision of gas central heating and, where practical, loft and cavity wall insulation could remove between 600,000 and 700,000 people from fuel poverty. A similar impact would be likely in Wales and in Scotland. However, the report notes that similar results appear to be obtainable from insulation and central heating systems used in conjunction with other fuels, so there is a variety of approaches to tackling fuel poverty.
Before turning to the fuel-poverty strategy, I shall say a little more about gas versus other fuels. The installation of appropriate insulation and heating measures could significantly reduce fuel poverty, but it is striking that the key to removing households from fuel poverty may not lie exclusively with access to a particular fuel, but in the combination of the insulation measures and central heating. Gas is certainly more convenient and is at present cheaper than other fuels, but some of those other fuels, including fuel oil and solid fuel, appear to come close in providing affordable warmth.
Indeed, the Scottish Executive's central heating programme took the view that when use of gas is unfeasible, fuel oil and solid fuel represent valuable alternatives, and that may prove to be the case in communities in England and Wales. The Welsh Assembly is piloting a programme that uses disabled facilities grants and HEES—home energy efficiency scheme—funding to provide oil-fired central heating with insulation measures as part of adaptation work.
As for the fuel-poverty strategy, I explained that the drive to consider issues surrounding the network arose within the context of the Government's work on fuel poverty. We are committed to tackling social exclusion in all its forms. Fuel poverty is one aspect of social exclusion and it creates great hardship in the lives of the 4 million households in the United Kingdom that are affected by it. That is why we published last month our fuel poverty strategy, which was agreed with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Our joint objective is to remove from fuel poverty by 2010 all vulnerable households—that is, those containing pensioners, small children, the disabled, or people with a long-term illness who are at risk of ill-health from cold homes.
Our latest analysis suggests that the number of fuel-poor households has fallen in the past few years, from about 5.5 million in 1996 to 4 million. That confirms that our policies of improving incomes and maintaining downward pressure on prices are working. The figures are based on modelling of changes in incomes and energy prices alone, and do not take account of improvements in housing energy efficiency over that time, so the real figure could be slightly lower. Whatever
122WH
the real number, however, there are still too many such households. The strategy sets a framework for taking the work forward. It is only the start of the process, and we stand ready to review and revise policies in the light of practical experience in the delivery of measures.
Gareth Thomas: I agree with a large part of what the Minister has said, but will the Government reconsider, with a view to amending, the regulations within which the gas industry must operate?
Miss Johnson: As I explained, there are clear parameters within which the framework functions, and we have no specific proposals to reconsider that. We are watching for the outcomes of our policies within the framework. Much work must still be done in response to the strategy and to the report, which will be published shortly. We need to consider the action identified in that report, and how we might progress from it.
The range of measures in the strategy is aimed at materially helping all fuel-poor households, irrespective of whether they are connected to the network. The fuel-poverty strategy sets out in some detail the position for Wales. The long-term answer to fuel poverty lies in improved energy efficiency in housing. That is a devolved matter, and responsibility for housing improvement and energy efficiency lies with the National Assembly for Wales. There is at present no direct estimate of the numbers of fuel-poor households in Wales, but the National Assembly will work to determine the extent and distribution of the problem.
A currently used indication of the level of fuel poverty is the number of households eligible for assistance under the Welsh home energy efficiency scheme, based on the 1997–98 Welsh house condition survey, which suggested that about 220,000 households were eligible for assistance. The scheme is the main vehicle in Wales for reducing fuel poverty. The basic package comprises grant aid for insulation measures up to the value of £1,500 and an enhanced grant of up to £2,700, which covers new central heating as well, for households containing people over the age of 60, lone parents, the disabled, and long-term sick. The programme also covers conversion of coal-heating systems to gas firing.
Rural conditions were at the heart of my hon. Friend's debate. Difficulties with improving rural housing include lack of access to mains gas and the high incidence of solid walls in older properties. The Assembly has commissioned an examination of alternative fuels and insulation methods that could be used in hard-to-heat homes. The initial study will report early next year and is looking for proposals for practical pilot studies to evaluate the use of identified alternative heating fuels and insulation methods.
Much work is being done on the wider strategy, and the Assembly is in touch with all those involved, including the DTI and DEFRA—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. We have run out of time. We thank the Minister for her reply.

School Transport
1 pm
Norman Lamb: I have called this debate to draw attention to the urgent need for the Government to take a more proactive approach to tackling the decline in the use of school buses. I have thought for several years that it is nonsense to cut home-to-school transport when our roads carry far more traffic than ever before and are therefore far more dangerous. At the same time, sensible environmental policy dictates that we should get as many people as possible out of cars and on to public transport.
