Jim Callaghan died during the Easter recess just a day before his 93rd birthday. Many present and former Members, and from all sides, have already paid warm tribute to someone who was a Member of this House for 42 years and the only Member of Parliament ever to hold the four great offices of state. But those tributes, from political allies and foes alike, do not simply focus on his remarkable career. They talk, rightly, as much about his personal qualities—about his decency, honesty and integrity, his friendship and loyalty.

Many of the tributes also touched on Jim Callaghan's devotion to his family and in particular to Audrey, his wife, who died just 11 days before him. He had nursed her through a long illness. His marriage to her was a thing extraordinary and humbling to witness: a genuine, deep and abiding love that never wavered, never dulled through good times and bad, but burned true and full even as they grew old and frail. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our sympathy to Michael, Margaret and Julia and the wider family on the loss of both their mother and their father.

In Jim Callaghan's case, one could not separate his achievements as a politician from his qualities as a man. Many times over the past 10 years, I had reason to seek his counsel. Each time, he gave it with a rigorous approach to the problem in hand, objective advice as to how to resolve it and an utterly unswerving commitment to the country and to the political party he served.

Jim Callaghan's life almost spans the history of the entire Labour party. It was the Labour party's values of social justice, solidarity and opportunity for all that brought him into the party and he worked tirelessly throughout the whole of his life to put them into action.

Jim Callaghan was brought up by his widowed mother and had known hard times as a child. Indeed, he used to recall the difference the pension provided by the first Labour Government had made to their family's life. He left school at 16 to become a clerk in the Inland Revenue—perhaps the only one in history to climb the ladder so far that he became First Lord of the Treasury. But perhaps because he always regretted not having had the chance to go to university, he was passionate throughout the entirety of his political career about spreading the benefits of education as widely as possible. In 1976, his Ruskin college speech on education was the first by a Prime Minister to recognise the central importance of education to Britain's future and the need to educate well not a few but all the country's children. I hope that that lives on in this Government's commitment to education today.

Jim Callaghan was also one of the generation who fought in the war and came back determined to build a better, fairer and different Britain, one at peace with our neighbours. He was a real patriot, but thanks to his experiences of the war, never confused patriotism with narrow nationalism. Britain was, of course, still at war when he was adopted and then elected as Member of Parliament for South Cardiff. He continued to serve that constituency and the city with great pride and affection for 42 years and took its name for his title when he went to the other place.

When Jim Callaghan began his career in Parliament, it was not long before his talents were recognised by the great reforming 1945 Labour Government of Clement Attlee. Two years after he was first elected, he was appointed Parliamentary Secretary for Transport. I confess that, until recently, I was not aware of the fact that, in his first ministerial post, he was responsible for introducing both zebra crossings and cat's-eyes on trunk roads. Those are lasting achievements of which most junior Ministers in any Government, of whatever persuasion, would be envious. He was also proud to have been a member of a Government who, among their many achievements, created the national health service.

When Labour lost power, Jim proved himself an effective performer in opposition. He had a rapid rise through the ranks, being elected to the shadow Cabinet and then to Labour's ruling national executive. His calmness under pressure, his easy manner and his ability to think quickly meant that he was a good performer not just in the House, but on the new medium of television. His long period as shadow Colonial Secretary strengthened his commitment to the Commonwealth and to the developing world and he forged many friendships there that have stood the test of time. I know that he would have been delighted at this Government's work on debt relief and with the Commission for Africa.

From 1964 onwards, when Labour was returned to power, Jim went on to hold the four great offices of state over the years to come. He served in each with distinction, but in each he was also severely tested. As Chancellor, he inherited an economy badly out of kilter with an overvalued pound and record balance of trade deficits. When he was forced eventually to devalue, he insisted on resigning from the Treasury.

As Home Secretary, Jim inherited the deepening crisis in Northern Ireland and it fell to him to send in the Army to help protect the Catholic minority. He handled the worsening situation with great calm and confidence, which only increased his standing in the party and, indeed, the country. It was also on his watch as Home Secretary that Parliament abolished for good capital punishment for murder—an example of his determination to build a more decent and a more civilised society.

As Foreign Secretary from 1974 to 1976, Jim fought and, indeed, won a referendum on Britain's membership of the Common Market. Though by no means a natural enthusiast, he was convinced by the evidence that it was in Britain's strong national interest to be at the heart of Europe.

All those trials and tests were preparation for when Harold Wilson stood down as party leader and Prime Minister in 1976 and Jim was elected his successor. He threw himself into the job with characteristic courage and commitment and, indeed, he needed all his personal qualities to hold together both the party and a parliamentary pact with the Liberals—a tribute to anyone's patience.

He was good at it.

He was indeed good at it.

As Prime Minister, Jim became a figure, even as the difficulties mounted, viewed with respect and he brought an earthy common sense and determination to do right to all that confronted him. In many ways, despite the problems, it was the office to which he was best suited. If he had been given time, Jim Callaghan would have made not just a good Prime Minister, but a great one.

Finally, after almost three years, most of it without a Parliamentary majority, the Government were defeated. The margin of defeat was just one vote and it says a great deal about Jim Callaghan that, even though he knew how close the vote would be, it was on his express instruction that a desperately ill Labour Member of Parliament was not ordered down for the Division.

By the time that I arrived in the Commons in 1983, Jim Callaghan was no longer leader but a respected Father of the House. He later sat in the other place, where he continued to make telling contributions to debates on subjects close to his heart—including, of course, the power of education to transform lives. I know how important it was for him to see Labour back in power again and how delighted he was with this Government's programme of economic stability and social justice combined together.

Kenneth, now Lord, Morgan makes the point in his recent biography that Lord Callaghan in many ways personified the history of post-war Britain, the challenges and its successes. He also embodied, as a man and as a politician, the essential and enduring values of fairness, compassion and solidarity. He will be sorely missed, but as Jim Callaghan himself said in his memoirs:

"In the Labour Party, it is now the task of a new generation . . . to reconcile individual freedom with the general welfare, to settle the limits of the state's reach, to grapple with and overcome racial discrimination and to assist the great mass of poor people who make up the world's population to free themselves from poverty and ignorance".

Those are the goals to which, in his memory, we, at least on this side, rededicate ourselves today.

Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to pay my own tribute to Lord Callaghan.

When I first entered the House in 1979, he was extremely kind and helpful to me, as he was to all new Members of Parliament. That kindness and support was always there, even when he left the House of Commons and was elevated to the House of Lords. He will be missed by a great many Members of this House.

May I associate myself with the Prime Minister's generous tribute and join him in offering my sincere condolences to Lord Callaghan's family?

Jim Callaghan was universally respected. The warmth of the tributes that have flowed over the past week from across the political divide, all corners of the United Kingdom and elsewhere bear testimony to that. All who met him spoke of his personal qualities, dignity, warmth and humanity, and those who had never met him knew of him in the same way. He will be remembered especially fondly in Wales. There he was an adopted son, having served Cardiff in Westminster for 42 years. All who doubt where his loyalties lay should reflect on the words of his biographer: when England played Wales at rugby, Jim Callaghan referred to Wales as "we". That is good enough evidence for me.

As the Prime Minister said, Lord Callaghan had the distinction of being the only holder of all the great offices of state. As such, he had a profound influence on the course of the political life of our nation across the entire latter half of the 20th century. His modest background and growing up during the depression fuelled his approach to politics. His period as Home Secretary saw him take the difficult decision to send soldiers to Northern Ireland. As Foreign Secretary, he helped to renegotiate the terms of entry into the then European Economic Community. As Prime Minister, he launched a debate on education that many credit with leading—eventually—to the introduction of the national curriculum.