The subject was brought to my attention again when the school year began in September. My constituency office was swamped with telephone calls from parents who had discovered that their children's school bus had been withdrawn or that arrangements had been altered. Many families were left in a difficult position, particularly those that could not make alternative arrangements. The villages of Horning and Southrepps were badly hit because the county council withdrew discretionary bus routes. The school bus to Antingham and Southrepps primary school was withdrawn completely because only one pupil lived far enough away to be eligible for free transport. That left two dozen other pupils who had taken up spare seats on the bus under the discretionary transport arrangements without any transport to school. As a result, far more cars must travel down dangerous narrow lanes to take those children to school, and the parking problems outside the school are horrendous. Several parents who try to combine work with child care face disruption, while those who take their children to different schools have a particular problem.
As regards Horning, parents were advised that they could use the public service bus to take their children to school when the school bus was withdrawn. However, the public service bus stops on the wrong side of a busy main road outside the school, and the children must then cross the road. It also arrives well before the start of the school day and therefore before the school is willing to accept responsibility for the children. That means that they must wait by the side of a busy road before being allowed on to the school premises. Thankfully, some children have been offered spare places on a minibus. However, that will be reviewed in February, and there is no certainty that they will keep their places.
I shall talk about the current legislative framework before highlighting the decline in school transport over recent years and putting the case for a substantial shift in direction. The rules on providing school transport date back to the Education Act 1944 and have remained unchanged. Unfortunately, the subsequent introduction of the parent's right to choose their child's school did not lead to a commensurate change in school transport rules—indeed, it has led to some crazy situations. A child might go to a particular school for very good reasons, but he will have no access to free transport if it is not the designated school.
Free school transport must be provided for children under the age of eight who live more than two miles from the nearest school. Older children must live more than three miles from the nearest school to qualify. Teenagers over the compulsory school leaving age have no right to free transport.
124WH
There is no comparison between the safety of roads 57 years ago, when the rules were introduced, and the situation now. Parents today understandably fear for their children's safety. Increased volumes of traffic create a much more serious hazard for all pedestrians, let alone young children. The child pedestrian death rate in this country is one of the worst in Europe; it is nearly four times that of Sweden and significantly higher than those of France or Germany. It is currently 0.87 per 100,000 children. Unfortunately, matters have worsened in recent years, because local education authorities in the past went well beyond the statutory minimum requirements and provided transport for children living within two and three-mile distances, depending on age. However, as budgets have been squeezed, local authorities have chosen to cut school transport provision rather than take money from schools. That has certainly happened in Norfolk, and I know from colleagues that the picture is similar around the country.
I am not trying to score cheap political points, but the Cinderella nature of the school bus service goes back a long way. I found a report of a court case involving Surrey county council in 1953. The county council had changed its school bus arrangements following a circular letter from the Education Minister,
"urging education authorities to curtail expenditure on the transport of children to school so far as possible".
The problem is a long-standing one. However, such an approach—although I recognise that there are other factors at play—has contributed to a dramatic increase in the number of children taken to school by car. In the past 10 years the total has doubled, which means 1 million extra every day. An RAC report published this year seems to confirm that the decline of the school bus has continued since Labour came to power in 1997. That is a cheap political point, but the trend has continued.
During peak rush hour periods, nearly 20 per cent. of cars on the road are doing the school run. It is worth noting that in the United States, hardly a country recognised for sound environmental policies, 54 per cent. of children under 12 go to school in the traditional yellow bus. That figure compares with 9 per cent. in this country.
The result of what I have described is chaos on the roads. As Professor David Begg, chairman of the Commission for Integrated Transport, which was set up by the Deputy Prime Minister, put it,
"Parents driving their children to school are a major cause of accidents. Double and triple parking outside the school gates cuts visibility and causes confusion."
That is a nonsensical state of affairs, with regard both to child safety and the environment. On its website about school travel the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions highlights the impact of the school run on local air quality, journey times and even local business competitiveness.
Two other matters cause me concern. First, provision for post-16 students is patchy. With no legal right to free transport the charges that are imposed are a disincentive for the children of low-income families to remain in education. I suspect that that hits low-income families in rural areas particularly hard, because the distances to college are greater.

125WH
A letter that I received from the Minister in October confirmed that variations in provision across the country
"have led to inadequate and inconsistent support nationally."
The Government recognise the problem. The Minister will know that concern has been expressed about the impact of moving post-16 education funding away from education authorities to the Learning and Skills Council. I would like reassurance that that change in funding arrangements will not lead to a decline in subsidised transport for that age group.