Lord Callaghan was brave in standing for his own beliefs. In fact, one of his first actions in government was to resign as a Parliamentary Private Secretary over the American loan agreement in December 1945. One of his last actions as an active politician was to speak out against unilateral nuclear disarmament at a time when that was far from fashionable in his party. He always had a willingness to learn. On becoming shadow Chancellor, for example, he quickly recognised the need to take a course in economics at Oxford.

It is fair to say that Lord Callaghan's premiership took place, to adapt the allegedly Chinese proverb, in interesting times. He had to grapple with serious questions, such as the role of trade unions, Britain's economic decline, the search for peace in Northern Ireland and the issue that eventually forced the election in 1979—devolution. None of those was unique to his Administration because the same issues were faced by Governments both before and after his. They were long-term problems with no short-term solutions. Other Governments would need to tackle them over the years that followed. In some ways, Lord Callaghan foreshadowed the prescriptions that would follow, too, not least in his famous 1976 Labour party conference speech warning of the perils of countries spending their ways out of recession. His Administration can be regarded as a watershed and his prescient comments before his defeat, acknowledging a sea change in domestic politics, showed that he foresaw what was to come.

It is remarkable that, even during and after that defeat, Lord Callaghan never lost his personal popularity. Recently he won praise from unlikely quarters. Baroness Thatcher called him a formidable opponent who could best her across the Dispatch Box and Lord Tebbit called him "warm and approachable". He was widely seen as having a shrewd political instinct while retaining both common sense and a common touch. He was an excellent negotiator—by no means an insignificant attribute given the challenges of his time. He was a patriot and from the last generation to have served in the war.

As the Prime Minister said, Lord Callaghan was a family man, in deed as well as word. He cherished the company of not only his children, but especially his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Of course, he was devoted to his wife Audrey. It is a bittersweet testimony to that devotion that he died just 11 days after she did.

It was perhaps characteristic of Lord Callaghan that he was said to remark that one of his proudest and most lasting achievements—to which the Prime Minister has alluded—was, as a junior Transport Minister, the introduction of cat's-eyes on our roads.

Loyalty to principle, decency, humanity, sincerity: these are the attributes for which Lord Callaghan will be remembered and he will be sadly missed.

It is a privilege to associate myself with the very proper expressions of condolence from the Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative party to the relatives of the late Lord Callaghan.

I can certainly echo what you said a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker. All three of we party leaders were elected to this House in 1983, and Jim Callaghan was the Father of the House in that Parliament. In those days, I happened to be the youngest Member of the House, and he was very avuncular to me in both image and reality. As Father of the House, he took time to show me around the House of Commons Library, to introduce me to the Officers and staff and to do things that, frankly, he did not need to do, but which he none the less took it upon himself to do. That was the nature of the man, and a very fine man he was, too.

In an age in which most of us have had the opportunity of some form of tertiary education, it is remarkable that, as recently as the late 1970s, a man who did not have that opportunity—and who was keenly conscious of those who also did not have that opportunity—was able to rise to the great offices of state and to the ultimate office: that of Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister referred in passing, perhaps unnecessarily pejoratively, to the period of the Lib-Lab pact, and I want seriously to echo the reflections of one of my predecessors, Lord Steel of Aikwood, on his dealings with Prime Minister Callaghan during that period. Despite all the difficulties—the precariousness arising from the lack of a parliamentary majority and the obvious issue of party self-interest, but the need none the less to build majorities in the Division Lobby and to ensure the continuing governance of the country against a very difficult economic backdrop—David Steel found that Jim Callaghan had an acute sense of the overriding national interest, which he was willing to elevate above and beyond sectional party interest. That is a good example for us all.

Jim Callaghan was a member of a most remarkable post-war generation of politicians in this House, which also included people such as Sir Edward Heath and the late Roy Jenkins. Tempered as they were by the experience of war, they were determined to build, at home and internationally, a better world order than the one that they experienced during that terrible and tumultuous period.

Our sympathy obviously goes to Jim Callaghan's immediate family, but we are grateful for the remarkable example of decency and consistency in public life that he undoubtedly set.

Never, ever, was a parliamentary nickname more inappropriate: "Kind Jim", "Thoughtful Jim" and yes, "Calculating Jim", but not "Sunny Jim" by any stretch of the imagination. He was extremely kind, as has been said, to new Members, and I go back to the 1958 Labour party conference in Scarborough. It was my first conference and I found myself in the unenviable position of moving the first composite motion on the first morning. No one could have been more thoughtful towards an extremely nervous parliamentary candidate. Indeed, Chris Price, the elder brother of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and I had our proverbial hands held by Jim Callaghan at that time. Not only that, he went out of his way to introduce young members of the party to his many contacts in the developing world. As has been said by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, he certainly had many extremely close friends in the developing world.

When I was elected to the House, the other by-election candidate—many will remember Jeremy Bray—and I were asked within a couple of days to go and see the shadow Chancellor in his room. He said that had been told by Sara Barker, the legendary national party agent, that we were both excellent by-election candidates. Then he looked at us and said, "Of course, in my experience, Sara's swans turn into geese." That was Jim. Jeremy then proceeded to give the shadow Chancellor a lecture on econometrics as only Jeremy Bray could.

Jim was a thoughtful man. I am the last Member of the House of Commons who had to stand at the Bar of the House to face Mr. Speaker putting on his black cap to administer a formal rebuke, after I was "done over", shall we say, on Porton Down, by the Privileges Committee. Jim Callaghan first said that he did not take part in blood rituals and was not going to vote for what was, after all, a Speaker's motion when he was Home Secretary. Secondly, he summoned me when I was in adversity: he called me a chump, but no one could have been kinder. It is the experience of Roy Hattersley and many others of our generation that Jim was extremely thoughtful and kind whenever there was trouble.

In 1969, I wanted to go to Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will remember the incident. Being a courteous person, I let the then Minister of State in the Home Office—Welsh Members will remember him as Elystan Morgan—know that I wanted to go to the troubles of Northern Ireland. I received one of those pink slips, but it was not from Elystan Morgan but from the Home Secretary, inviting me to go and see him forthwith.

I waddled across to that long sepulchral room in the Home Office and there was Jim Callaghan sitting at his desk. He looked up and said, "I hear you want to go to Northern Ireland. What do you think you can do for the good of the Northern Irish that I cannot do as Home Secretary?" He was quite good at reducing his colleagues to a watery laugh. After that, he went on to explain that in no way was he going to have his faithful Parliamentary Private Secretary, the late Gregor Mackenzie or any Scot in Northern Ireland. He would depend on Roland Moyle, whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) knows very well was, along with Merlyn Rees, Roger Stott and others, part of the Callaghan praetorian guard. Jim Callaghan certainly gave great loyalty to those who were loyal to him.

I also think of Jim's courage. In 1972, I went to his flat in south London after he had had a prostate operation. He took the view that he would probably not come back into central politics again. However, the courage and determination that drove him all his life ensured that he did come back—and, indeed, as Foreign Secretary in 1974.

Jim Callaghan was complex. I was the chairman of the Labour party's foreign affairs committee when he was Foreign Secretary. I used to see him every Wednesday night. Sometimes I would say to him, "As a senior member of the Cabinet, what are you going to do about all these problems concerning Scotland, the Scottish Parliament and so on?" "Oh," he said, "Don't trouble me with that nonsense. Tell me what the party thinks about Cyprus." He was a consummate politician, because when the Scottish problem erupted the Prime Minister took a somewhat different view.

In 1986, I was invited by a Welsh constituency Labour party to speak about intelligence and security. I accepted and, being a courteous man, I let the local Member of Parliament know. The response was an invitation to go to tea with Jim and Audrey at their Cardiff flat. I asked him how I would get from his flat to the meeting. "Oh," he said, "I'll take you." I said, "Jim, you are not coming to the meeting are you?" He said, "I always go to my constituency party meetings." He took me and I have never quivered so much in my life. I said to him, "You were only Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister. Why are you not talking on intelligence and security?" He smiled sweetly and said, "They never ask me," and added, "I am curious to know what you are going to say." I have many happy memories.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister paid tribute to Jim's faithfulness and great esteem for Audrey. The last time I was on the phone to him some months ago he simply said, as he did to many other people, "I've got to go because I am due to go and see Audrey." I salute both of them.

I am grateful for the chance to say a few words. I knew Lord Callaghan for 46 years—exactly half of his long life—and I join the Prime Minister in his comments about the warmth and fine character of Jim Callaghan. It fell to him, as the then shadow Colonial Secretary, to reply to the debate on central Africa in March 1960 when I made my maiden speech. In his winding-up speech he said some characteristically pleasant words about my maiden speech and subsequently wrote me a charming letter of congratulation. That was typical of his kindness and I had many examples of that during the long years that followed.

I have had the privilege of listening to 10 Prime Ministers answering questions and Jim Callaghan, in the extraordinarily difficult economic circumstances of his premiership, was the ablest of the 10 at answering Prime Minister's questions.

I want to give a little vignette, which is intended to be of historic interest and not controversial. When Hugh Gaitskell was unexpectedly taken ill and his health tragically deteriorated almost unbelievably, it was reported that he was suddenly gravely ill. It so happened that I was lunching that day at the Carlton club. When I arrived, Harold Macmillan, who was then Prime Minister, was sitting alone at the members' table, as he often did—perhaps twice a week—but not always alone. He beckoned me over, so I went and sat next to him and said that it looked as though Gaitskell might be dying. Those were the days when party leaders were interested in what Back Benchers had to say—[Laughter.] He asked me whom I thought the Labour party would choose to succeed Gaitskell. I said, "Well, the three names that are being mentioned as front runners are Harold Wilson, George Brown and Jim Callaghan." To which Macmillan replied, "If they've any sense, they'll elect Callaghan, because he is much the best man they've got."

Many of the things that have been said about Lord Callaghan will be treasured by his family and many friends.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has already referred to the way in which Lord Callaghan always went back to his constituency and to the party. In 1987, I inherited a constituency Labour party that was used to being addressed each month by the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister. As I said at the time, "Follow that." Until I had been here for a while, however, I did not realise that the help that I received as a constituency MP from my predecessor was not the universal experience of all my colleagues. Nobody could have been kinder or more helpful than Jim.

For Jim, the people of Cardiff, South and Penarth came first. As Foreign Secretary or as Prime Minister, he always asked the question, "What are people saying in Splott, Llanrumney, Penarth and Grangetown?" I was privileged to sit in on surgery sessions as he dealt with the individual and community problems of people in the constituency and in sessions with his agent, Jack Brooks—now Lord Brooks of Tremorfa—and with Gordon Houlston, the chair of the constituency party, as he probed the local issues and linked them to his national and international perspectives. His love and care for the people of the constituency is still reflected in their deep and abiding affection for him.

One anecdote sums it all up for me. Jim was introduced to the great Joe Erskine, the boxer from Butetown. "I'm delighted to meet you," said Jim, "You're a hero of mine. I've always wanted to meet you." Joe said, "We've met before, Mr. Callaghan." "Oh," said Jim, "I don't think we have. You've been my hero. I would have remembered." "No," said Joe Eskine, "Do you remember taking a group of children from St. Mary's school in the docks around the House of Commons? I was 11 years old at the time, and you shook my hand as we left." Jim then said wryly, "You should always remember and be careful how you speak to 11-year-old boys. You never know what they are going to grow up into."

Jim never forgot his people in his constituency and they loved him for it. After standing down as MP, he continued to work for us, supporting the development of Cardiff bay and helping us to find the right design for the new building for the National Assembly for Wales. Audrey, who died 11 days before him, was loved and celebrated in her own right, as a campaigner on children's issues as well as Jim's constant companion in his visits to the constituency.

Those who accuse MPs of being remote or detached forget that we return to our constituencies regularly to respond to individual and community concerns and to hear directly from the people. Nobody could have possibly encapsulated that essential relationship between the parliamentarian and the people more perfectly than Jim Callaghan and his relationship with the people of Cardiff, South and Penarth. He provided a model that we should all aspire to follow. May he rest in peace.

May I on behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party associate myself fully and sincerely with all the tributes paid this afternoon? They have been full and generous, and deserved in my view and that of many people outside the Chamber.

As the Prime Minister said, the late Jim Callaghan did not have the benefit of a university education, but none the less held all four major offices of state. That is no mean achievement. His life is an inspiring example of social mobility. His achievements were the result of his abilities and not of privilege, birth or family background. We believe that we must fight to maintain the possibility for other people to be inspired by his example and to achieve as near as possible what he achieved in his full life.

May I associate myself with the tributes to the family? There will be a great loss throughout Wales, not just in Cardiff. A square in Cardiff has already been named after the late Lord Callaghan. That is a fitting tribute, and I have no doubt that there will be others.

A great loss will also be felt across the political spectrum. My predecessor, Dafydd Wigley, had many discussions with James Callaghan and his Administration in 1974. Those culminated in compensation for quarrymen and miners affected by dust, and eventually to the inception of the Welsh language television channel, S4C. He was, to coin a phrase, a man you could do business with. He was certainly a man of his word. He also had a very human side to him, as recalled by Dafydd Wigley recently, and was often hurt by criticism, particularly from his own side.

Lord Callaghan was a major figure in British politics. He will be sorely missed. He also had a good grasp of the art of surprise in choosing the date of a general election—an example that we might follow today.

Jim Callaghan cared desperately about the House of Commons and other things that are important to me, because for him the Labour party was the fount of many of his commitments not only to moral political views but to changing the role and quality of life of those whom he felt he represented. He was a clever man, and one who was frequently sadly underestimated. Although he had warmth and wit and could display them, he nevertheless had an intellectual toughness that enabled him frequently to survive very real pressures.

Jim Callaghan knew that the Labour party and, above all, the House of Commons needed to represent that which was decent, honest and fair. His commitment to that desire for equality remained the centrepiece of his life, no matter which of the Houses he served in. He had, of course, a wicked sense of humour. He stopped me in the Lobby on one occasion and said, "Would your mother like to be the first woman Lord Lieutenant of London?" I said, "I should think she'd be like a cat with two tails," and he said, "It's secret. You can't tell anybody. And anyway, she was the very first person I thought of." There was a slightly pregnant pause, and then he said, "Well, no, that's actually not true. I thought of dozens of people before her."

Jim Callaghan worked closely with my family, and he and my father had some good old rows, but he did something that is, perhaps, underestimated: he kept together a very large political party that always represented many strands of the people of the United Kingdom. He kept together his faith in parliamentary democracy. He put his commitment to this House, above all, at the very forefront of everything that he did. He served this country well. He loved and served his family well. We are honoured to have known him.

On behalf of the Ulster Unionist party and, I am sure, of all Ulster Members, may I add my words to those of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Members?

The Prime Minister referred to the one connection that most linked Jim Callaghan to Ireland—that fateful August in 1969, when the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, James Chichester-Clark, requested the troops to come in to halt the anarchy developing on our streets throughout the Province—but one other instance, which I noticed in the obituaries, should be highlighted further.

At a much earlier stage, Jim Callaghan, on behalf of the Labour party—not the Government—went to Northern Ireland and visited the old Northern Ireland Labour party, which was strong in Belfast, and the old Republican Labour party. It was no different from the Labour party in the great industrial cities of the north of England or in Scotland or Wales. He tried to develop the Labour party organisation as a normal Labour party organisation standing for election throughout Northern Ireland, as it was throughout the rest of the UK.