The second matter of concern to me is safety on buses, particularly the question of seat belts. A loophole in current legislation allows schoolchildren to be transported to school on a vehicle without seat belts, if that service is designated a public transport service, which does not have to be equipped with seat belts, rather than a school bus service, which does. In cases in Norfolk of which I am aware, little timetable information is available on the so-called public transport routes. For that reason, only schoolchildren tend to travel on them, yet because of the loophole, they do not have to wear seat belts and the bus does not have to be provided with seat belts. Lack of resources seems to be at the root of that unacceptable practice.
What then is the Government's response? The rhetoric is great: the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" sounds rather like motherhood and apple pie, but the Government's declared aim was stated to be
"a fairer society in which rich and poor, old and young, town and country dweller, all have reasonable access to transport for work, for school, for shopping and leisure; giving people a choice in how they travel, reducing dependence on the private car."
The White paper states:
"Public transport has a vital role to play in meeting those objectives, and giving people an alternative to the car."
The Audit Commission, in a report entitled "Going places: Taking people to and from education, social services and health care", published in the last few days, refers to the Government's stated aim of "reducing unnecessary car use" as
"a key part of the Government's transport and environmental policies".
It refers also to the value of school transport in helping parents enter the labour market and hold down jobs. That is particularly the case with single parents. Women have less access to cars than men. School transport can therefore aid social inclusion. Yet the ridiculous decline in school bus transport continues and the number of car journeys continues to rise.
I recognise that a great deal of work is going on around the country.
John Barrett: Some of the work currently being carried out in Scotland involves the Scottish Executive's introduction of a safer routes to school programme. You mentioned earlier that David Begg—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. I did not mention anything. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Lamb) may have mentioned him, but I did not.
John Barrett: I beg your pardon, Mr. Winterton, and ask your forgiveness as a new Member learning the
126WH
system of Westminster Hall debates. I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). Does he agree that one of the key issues is the introduction of safe routes to schools programmes such as that at Carricknowe primary school in my constituency? Speed bumps and other measures to reduce traffic are being introduced and parents are being urged to encourage their children to walk to school or use school buses.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Interventions must be brief. That appears to be more than an intervention. I will use my discretion, if the hon. Gentleman would like, briefly, to conclude his intervention.
John Barrett: Thank you, Mr Winterton. Urgency is key; any child injured or killed on the way to school is one child too many.
Norman Lamb: I very much agree. I recognise that there are schemes all over the country, including that fine scheme, which aim to make it safer for children to walk or cycle to school and to encourage car-sharing.
The Government established the school transport advisory group in 1998. I applaud such efforts, but they are not enough. They will not on their own reverse the current trends. I have the impression that the Government accept that, given the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement in February of a series of pilots of an American-style yellow bus service. I must ask, however, what action has been taken since then. I understand that the pilots are due to be launched in the new year. Will the Minister confirm where they will be, when they are due to start, the length of the pilots, whether they will operate under the distance rules from the legislation dating back to 1944 that I have described, whether pupils and students living within those distances will be charged for travel, and how much government investment will be? Finally, what are the Government's plans to extend the pilots across the country should they prove successful? If he cannot answer all those points today, I should be grateful if he would come back to me with full answers.
The potential value of an expanded school transport network, whether through the use of the designated yellow bus or greater investment in existing arrangements, cannot be overstated. Buses must have clear safety rules, ensuring the provision of the same driver each day, passenger checklists, installation of safety belts, and radio contact with an operations room.
Cutting morning traffic would be of enormous environmental benefit. Extending free transport rather than charging for it would have a big impact in persuading parents to get their children on to the school bus, but we must debate whether it should be free. As long as the 1944 rules remain, education authorities will be forced to make the impossible choice between increasing investment in public transport or in schools. Will the Government change the legislative framework? As Gordon Hanning, the head of the passenger transport unit at Norfolk county council, told me:
"Many people feel uncomfortable about the appropriateness of current legislation and that a new approach is called for."
Will the Government's worthy rhetoric be matched by investment?
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): My voice is going, and I hope that it does not go completely prior to the conclusion of my response. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate. All parties accept that the issue that he raises is important. The Government acknowledge the need to ensure that the current framework is working to the best effect and that significant resources are used in the most efficient way. Post-16 transport will continue to be the responsibility of local education authorities. That responsibility will not be transferred to learning and skills councils, which was made clear by the Learning and Skills Councils Act 2000. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about pilots, including all the details that he requested.
It costs about £500 million a year to provide statutory school transport for children of compulsory school age. We agree that school transport is relevant to all parents and children, whichever mode of transport they use. We often hear calls for an increase in home-to-school transport expenditure, but the figure is already substantial. About £485 million was spent in 1999–2000—an increase of approximately 9 per cent. on the previous year and above the level of inflation. Half of that expenditure was on children with special educational needs. They are high on our list when we consider young people who are excluded from society and education. School transport is funded by local education authorities, so any increase in transport costs would mean that less is spent on teachers, books, computers and school capital.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of statutory school transport is to ensure that no child is denied the right to attend a suitable school. It is not and never was intended to be an all-inclusive transport service providing free travel for those who could reasonably walk or who have chosen not to attend the nearest suitable school.
We will continue to make substantial increases in education funding. In 2002– 03, we will increase the educational standard spending assessment by more than £1.3 billion—an increase of 6 per cent. We are also increasing the standards fund by almost £160 million and the direct grant for schools by 2.75 per cent. That will help local education authorities to meet the escalating costs of school transport.
Norman Lamb: I recognise that the purpose of the 1944 school transport rules is to get children to school safely. However, we need a change. There is a sound environmental case for getting more children to school by bus. Does the Minister accept that the number of children taking a bus to school is declining, despite the investment?
Mr. Lewis: I accept the hon. Gentleman's general point. Of course, the objective must be to get more children to school by means other than cars. That would satisfy the requirements of an integrated transport policy and environmental and safety considerations. We absolutely agree. Where we part company, as we always do with the Liberal Democrats, is on the concept of infinite resources. Unlike them, the Government must work within the constraints of finite resources.
128WH
My next point will be a genuine one and not party political, although the last one was. To be fair, the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that he made one or two party political points in his speech. We must focus on ensuring that we get co-ordination and organisation at local level right, and that the significant additional resources that are going into the system make the difference in communities that they are meant to make.
The discussion is about diversification of modes of transport to get young people to and from school, but it is also about attitudes. It is not only in the context of education that attitudes to modes of transport have changed; it is a general phenomenon in communities and societies. The deregulation of buses in the 1980s contributed to it, but people are increasingly dependent on motor vehicles for a range of reasons.
Our 10-year transport plan, into which we are putting significant additional resources, is designed to create a far more balanced, integrated transport system. Clearly, that will affect how young people are transported to schools and college. It is essential to increase the use of alternative modes of transport to the car. I do not think that there is any difference in the ultimate objective, but we on the Labour Benches are persuaded that we can take measures within the existing legislative framework; however, we will introduce new legislation for post-16 education transport. I will discuss that in a moment.
We believe that we should use existing legislation better and ensure that the significant resources that we are putting in are used to best effect. In some ways, that is the dividing line. The hon. Gentleman advocates new legislation and infinite resources. The Government want to make better use of resources and ensure that existing regulations work to achieve the objectives that have been established.
On post-16 transport, we recognise that one of our primary objectives for education is to encourage more young people to stay on in education and learning after reaching the age of 16. We also recognise that a lack of access to acceptable transport is a contributory factor to so many young people dropping out of education at that age, especially in some rural areas.
We recently commissioned a study to map existing arrangements, to offer options for improvements and to produce good practice guidance. The study has been completed and the interim report made a strong case for re-ordering the legislation, specifically around post-16 transport. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, the Education Bill had its Second Reading yesterday and will be in Committee next week. It includes clauses that specifically relate to the debate.
The Bill will give local education authorities a coordinating role in developing policies with key partners to provide effective and efficient post-16 transport arrangements. We propose that LEAs work with school governing bodies, colleges, learning and skills councils and passenger transport authorities. Crucially, LEAs will be obliged to publish a transport policy statement in consultation with those partners by 31 May each year, setting out what provision and support is available through schools and colleges in the local area. That is very important because it will ensure transparency and give students much better information on what is

129WH
available. It will also drive more effective partnership working and facilitate the pooling of resources that is desperately needed.
Transport issues have dissuaded young people from continuing in education and learning, in part because of a lack of knowledge of and clarity in available services, and in particular because of a lack of collaboration between strategic transport authorities and educational institutions. The legislative framework will begin the process of dealing with several of the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, particularly those relating to post-16 education.
I should emphasise that, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, statutory school transport is not the only source of assistance for young people with travel costs. Local authorities have the power, although not a duty, to establish concessionary fare schemes. Some 40 per cent. of shire counties, for example, run such a scheme. A few schemes are countywide, and some offer fare reductions during the morning peak. Strategic authorities have therefore introduced a number of discretionary schemes that go beyond their statutory duties. They recognise that a significant part of developing and achieving an integrated approach to transport in local communities is dealing with travel to and from learning institutions.
Local transport plans, which we introduced as part of the Transport Act 2000, set out the general strategies for tackling local transport issues. School travel is meant to be an integral part of those plans, as is tackling the issue of children's safety during journeys to and from school. The plans are also meant to include targets for a modal shift away from the use of cars for school journeys, and the monitoring of progress. Authorities are also asked to establish how they will work with individual schools to develop comprehensive school travel plans.