With the benefit of hindsight and looking back over history, I wonder whether the Conservative and Unionist party and the Liberal party—as it was then—would still be organised in Northern Ireland had the Labour party been successful in organising from the working-class areas of Belfast and the non-sectarian trade union movement in the old great industries of Belfast. I wonder whether the past 30 years in Northern Ireland might have been slightly different. It was Jim Callaghan who went across, much earlier, on behalf of the old Labour party, to organise Labour in the Province. He will be greatly missed. He was a great gentleman in politics.

I had the honour and the pleasure of serving as James Callaghan's Parliamentary Private Secretary throughout his time at the Foreign Office and during his first year as Prime Minister in 10 Downing street. I came to know him very well in that time, of course, but I recall that earlier, when I barely knew him at all, the first time that I heard him speak was when he made his last speech as Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Labour party conference in the autumn of 1967. I think it was the last Labour party conference held in Scarborough. Jim was expounding the difficulties of trying to grapple with the manifest economic problems of the time, and in almost an aside said, "Take the banks," and a wag from the delegates section said, "We wish you would." He recovered from that hilarity and went on to make a speech about how grave were the circumstances of the British economy, but I do not think that too many people were convinced.

When I was elected to this House in 1970, I had met Jim only a couple of times and was sitting in the Members' Dining Room with some contemporaries when a message came to me that Jim would like me to become his Parliamentary Private Secretary. Of course, only the grandees in opposition had a PPS in those days. I said that I would like to think about it, and the messenger, Gregor Mackenzie, said, "I wouldn't be taking too long if I was you." [Laughter.] Forgive the attempt at a Glaswegian accent.

I accepted. Some of my friends said, "Jack, you must be mad. Jim Callaghan is yesterday's man. He's over the hill." Well, he was so far over the hill that two years later he became the Foreign Secretary in the Wilson Administration. He took me to the Foreign Office with him; he took me, literally, all over the world, to Africa, Europe, the middle east, the United Nations and the Cyprus peace talks. It was an enormous learning curve and a great apprenticeship. His kindness, generosity, support and advice were legendary.

I recall that, one new year's eve, we were in Zambia, staying near Victoria falls, and Jim insisted on paying for a dinner and a party for the whole party from the Foreign Office, including the secretaries. He then insisted on us all singing "Auld Lang Syne". He shook hands with all the men and kissed all the ladies. As our Zambian hosts were watching this, I said to him, "What do you think they make of all this?" He said, "Well, they probably think these ancient national customs are all very well, but are we fit to govern ourselves?"

Just when I thought that it was probably time for me to change, Harold Wilson resigned as Prime Minister, and Jim appointed me as his campaign manager. I think that it was one of those elections where, if the candidate won, it was of course all down to the candidate's merits, and if the candidate had lost, it would all have been the fault of the agent. Fortunately, we had a winning candidate. I then went off to work with Jim in 10 Downing street, another huge learning curve for me. Again, his personal support, his advice, his courage and his commitment were simply fantastic. During those years, I also came to know Audrey and Jim's family very well. I offer my sincere condolences and those of my family to Jim's family on the tragic loss of their mother and their father in such a short space of time.

Jim Callaghan brought to the premiership vast, unparalleled experience of Government and of Parliament. He was a dedicated servant of the country, deeply patriotic and committed to the well-being of the nation as a whole, but throughout his time in that high office he remained a faithful servant of this House.

I believe that history will treat Lord Callaghan with great kindness. He will be remembered as a giant of the post-war political era, leading his party and the country through some tremendously difficult and challenging international and national situations. Sadly, although he had himself been totally dedicated to the trade unions and the Labour party, some trade unions and some sections of the Labour party failed to learn the obvious lessons of the difficulties that the country and the party faced. Those organisations and some individuals certainly contributed to the downfall of his Government. He deserved a better fate. His wisdom, courage, generosity and personal friendship taught me a great deal about politics, government and this place. I shall always remember him with the very greatest of affection.

My tribute will be very brief but very personal. Jim Callaghan was approachable, kind, decent and a very human individual. An illustration of those qualities is all I want to give. During the years when he was Prime Minister, Macclesfield high school for girls won the BBC's "Top of the Form" competition, beating the Newark grammar school for boys. It was wonderful, and what displays the interest that an excellent Prime Minister had in education was that he invited the two finalist teams to Downing street for the presentation of their awards and to join himself and Audrey for tea.

I had been in Parliament just a few years, then, and I have to say that it was a Labour Prime Minister who invited me to Downing street, together with the late Ted Bishop, who became Lord Bishopton and with whom I had a close relationship. I was given very generous and personal hospitality by the Prime Minister of this country and his charming and utterly delightful wife, Audrey. Even more than that, however, the teams and myself were shown all the wonderful rooms in Downing street, including the Cabinet room. I had never seen those facilities under a Conservative Prime Minister, and I have, perhaps, in other ways, too, benefited from a Labour Prime Minister.

I pay my tribute to a man whom I found utterly delightful and utterly decent. He was a man who will not only be missed but who, rightly, will be long remembered.

It is a great privilege to have this opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, known to everyone in Cardiff as Jim. My memories of Jim are very personal.

I worked for Jim in the first general election campaign I was involved in back in 1964, in what was then Cardiff, South-East. I was a postal vote canvasser employed by the Labour party for the princely sum of £5 a week during my holidays from London university. That gave me a taste for politics, and it was an exciting and stimulating time. I got to know Jim and Audrey and their three children very well, and it was a privilege to know the whole family.

Although Jim had been a Member of Parliament since 1945, in the previous election Michael Roberts, who later became MP for Cardiff, North—my seat—had reduced his majority to less than 1,000, so there was great anxiety that Labour might lose Jim, who was seen as a cornerstone of the party. We all knew that if we had a Labour Government, we would need someone like Jim as a steady hand on the tiller. If we put up old age pensions, as we did, and if there was a run on the pound, we would need somebody like Jim to be there. He was seen as very important, as a very experienced politician. In that election campaign we all went all out to get him elected.

I pay tribute to Jim's support and encouragement for young people. The campaign in 1964, in Cardiff, was dominated by young people. It encouraged many of us to get involved in politics and to make it our lives. In that campaign there was a future leader of the Labour party, Neil Kinnock, who is now Lord Kinnock, as well as Glenys Parry, now Glenys Kinnock and a Member of the European Parliament. We were all together in the campaign. There was also Rhodri Morgan, now leader of the Welsh Assembly. I can thank Jim Callaghan very much for bringing us together at that time.

I have two very personal memories of Jim from that time and from that successful election campaign, and they have been referred to already. One was his passion for university education. Jim did not have a degree but he thought that it was so important to encourage other people to obtain one. I was at university in London at that time. The election date was set for October 1964, four days after the start of the university term. I had been totally absorbed in the election campaign the whole time. Jim kept telling me that I must go back to university, whereas I thought that the most important thing was to be present to see Labour win Cardiff, South-East and to see the success of the future Chancellor of the Exchequer, so we had a big battle of wills about whether I should return to university.

The other issue that he felt passionate about was getting rid of the widows' earnings rule. This meant that widows who worked would no longer have their widows' pension cut. Jim's mother was a widow. I believe that he was 10 years old when he lost his father. Jim knew what it was like to be brought up in tough circumstances. I was in a similar family with a widowed mother. The change in the widows' earnings rule that Labour brought in had an immediate effect on my family's circumstances and showed why we needed a Labour Government and why we needed Jim in that Government.

I remember Jim for his passion on those two issues in particular. Coupled with his passion was his ability to get things done. Jim was a practical politician. He was very dependable and determined. He was a huge asset to the Labour party and to politics in general. His passing is a huge loss to the Labour party and to Cardiff.