The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is providing funds for implementing the local transport plans. In 2000, the local transport capital expenditure settlement provided an £8.4 billion package for implementing those plans over the next five years. That is a further example of investing significant
130WH
resources and developing a clear strategy. However, tangible benefits for communities up and down the country will take some time to feed through.
In an intervention, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) said that there is no time to waste, and that one child injured is too many. We agree, but it takes time for a new, cohesive framework and significant new investment to come together and make a real difference on the ground. As I always say to Liberal Democrats, there is such a thing as the concept of finite resources.
We are looking at a variety of ways to encourage sustainable travel from home to school and to reduce congestion. For example, the DTLR recently met major bus operators to discuss scope for greater standardisation in concessionary fare arrangements. Our concern is that such arrangements are patchy and differ greatly in different parts of the country. We want young people throughout the country to have universal access to arrangements that are similar to each other. At the conclusion of that meeting, the feeling was expressed that there is scope for standardisation. We need to focus on getting right the strategic responsibilities of local organisations.
The key to solving many of the problems that the hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned during his valid contribution to the debate is ensuring that we adopt a cross-Government approach. Departments with responsibility for transport, education, health or other public services—indeed, any Department that is responsible for creating a more cohesive community—need to contribute to creating both a legislative and a non-legislative framework, ensuring the best use of the significant additional money that the Government have put into transport, particularly transport to and from educational institutions. We recognise that there is a lot to do. We cannot claim, by any means, that we have cracked the problem, but we believe that we are heading in the right direction—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Time is up. I thank the Minister for his reply and express the hope that his voice will recover. We move to the last of today's Westminster Hall debates.

Rent Restructuring
1.30 pm
Mr. Iain Coleman: I am grateful for the opportunity to have a debate that will highlight a range of concerns on the Government's rent restructuring policy, which was the subject of a recent statement. It is a fantastically complex area, and the moves arise from broad decisions announced last December.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team of Ministers for having taken the time to listen to concerns expressed to them by tenants and by Members of Parliament. Significant concessions and alterations to the original proposals have been made, which I welcome. Last summer, I invited the noble Lord Falconer of Thoroton, then Minister for Housing, Planning and Regeneration, to visit my constituency. Not only did he visit a flagship housing development in Fulham of which we are especially proud locally, but he spent two hours meeting local registered social landlord officers and tenant representatives to hear their concerns about the Government's proposals. There remain, however, major concerns. My objective today is to highlight those and to ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether she can offer us any comfort on them.
The proposals, inevitably, have proven especially controversial in high-value areas among the few tenants who have found out about the potential impact on their rents. Although the proposals are broadly sensible as they affect the majority of tenants across the country, there are particular problems in areas of high capital values. I do not accept the premise that the notional value of a property should be a major determinant in the calculation of the overall rent of that accommodation.
Inevitably, the proposals affect families living in areas such as my constituency, where property prices are exceptionally high. Although that aspect of the formula affects tenants scattered across the country, those in London, particularly inner London, will be most adversely hit. The decision that capital values should be the second major criterion in calculating tenants' rents raises this question: why should a postal worker living in a three-bedroomed flat on the 14th floor of a tower block in Fulham pay £25 or £35 a week more for his accommodation than his counterpart postal worker living in a similar property in Newcastle? Why should a nurse living in designated key worker housing in a new development in Hammersmith pay significantly more than another NHS worker living in similar accommodation in Hastings?
During the past decade, my borough has acquired a record second to none among London councils in developing new affordable housing. In practice, the proposals bring into question how affordable that accommodation will be for future generations and especially for the key public workers who are so vital in any well-balanced and cohesive local community. Council rents in London have risen higher during the past decade than those in any other region. The practical effect of the proposals will be that many London tenants will face rent rises well above inflation rates every year for the next decade.
There are particular concerns about the rents that could be charged to housing association tenants. Housing associations are to be allowed to increase their
132WH
rents to the new target level as soon as they re-let existing properties. This means that tenants living in self-contained two-bedroomed accommodation in a converted house in Fulham, where, as I have remarked, property prices are exceptionally high, will pay vastly different rents for identical flats located in the same house. I must ask my hon. Friend the Minister, where is the cohesion and fairness?
Indeed, if some of the more avaricious registered social landlords pursue such a policy, and it appears that some plan to do so, it will clearly be inconsistent with lettings for new developments where the grant assumption set by the Department will be based on a phased movement to the new formula rents for existing tenants. The inevitable consequence will be that applicants, especially poorer applicants, will be deterred from accepting housing association property. My local authority, in common with most others across London, has a strict one-offer policy on permanent accommodation. That will place some tenants at risk of being found to be intentionally homeless if they decline an offer of a property because of the new target rents being set rather than the existing rent regime applying, which is what I advocate.