It is a privilege to add a word or two. My family moved to Cardiff when I was eight. I can testify, as Lord Callaghan's successor has done, to the admiration in which Jim Callaghan was held in Cardiff among my school friends. He was known and loved, as was George Thomas, and that is unusual among politicians. I remember that at my Dad's bottling stores on the Penarth road, everybody knew him and respected him.

I admired him from afar when Jim Callaghan was Prime Minister. After what was by any definition, as colleagues in the House will remember, an uncomfortable by-election in 1983, which I won, he was courteous enough after my maiden speech, when he sat behind me, to be generous in appreciation and offering me his support. For all of the time until he died, he kept with his family a house in my constituency. I canvassed it at every election, more out of courtesy than out of any great hope, and conscious that peers are not allowed to vote. As Jim Callaghan, Denis Healey and Merlyn Rees all lived in the same part of the borough, it was not surprising that it was the last ward to fall to my colleagues and me when gradually we won wards from the Labour party. Jim Callaghan always gave advice, he was always courteous and he was always friendly. I was always grateful to have that experience, as someone who came to politics much later than he.

My borough offered him the freedom of the borough. Jim's son gratefully received it on his behalf, as he was not well enough to come at the time. On a cross-party basis, we honoured him. I share the appreciation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) for what Jim Callaghan has given the country, and for his patriotism. I share the wish to send condolences to his family.

I can encourage right hon. and hon. Members: it is not only in the female line that Jim Callaghan's political interests have been sustained. His son is still reminding the politicians on the other side of the river that there are jobs to be done, and is still politically active in the local community. We are grateful not only for Jim Callaghan but for the Jim Callaghan legacy.

I just want to add my brief personal encounter with Jim Callaghan to the tributes. I came to the House of Commons after a by-election in 1985, and I made my maiden speech on what became the Public Order Act 1986. I was immediately drafted on to the Standing Committee, where the Opposition were led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who kindly decided that on Report Members who had served in Committee should move their amendments at the Dispatch Box. After only a few months in the House of Commons, I therefore found myself moving Opposition amendments at the Dispatch Box. After moving one amendment and filing into the Lobby, I felt a hand on my shoulder. I turned round and saw Jim Callaghan, who said, "Was that you at the Dispatch Box?" I said, "Yes, sir, it was." He said, "Very good. Don't let them move you on." That was kind of him, and it only confirms what has been said about his generosity to new Members. Unfortunately, his words of wisdom were not passed on to the powers that be, but they confirm that, above all, he was a very kind and decent man, and he will be sadly missed.

May I add a brief footnote, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I first met Jim at the 1979 general election when he came to speak at Huddersfield town hall. As the new candidate, I was asked to chair the meeting, and I remember the awe in which I held him. When I entered Parliament, he was very kind. I got to know him extremely well, and I also got to know his family very well. In those days, four of us shared a room on the East Corridor, and next door was a room occupied by the former Prime Minister. I saw a lot of Jim—he would pop in, and he got to know my children, as they would pop into his room. I would see members of his family coming along the corridor, and got to know many of them.

Jim was exceedingly kind, and I shall give two illustrations. I was working on a book with an American co-author on Professor Harold Laski. I interviewed Jim about his knowledge of Professor Laski, who was a major figure in the 1930s and 1940s. Many Members have said today that Jim regretted not having a university education. That is true, but when I researched the book, he told me, "You know, being in the war was like being at university in a strange way. I read more than most undergraduates read in their three or four years." He told me that Harold Laski wrote to him wherever he was in the world—remember what a dangerous thing he was engaged in, being at sea in the war—encouraging him to return to the London School of Economics. However, Jim was elected to Parliament and never gained that university degree.

I shall conclude on a caring note. Every five or 10 years, the Labour Members of the 1979 generation have an anniversary dinner. The last time, on our 25th anniversary, Jim sent a lovely note to say that he could not make it, but he usually came. Ten years ago, he said that he had a guilty conscience about us. He said, "I call you my lost boys, because I lost the 1979 general election and put you into opposition for 18 years." That shows the thoughtfulness of a man whom I will always remember. I thank God that I knew him, and that I had the benefit of many hours in his company.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It might it helpful if I begin with a few words setting out the background to the Bill. The local government commissioner for Wales—commonly known as the ombudsman—the health service commissioner for Wales and the Welsh Administration ombudsman have all served the citizens of Wales well in the past, but each office operates under different legislation with separate staff, which inhibits the development of a coherent service that would reflect the ways in which public sector service delivery in Wales is evolving.

Today there is increasing emphasis on the provision of services through partnerships between different public bodies, securing better services more efficiently. But if a person is not happy with some aspect of a service provided, it may not be easy to identify which of several public bodies is responsible, and therefore to which ombudsman a complaint should be submitted. It might even be that different aspects of the same complaint would have to be considered by different ombudsmen. The Bill will address that and allow a properly integrated ombudsman service for Wales to be created.

My hon. Friend mentioned that three offices are to be brought together. He will know that the local government ombudsman is based in my constituency, Bridgend. Has any thought been given to where the new ombudsman will be located? Bridgend would seem to be a very good place.

That will not be my responsibility, but my hon. Friend's comment will no doubt have been noted.

The ombudsman will be known as the public services ombudsman for Wales. The Bill has been carefully developed over the past couple of years. In 2002, a consultation entitled "Ombudsmen's Service in Wales: Time for Change?" sought views on the principle of bringing the three offices together into a unified service led by one person. The unanimous support received for that proposal led to a second round of consultation in 2003 on the detailed powers and jurisdiction of the new office. That was entitled "A Public Service Ombudsman for Wales: Powers and Jurisdiction".

Together, those consultation exercises provided us with the foundations for the Bill before the House this afternoon. They also allowed the Government to take advantage of an opportunity that arose when all three offices simultaneously fell vacant to appoint a single individual to hold all three offices. That proved a useful interim step to achieving the longer-term objective of a unified office. As a result, Mr. Adam Peat holds those three offices now, but he continues to operate under legislation that applies to each separate office that he holds. That is wholly unhelpful. The Bill addresses that.

The Bill has already been the subject of consideration in another place. As a result, it has benefited from a number of amendments, including important changes on appointments to, and the tenure of, the ombudsman's office. The Bill has also been considered by the Welsh Affairs Committee, which held evidence sessions jointly with the Assembly's Local Government and Public Services Committee. Both Committees issued their reports on the Bill on 21 February.

Along with the Assembly's Minister for Finance, Local Government and Public Services, Sue Essex, I had the opportunity to give evidence to the two Committees. I am grateful to them for their detailed consideration of the Bill. Although they raised a small number of issues for further consideration, both Committees were generally very supportive of the Bill and its provisions, and considered it to be a comprehensive and well thought-out piece of legislation.

I now turn to the Bill itself. The legislation applicable to the three offices needs to be rationalised and brought together into a coherent whole, if the benefits of a unified office are to be achieved. The Bill is therefore about creating a coherent jurisdiction, administered by a team that is already working increasingly effectively together, but which now needs the backing of a sound legislative framework. The Bill will bring together the offices of the Commission for Local Administration in Wales, including the local commissioner for Wales, the health service commissioner for Wales, the Welsh Administration ombudsman and, when it is established later this year, that of the social housing ombudsman for Wales, into a unified jurisdiction led by one person—the public services ombudsman for Wales.

The Bill will provide a modern, flexible and accessible service for members of the public who wish to complain about most public service providers operating in, or in relation to, Wales. I say most public service providers because services delivered under the auspices of the Government which are not devolved matters in Wales—for example, social security—will not be within the remit of the public services ombudsman for Wales. They may, however, be subject to the jurisdiction of the parliamentary or health service commissioner. However, that is an exception to the general principle that, in respect of public services on which people in Wales rely in their daily lives, the new ombudsman's office will provide a single channel for receipt and investigation of complaints of maladministration or service failure. So local government—within which we include community councils—health bodies, the Assembly itself and its sponsored public bodies, are within, or may be brought within, the new ombudsman's jurisdiction.

The Bill provides powers for the National Assembly, for example, to amend the list of bodies within the ombudsman's jurisdiction to reflect changes in the structures of government in Wales. It gives the ombudsman important consistent powers of investigation across a range of bodies within his remit. It also allows him to seek to resolve disputes between complainants and the relevant public bodies without the need for a formal investigation. That is a new provision for the Welsh ombudsman, but it is one that has been generally welcomed. The parliamentary and health service commissioner has commented that this provision is "welcomed as long overdue" and will

"enable the Welsh Ombudsman to have the explicit ability to facilitate the resolution of complaints by any means appropriate to the circumstances of each complaint".

Another new provision is the power, previously available only to the local government ombudsman, to issue guidance to all bodies within his jurisdiction on the requirements for good administrative practice. This provides a mechanism to enable all parts of the public sector to learn from the experience of particular authorities that may have been the subject of complaint and investigation. Public bodies need to regard complaints as a basis for improvement, and the ombudsman's guidance should assist in that.

Will the ombudsman have the power to consider, for example, planning delays by all 22 unitary local authorities to find out which is doing the best and which is doing the worst, and then to issue guidance on best practice, so that the worst have to follow the practices of the best?

Such guidance would probably not be within the ombudsman's remit, but depending on the issues that he is asked to investigate he will make reports that have a similar impact.

The Bill also provides powers to permit the ombudsman to work jointly with other specified ombudsmen, including the parliamentary commissioner and health service commissioner for England, in relation to complaints or parts of complaints over which the new Welsh ombudsman and another ombudsman have jurisdiction. That might arise, for example, in the case of cross-border complaints. Cross-border provision of services, particularly in the health field, is not uncommon for Wales and England, and the Government have sought to facilitate joint ombudsman investigations to cover precisely that situation.

A particular provision that I should draw to the attention of the House is that concerning the ombudsman's jurisdiction in health and social care matters. Nowadays, we take a holistic approach to the provision of health and social care. The Bill as introduced in the other place provided, in line with existing ombudsmen legislation, that the new ombudsman could not generally question the merits of a decision taken without maladministration. However, the Bill did provide that the ombudsman could question the merits of any decision taken in consequence of the exercise of clinical judgment, irrespective of whether it was taken with maladministration. That reflected the existing provision of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993.

The Government reflected on whether it was right or appropriate that the ombudsman should be able to question the merits of a decision taken only in the exercise of clinical judgment—that is, by a doctor—but not decisions, for example, of social care professionals who may be part of the same team delivering a health and social care package to an individual. We concluded that there was no reason to differentiate between decisions taken in consequence of clinical judgment and the judgment of, for example, social care professionals in this context. The Bill therefore makes express provision to ensure that, in health and social care matters, the ombudsman can look synoptically at complaints about the consequences of decisions made by social care professionals who are working alongside clinical colleagues. For example, the ombudsman could consider a complaint that had arisen about a multi-disciplinary team's decision to discharge a patient from hospital on the basis that the patient's remaining health and social care needs would be provided at home by the relevant health and social care professionals. In that example, the decision to discharge the patient and the decision to provide further care at home are dependent on each other and might well form the basis of a single complaint. Under clause 11, the merits of the decisions can be questioned by the ombudsman, whether they were taken by health or social care professionals, or both.

I am sure that colleagues will want to enter into the debate. I think all will agree that this is an immensely worthwhile Bill, which will give Wales a first-class ombudsman service for the 21st century.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I commend the Bill to the House. I regret that it was too late to give way.

I am sorry that the Minister did not have a chance to give way; I am sure that the intervention would have been most interesting.

The Bill is commendable in its objective of establishing one public service ombudsman for Wales, replacing three separate offices for Welsh administration, the health service and social housing. I hoped that the Government would find time for the Bill, and I am glad that we have finally been given the chance to debate the improvements that need to be made to the legislation. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that that chance has been squeezed into the same day as our important opportunity to debate Welsh affairs. With our so-called St. David's day debate and Second Reading of this Bill packed into one day, it is a shame that the Government cannot afford Welsh business priority on their agenda.

We welcome the Bill as a measure with potential to improve the standard of public services for the people of Wales. We also welcome the rationalisation of ombudsman services in Wales. This is an opportunity to define clearly and uniformly their jurisdiction and powers, which must be a benefit. Yet there are still details that must be tackled if we are to secure what I am sure we all want—only the very best for the people of Wales. I only hope that the Government will act on our suggestions to improve further the deal that Wales will get from the Bill.

It is somewhat worrying that the explanatory notes highlight the fact that there will be initial set-up costs, borne by funding from the Assembly. The notes also warn in paragraphs 115 and 116 that it is prudent to plan for a modest increase in resources. I hope that the Government remember that this is Welsh taxpayers' hard-earned money, and that a rationalisation of the Wales ombudsman service will involve economies of scale. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us that the initial set-up costs will be minimal, and give us some indication of when the savings that should result from this move will actually be seen.

The Minister should also confirm the details of the situation underlying clause 5 and requirements about complaint to the ombudsman, as set out in subsection (1)(b). While a line needs to be drawn in the sand, it is feasible that a one-year time limit on making a complaint to the ombudsman could be difficult for some people to meet. It could take longer than a year for a situation warranting a complaint to the ombudsman to develop. We need further clarification of when notice of matters alleged in the complaint is deemed to begin. If that happens when the complainant suffers a problem that they bring to the attention of the authority, it is possible that ensuing correspondence from the authority could drag on for longer than a year. Perhaps the Minister will substantiate the precise details of the clause and reassure us that the ombudsman's discretion will always apply.

We must also be certain that cross-border issues are sufficiently dealt with in the Bill. Thankfully, we see provisions to ensure that there will be no gap in ombudsman jurisdictional coverage for bodies such as regional flood defence committees. Similarly, I am pleased to see provisions in clause 25 for consultation with other ombudsman services. The Government must ensure, however, that cross-border issues are sufficiently provided for in proposals for interaction between all UK ombudsmen.

The Bill comes to us already considerably improved by the actions of my Conservative colleagues in the House of Lords. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Roberts of Conwy. With regard to the appointment of the ombudsman, which is dealt with in schedule 1, an amendment tabled by Lord Roberts led to the inclusion of the provision that the Secretary of State must consult the Assembly before recommending a person for appointment as the ombudsman. A similar insertion has been made regarding the Assembly's role in the process of appointing an acting ombudsman. That has cured inconsistencies in respect of the appointment and removal of the ombudsman, removing the confusing situation whereby he could not be removed without consulting the Assembly, but could be appointed. That move will clearly assist in securing a more accountable and impartial appointment. Since the ombudsman will be financially and practically dependent on the Assembly, it is only sensible that the Assembly should play some role in his or her appointment.

The proposed length of the ombudsman's appointment is of greater concern. Certain concessions have already been made as a result of pressure in the House of Lords, reducing the term of office from 10 years to seven years. That is, of course, preferable, but it is not sufficient, and it is far from the best deal for the people of Wales.

The Welsh Affairs Committee stated that a reduction in the length of the ombudsman's tenure from 10 years to seven years would not improve the Bill. It agreed with Conservatives in the other place, who proposed a far more sensible, renewable five-year appointment. A seven-year term would still be long, and such guaranteed longevity would not provide the ombudsman with the best circumstances in which to operate.