The Government's introduction of the council tax benefit restriction scheme in April 1998—I recognise that this is not a policy for which my hon. Friend the Minister is responsible—is a nasty and regressive measure which saves the Treasury a miserly sum. As a consequence, poor tenants are penalised in my constituency if they are entitled to receive council tax benefit, as the level of benefit available to them is capped at band E. Some tenants are forced to pay up to £14 a week, or £700 a year, extra out of their already meagre benefit allowances. A further measure artificially to hike poor tenants' rents will again penalise poor tenants for living in high capital value areas, and it cannot be justified.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister examine this problem to see whether the Government can come up with a solution for a situation whereby housing associations, whose average rent is due to rise under rent restructuring, in practice increase rents for re-lets faster than rents for existing tenants?
Next year in Hammersmith and Fulham, the local authority will be required to set the rent for each home. The weekly rent charged must not exceed £85 for one-bedroomed accommodation, £90 for twobedroomed accommodation, £95 for three-bedroomed accommodation or £100 for four-bedroomed accommodation. Those caps will rise annually by the rate of inflation plus 1 per cent.
Although I have said that the caps are welcome, I fail to understand the justification for increasing the cap by the extra I per cent. Why must rates always rise above inflation? Will the Department undertake to review the margin above inflation of the cap, if it can be demonstrated that the waged income increase for council and housing association tenants has increased by less than the average rate of increase in earnings? In recent years, the lowest paid workers' wages have not kept pace with average earnings.
Ms Karen Buck: Is my hon. Friend aware that in several London

133WH
authorities, including his and mine, the take-up of the working families tax credit is among the lowest in the country? Does he agree that part of the reason is that people entering the workplace find the added incentive insufficient to cover their housing bills? Does he agree that this policy may exacerbate that tendency?
Mr. Coleman: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I share her concerns.
A recent study showed that the increase in lower quartile incomes was only half the increase in median incomes. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that the poorest members of society who are working should not have to spend an ever-increasing proportion of their already moderate incomes on accommodation when those of us who are earning far more do not. It has been calculated that, by the end of the 10-year phase-in period of the Government's proposals, council rents will have risen by approximately one sixth. That amounts to £1.2 billion a year before taking inflation into account. Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that figure or, if she disagrees with it, advise me of her Department's estimate of the extra rent that council tenants will be paying at the end of the 10-year period?
Concern has been expressed about the value for money that the rent restructuring proposals represent for tenants who are affected by them. In Hammersmith and Fulham next year, some rents will rise by as much as £4.09, or 4.31 per cent., a week. I am advised by my director of housing that only 101 dwellings, representing less than 1 per cent. of the council's housing stock, will have a weekly rent reduction.
One of the claims that the Government have made in favour of the proposals is that the new structure of rents will allow tenants to choose whether to pay more for a better property or to save money by choosing a less popular property. That element of choice will, of course, be welcome when and where it applies. However, in reality it will not apply in inner London, where the demand for social housing is so great that it massively outstrips supply. Unless there are exceptional changes in their circumstances, tenants in inner London will find that their ability to choose where they live and how much they pay for a different quality of accommodation is virtually zero.
In my experience, most tenants would be prepared to consider paying higher rent if there were a commensurate increase in the level of service that they received. More caretakers, more security, better planned maintenance and more generous decoration allowances—those are the sorts of enhancements to services that tenants will want and expect if they are expected to pay more rent. An extremely complex formula in the Government's summer consultation paper shows that nationally tenants next year will get only £1 in every £2 of the increased rent in extra or improved services. Will the Minister comment on the accuracy of that calculation? Can she offer tenants any comfort by assuring them that they will receive genuine enhancements to services if their rents are increased?
In my borough, the Government proposals will lead to higher rent increases in the next 10 years than in the past decade—I remind my hon. Friend that the majority of that was spent under a Conservative
134WH
Administration—despite the fact that we have proved that London rent increases have been well above average during that time. The average rent increase in Hammersmith and Fulham over the past 10 years was 23.2 per cent., compared with the projection based on the current proposals of 29.5 per cent. over the next decade. That will apply particularly to one and twobedroomed properties, which represent 73 per cent. of my local authority's housing stock. If we can demonstrate that the increase will lead to improved services, I believe that tenants will accept it. If not, they will not understand why they are asked to pay significantly more for no obvious gain.