Several concerns were raised in the other place about a five-year term. The objections that a five-year term is too short, that it would not attract top-quality candidates and that it could affect the ombudsman's decisions towards the end of his term are particularly cynical.

If that point about the appointment of the ombudsman is true, what does it say about people who seek election to this place? Hon. Members are appointed for up to five years—invariably some of us are appointed for less time than that—so I can see no reason why five years should not be the period.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A renewable five-year period is ideal. It would keep the incentive alive, while ensuring that proper performance was key at all times.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want inadvertently to misrepresent the views of the Welsh Affairs Committee. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) will confirm that the majority of witnesses thought a 10-year appointment appropriate. The Committee said that if the Government want to take another course, the five-year term is a way out.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) is right that I would never want to misrepresent the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I was a member. I draw his attention to page 9 of the Select Committee report, which states in bold:

"we recommend it reconsider appointments on a five year basis with the possibility of reappointment for a further five years."

I have not misrepresented the Committee. However, we recognise that concessions were made in the other place and that the term is currently seven years.

I hope that an ombudsman who is likely to be influenced by the prospect of not having his term renewed would not be appointed to begin with. Other ombudsman appointments across the UK are generally not for a fixed term. The Scottish public services ombudsman is appointed for five years, with the opportunity of reappointment, which is the system that we would like to apply to the Welsh ombudsman. Under our proposal, those who consider a 10-year term most appropriate would still achieve that objective, yet the ombudsman would also be accountable at the halfway stage.

In seeking a balance between an accountable and flexible term of office and the need for stability, a renewable five-year length of tenure is by far the most appropriate way to proceed. The Welsh Affairs Committee is not the only body to have agreed that point; a recently published report on the Bill by the National Assembly's Local Government and Public Services Committee recommends that

"the bill be amended to make the Welsh Ombudsman's term of office five years with the ability to reappoint for a further five years."

The opinions of those who have debated this issue in the other place, in Select Committee and in the Assembly are clear. Now the Government must accept that a renewable five-year appointment is far preferable to the proposed seven-year tenure.

The Government should not change the amendments introduced by Conservative peers in the other place, which would reverse the progress that has been made. Thanks to Conservative pressure in the Lords, clause 20, "Non-action following receipt of a report", will ensure that an authority cannot defy the ombudsman and disregard his report without lawful excuse. That move is extremely welcome and will considerably improve the standard of ombudsman services in Wales. That the ombudsman can, in the last resort, seek the view of the High Court gives him legal power that will remove any possibility of his decision being ignored by the authorities involved. I hope that the Bill, complete with the stronger position of the ombudsman for which our colleagues in the other place have fought, will prevent such occurrences, which have, sadly, been known.

Clause 21, on alternative reporting procedures, has also been greatly clarified. It is now clearer that the ombudsman, the authority and the complainant must all agree to the period within which the listed authority agrees to implement the ombudsman's recommendations. However, the ombudsman has the authority to specify a period in writing if no other agreement can be reached, which will greatly empower him in such situations.

Furthermore, thanks to the probing amendment of my noble Friend Lord Roberts, the disqualification of the ombudsman from holding certain responsibilities has been clarified. We welcome the elucidation in schedule 1 on the disqualification of the ombudsman from being a Member of the Assembly. Previously, it appeared that the Assembly could resolve that such disqualification be disregarded, which evidently smacked of preferential treatment. However, the amendment has greatly clarified the situation. We accept that the Government of Wales Act 1998 already deals with the event by saying that an ombudsman may be elected an Assembly Member provided that they relinquish the office of ombudsman once they are elected.

We also welcome the clarification of the extent of excluded matters in schedule 2. The provisions on educational bodies relating to which authorities are excluded are extremely helpful. Misinterpretation that might narrow the ombudsman's jurisdiction in relation to other authorities is now unlikely, and the Bill provides clear descriptions on the subject of the parameters within which the ombudsman can act. That is commendable and has been further improved by the clarifications secured in another place and by the Committee.

The greater powers allowed to the ombudsman as a result of amendments in the other place are a considerable asset to the Bill. First and foremost, it is our wish that the Bill improve the treatment of those who make a complaint of maladministration in Wales. The Government must guarantee that the progress already made will in no way be jeopardised by amendments at this stage. I remain concerned that the Government will attempt to back out of the advances made as a result of Opposition pressure in the other House; for example, they may attempt to reverse the controversial decision to give the ombudsman legal options—the power to apply to the High Court. I am sure that the Minister will want to allay those fears in his closing comments and I shall be grateful to him for doing so.

Another issue brought up in the other place was documentation. Despite the problems experienced at Westminster in keeping track of certain Assembly documents and publications, the Government refused amendments that would ensure that we were kept informed of the ombudsman's reports. Rationalising the ombudsman service should be a good thing. Nevertheless, there are still a number of proposals, and improvements could be made before we pass legislation that truly delivers the very best for Wales.

The Bill is the latest piece of Welsh legislation to be scrutinised by the Welsh Affairs Committee. My Committee not only undertakes pre-legislative scrutiny where possible, it also scrutinises Bills that are already under consideration by Parliament. That is an important task, which we take seriously.

The role of Select Committees is to offer criticism of the Government where it is warranted and praise where it is deserved. In the last Session, we scrutinised the clauses of the Children Bill that affected Wales. It is no secret that we were unhappy with provisions that had an impact on the Children's Commissioner for Wales and we published a report to that effect. This debate gives me the welcome opportunity to highlight a report that welcomes a good piece of legislation.

My Committee's report, which is a relevant document for the debate, welcomes a Bill that has the potential to provide a modern, flexible and accessible service for members of the public. In its current form the Bill represents good legislation, but the Committee's report recommends several amendments that would make it even better.

As we have heard, the Select Committee's scrutiny of the Bill was carried out in partnership with the Local Government and Public Services Committee of the National Assembly for Wales, and we took advantage of our power to hold formal joint meetings to take oral evidence. The first evidence session was held under the Local Government and Public Services Committee's procedures at the National Assembly on Thursday 13 January, and the second evidence session was held under our procedures on Monday 17 January. Although our joint working powers do not extend to the publication of a joint report, our report and that of the Local Government and Public Services Committee made recommendations along similar lines.

Joint formal working offered the opportunity for us, as Committees, to scrutinise both the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government on legislation that would directly affect Wales. It was a success, as we could question both Governments from the dual perspective of the legislators and the implementers of that legislation. Despite that success, formal joint working has been permitted only on an experimental basis until the end of this Parliament, so I look to the Minister to reiterate his positive view of formal joint working, and I hope that he will give a commitment to make those powers permanent in the next Parliament, if he has the power to do so. If he does not have the time to give such a commitment in this debate, I will offer him a second bite of the cherry in the next debate on Welsh Affairs, when I will return to the issue if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

As we have heard, in its original form the Bill set the length of the ombudsman's tenure at 10 years, which was subsequently reduced by the other place to seven years. We were not convinced that the reduction in the length of tenure added to the Bill's quality. Although I recognize the fact that some peers were concerned that 10 years was too long, seven years is not long enough in our collective opinion. For that reason, my Committee recommended that the length of tenure should be five years, with the possibility of reappointment for a further five years. I believe that the five-year plus five-year appointment plan, which is used for the Scottish ombudsman and thus has the benefit of consistency, represents a better balance between the need for stability in post and the need to reinvigorate the office periodically. It also offers opponents of a 10-year appointment a statutory moment for reflection.

The Bill sets out all those authorities that may be subject to investigation by the ombudsman. Individual community health councils are included in that list, but the Board of Community Health Councils is not. When we took evidence from the board, it argued that it should be subject to the same scrutiny as individual councils. That is probably the first time that a witness before my Committee has argued for greater scrutiny of themselves, so I feel obliged to say that we should adopt that view and argue in its favour. Including the Board of Community Health Councils in the list of authorities is a sensible recommendation and I hope that the Government will look favourably on it.