I recognise that the Government have made strenuous efforts to respond sympathetically to the representations made to them by elected representatives and those landlords who have expressed concern about the proposals' practical implications. However, some of my hon. Friends and I would have preferred the Government to agree to defer the implementation of these policy changes for a further 12 months to allow for much wider consultation with tenants.
The overwhelming majority of tenants remain blissfully ignorant of the proposals. However, in the past few weeks increasing numbers have become aware, some have written to me expressing their surprise and anger about the lack of consultation and asking where the mandate for the implementation of the policy comes from. Will my hon. Friend the Minister examine ways of further ameliorating the effect on tenants who live in high capital value areas?
I am, however, pleased that the Government have agreed to a simplified commencement of implementation as from April 2002. I am also pleased that, in answer to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), my hon. Friend the Minister gave a commitment to have further consultations with local authorities and tenants' groups. What will those consultations mean in practice, and how will they be carried out, especially with tenants groups?
I am pleased that in the same answer my hon. Friend gave a commitment to review the policy constantly and to annual monitoring and fuller research of the policy in practical and operational terms. What will the three-year review that she recently announced cover? Will any issues be excluded from the review; if so, what will they be? How will the potential poverty trap implications be monitored in practice? How will local authorities, the National Housing Federation, tenants' representatives and Members of Parliament be involved in specifying the nature of the issues to be monitored and researched?
The Government's restated commitment to the future of public housing is very welcome. I recognise that Ministers have tried to assist those of us with serious worries about the impact of the proposals on some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies whom we are bound to represent.
The Chartered Institute of Housing has responded in the past few days to the Government's proposals by emphasising that basing rents too much on house prices will inevitably create rent differentials throughout the country. It pointed out that if rents in some areas are too high, they will have an adverse effect on work incentives, trapping tenants in unemployment and adding to social

135WH
exclusion. I agree with the institute and hope that the Government will continue to work with tenants, landlords and Members of Parliament to ensure that the policy does not, in practice, penalise the very people it was designed to assist.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) on his success in the ballot and on raising this important topic. Before responding to the details of what my hon. Friend said is a complex policy on rent restructuring, I want to make two commitments absolutely clear. First, the Government are committed to ensuring that social housing remains affordable for people on low incomes. Secondly, we are committed to ensuring that low-income people and communities can continue to live in areas of high value, such as those in inner London. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about rents in areas of high value, and the Government have taken steps to deal with that. I shall come back to that later.
Our policy on rent restructuring is part of the Government's wider housing agenda. The aim is to close the gap between rents in different sorts of social housing and, as my hon. Friend said, to pave the way for greater choice for social housing tenants. That applies not only to different council properties in the same area but to different sorts of social housing tenure, because at present the perception that housing association rents are high can be a bar to people who might consider applying for that sort of housing. We want a sensible structure of rents so that tenants can choose whether to pay more for a better property or to save money by choosing a less popular property. To achieve that, we are establishing a common basis for social rents throughout England by linking rents to both the value and size of the property and to manual earnings in the area. The new rents must be affordable and we are linking them to local earnings to ensure that. They will not be market rents. Rents in the social sector throughout most of the country will generally remain well below what a tenant would pay for the property from a private landlord. I said that that will apply throughout most of the country, because some areas have very low demand and different trends in property prices.
To put the matter in perspective, average manual earnings in London are around £19,000 a year, or £370 a week. Average local authority rents in London are around £60 a week. Someone on average manual earnings spends around 16 per cent. of his or her income on housing. We have not used average earnings because that would distort the position, particularly in London. The calculation takes no account of contributions from anyone else in the house who is also earning. That can be contrasted with someone renting in the private sector—I am sure that my hon. Friend knows the figures better than I do—in which average London rents are usually more than double those in the social sector for less space. It has not been possible to track trends over time, but I would be interested in doing that. I am confident that the ratios are good and ensure that rents are affordable.
136WH
We recognise that any increase is a financial pressure, especially for those on low incomes, and the need to protect tenants from large or sudden rent increases. We acknowledge the need for a smooth and gradual progress from existing rents to the new system. We must protect tenants, local authorities and housing associations during that period by ensuring that sensible and predictable changes in rents take place each year. We have therefore built in four safeguards. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and other colleagues, for lobbying for them.
The first protection that we have built into the system is that the move to new rents will take at least 10 years for most properties, and longer for others. For local authorities and registered social landlords, 10 years is a reasonable period during which to come to terms with changes to the financial structure.
Secondly, we want rent increases limited to the retail prices index plus 0.5 per cent. and £2 a week in any one year. That will help keep rents affordable and will mean that, if local authorities apply the formula, rent increases will be less during the coming decade than in the past 10 years.
Thirdly, we have capped the upper limits on rents. That will be £100 a week for a four-bedroomed property, and less for smaller dwellings. Where rent is already above the upper limit, it will be frozen or reduced. Each year, the limit of the cap will be increased by RPI plus 1 per cent.
Fourthly, local authorities can apply aggregate increases for the first year. That will particularly benefit those areas where there is wide divergence between property values—the peaks and troughs that affect my hon. Friend's constituency.
Those safeguards mean that there will be only a gradual change in rents for tenants. We have done some sums; it is likely that changes in rents nationally, as a result of rent restructuring, will be only half the increase of the past decade. Average rents in London are likely to move broadly in line with the national average. However, I will be careful when talking about rents for the next few years because housing associations and local authorities will remain responsible for setting rents. We should like local authorities to follow our policy, and we will influence their approach through the housing subsidy system, but we cannot take decisions for them. However, were Hammersmith and Fulham to decide to follow our policy on rents for next year, its average rent would go up by between £2.70 and £3 a week.
My hon. Friend asked what tenants will get out of rent restructuring. It is not the case that all council tenants will face a rent increase. The rents of about one in five council tenants will fall in real terms, which is a direct and positive outcome for them. More than 60 per cent. of social tenants receive housing benefit and will continue to receive that protection after the impact of rent restructuring.
My hon. Friend asked about the improvements that council tenants will see in their housing. I point to the Government commitment to make all social housing decent by 2010; that will include tackling the £19 billion backlog in council house investment, which we inherited. We have already made a start and the amount that we have allocated for housing investment is already

137WH
twice that which the last Conservative Government planned for 1997–98. We plan further rises in investment. It is also right that tenants should make a greater contribution to the cost of the upkeep of their property as quality improves.
My hon. Friend asked about consultation. Considering the quantity of information available on the proposals, substantial opportunity has been provided for comment and discussion. The information that has been circulated through local media means that many people will be aware of what is happening. We consulted widely on the rent restructuring proposals last year, before announcing our decision in December 2000 in the housing White Paper. We consulted again this summer about the changes that need to be made to local authority housing subsidy so that it does not hinder progress towards the new rents.
Mr. Coleman: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. I recognise that the landlords were consulted widely before last December. Will she tell me or give me some practical examples showing exactly how housing association tenants were consulted? In my constituency, and I suspect in the constituencies of my hon. Friends, the vast majority of tenants were never consulted, know nothing about it and remain in blissful ignorance to this day.
Ms Keeble: It is hard to give examples that would cover the whole country, but I have seen reports based on housing authorities consulting their tenants at the time of the consultation on our proposals, which we carried out this autumn. It is clear from local newspapers that a number of local authorities did that. I find it hard to believe that all people are in blissful ignorance.
This issue has come up in meetings that my Government colleagues and I have attended, and there have been clear discussions among some tenants or tenant organisations about the proposals and the possible implications. I accept that it is impossible to say that every tenant knows what has happened, but there has certainly been more discussion and consultation than the Government are often given credit for.
Ms Buck: I certainly would not expect my hon. Friend to be able to answer a question of such specificity during this debate. However, I am afraid that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham
138WH
(Mr. Coleman) the confident view that most individuals had no idea about the implications of restructuring until, at the most, two or three weeks ago.
I wonder whether the Minister could write to me and my hon. Friends giving examples of letters or news reports where actual representations were made to tenants before, say, the beginning of November on the implications of rent restructuring.
Ms Keeble: I will certainly do that. I can think of local newspaper articles that I have seen, and I will arrange for us to track back and find out what happened. Clearly, local authorities will be consulting from here on in, as they take decisions about what to do about their rents for next year. We have clearly said that they have discretion in a number of areas.
I would like to deal with a few particular points that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham made. Housing associations are free to decide how quickly they move their rents to the levels required by rent restructuring, although they should aim to complete the process as far as possible in the next 10 years. We have advised the chair of the Housing Corporation that where housing associations do not need to put their rents up to remain financially sound, they should not be pressed to do so. I shall undertake to raise my hon. Friend's concerns with the chair of the Housing Corporation because it is in the interests of the council housing sector and housing associations to ensure that some equity is achieved.
My hon. Friend has also raised issues about different constituencies and the impact in different parts of the country. It remains a responsibility of local authorities and registered social landlords to decide rent levels and patterns. Local authorities will set rents for 2002–03 in January or February next year. A number of issues will not be resolved until then.
I want to leave one last thought with colleagues. Great attention has been devoted to the detail of the implementation of this policy. I would place it fair and square against the backdrop of housing policy as a whole. In government, we have to take a view across—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. I regret to tell the Minister that, although we thank her for her reply, the time is up.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.