My Committee also looks in its report to the Government to provide further information on the possible overlap between the ombudsman's responsibilities with respect to an authority's failure to comply with its obligations to the Welsh language and the Welsh Language Board's responsibilities. Although that is not a fundamental problem with the Bill, greater clarity would significantly assist the working relationship between the two institutions.

The final issue to which I wish to draw the House's attention is that of co-operation between the English and Welsh commissioners. The Bill, as currently drafted, will remove the power of the ombudsman in England to transfer cases to the Welsh ombudsman. Although the Bill contains many provisions to facilitate joint working between ombudsmen, we believe that the retention of that power is necessary. There is nothing to be gained by the removal of that power. Close working relationships between the Welsh and English commissioners are to be welcomed, so I look to the Government to retain in the Bill the power of the ombudsman in England to transfer cases to the Welsh ombudsman. I hope that, with those provisos, the Bill will find favour in the House.

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches also welcome the Bill in its broad context. No doubt there is a greater understanding in Wales that people can complain to ombudsmen if they believe that they have been the victim of an injustice or if an authority has committed maladministration in carrying out a service of which they are in receipt. There is confidence in Wales in the various ombudsmen's work, but complications and misunderstandings can arise because people can complain to so many ombudsmen. No doubt if people complained to the wrong ombudsman they would be advised to go to the right office to make their complaint. However, simplicity and clarity are important when people are dealing with public services because that gives them confidence, so we welcome the fact that a single ombudsman will be set up, to whom the Welsh people can take their complaints about public services.

Having been a member of a local authority, I know that there was initially mistrust of the ombudsman process, but as time went on people looked at ombudsmen's rulings for guidance and ways of improving services. It has been especially noticeable that ombudsmen not only make decisions about specific cases, but give advice about how authorities should set about improving their ways. The Bill provides that an authority will not be able to ignore the ombudsman's decision without due cause. That is a big improvement because nothing is more discouraging to complainants whose cases are investigated by ombudsmen than for local authorities or services to ignore recommendations that are made.

I, like other hon. Members, am disappointed that the Government cannot accept that the term of appointment for the ombudsman should be five years, with the possibility of a five-year reappointment. I understand that it should be possible to have a 10-year appointment period so that people with the necessary quality and commitment have the incentive to apply for such an important job. However, if the initial appointment were made for 10 years, it would represent a commitment to a person that might not be entirely appropriate. There should be a break point after five years to allow reflection and scrutiny of the ombudsman's work so that it can be determined whether there should be a reappointment. Posts often need re-energising so that new commitment and perhaps a different direction can be achieved, so I am sad that the recommendation of a five-year appointment has not been adopted. Seven years is a halfway period, but the Bill does not provide the opportunity for reappointment, so that provision has all the faults and none of the virtues.

I am pleased that the Government say that the process will be cost-neutral, but I would be even more pleased if they said that savings could be made. There must be an opportunity to make economies of scale, and thus bear down on public expense, during the process of bringing bodies together. However, I understand that there will be set-up costs and I do not complain about them, because they are bound to arise.

I was a little disturbed earlier when the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked where the ombudsman will be situated. We do not know one of the key elements of the relocation cost because we do not know today where the ombudsman will go. Does the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) agree that we are thus writing a rather open-ended cheque?

Yes. The process would be more transparent and open, and we could scrutinise the costs that will be incurred during the set-up, if we knew how it will be managed and how and where the new ombudsman and his staff will be physically housed. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

I shall come on to my last point because I think that we agree that the Bill is good and should go ahead, although we could make some improvements to it. I represent a constituency on the English-Welsh border, so I know about the complexities of the health system that serves some of my constituents. I am pleased that the Bill will give the ombudsmen the power and duty to work together. I cite the example of constituents who live in Wales and are served by a general practitioner practice in England. Such people might go to a community hospital in Wales, but be transferred to a district general hospital in England.

Clearly that could happen. There was an announcement today about Welsh prescription charges. If people living in Wales go to an English GP, will the GP be able to issue a Welsh prescription at a lower cost, or will those people be told, "I'm sorry; I can only issue English prescriptions, so you'll have to pay the higher rate even though you live in Wales"? Would that be something that the ombudsman could look into?

I am afraid that I cannot answer on that matter on the Assembly's behalf, but such a situation could generate a number of complaints to the ombudsman.

We have welcomed this Bill from the start. Some improvements have been made and more could be made if the Government had the will to do so, but all in all we support this legislation.

I apologise for intruding, very briefly, into discussion of a Welsh Bill. I remember that you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, used to sit on the Select Committee for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration many years ago, and while you have gone on to dizzying heights of parliamentary significance, I am still worrying about the same kind of issues that we worried about some 10 years ago.

I want to say something about this Bill, which is excellent on all counts, because it does the kind of things in Wales, and for the people of Wales, that many of us have been pressing for in England for some time. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary described all the benefits that integrating the different complaints systems would bring to people in Wales who want to make complaints against various bodies. Those arguments have been used in England for a number of years in arguing for greater collaboration between the local government ombudsman and the parliamentary ombudsman; indeed, an official review of the whole system recommended such modernisation. So it is extremely pleasing to find that modernisation is marching ahead in Wales, with all the benefits that my hon. Friend described. But it is therefore slightly puzzling that it has not been possible to make equivalent progress in England, despite all the preparatory work that has been done, and despite recommendations from successive ombudsmen in England that the same progress should be made.

So although this is an excellent Bill for Wales, in so far as it shows the benefits of devolution, one such benefit is that it enables mutual learning and stimulus for reform across the whole United Kingdom. I therefore simply urge my Welsh friends to urge on their English colleagues, to the maximum extent that they can, a similar will to reform the system, so that the benefits described for Wales today can be brought to England, too.

My hon. Friends and I also welcome the Bill and the unification of the four ombudsmen: the Welsh Administration ombudsman, the health service commissioner for Wales, the Commission for Local Administration in Wales, and the social housing ombudsman for Wales.

When I was a child, I used to enjoy taking my bicycle to pieces, and I remember that if I came across a recalcitrant nut—I am not looking in any particular direction—I used a wonderful liquid called "3-In-One". Here we have "four in one", and I am sure that it will prove just as efficacious in ensuring people's rights. The people of Wales are likely to be much better off as a result of this Bill, and better served by establishing this ombudsman, which is a very positive step forward. A means of redress outside the normal procedures is an essential mark of good government, and the services that the current ombudsmen have provided for the people of Wales are fine testimony to their commitment to providing ordinary people with a way to challenge—and, indeed, to beat—the official machine.

The Welsh Affairs Committee was able to examine this Bill jointly with the Local Government and Public Services Committee of the National Assembly for Wales. Indeed, we heard evidence from the Under-Secretary, and I had the pleasure of asking him questions in Welsh—that does not happen that often—and of receiving very fair answers. We produced a report and it was published in February. It could be that I have been remiss, but I have not yet seen any reply from the Government. I am sure that the Chairman and other members of the Committee are looking forward to that reply, as there are a number of points in the recommendations that the Government should answer.

One issue has already been raised in our earlier debate and the Committee's recommendations on that matter repay very close reading. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will read the recommendation in full:

"There appeared to be a general level of agreement in the House of Lords that a seven year period of appointment was appropriate. However, that was not the views and experience of our witnesses, who considered a ten year appointment as appropriate."

That was the view of the witnesses. It continues:

"We recommend that the Government reconsider its decision to reduce the length of tenure of the Ombudsman in the light of our evidence."

Thirdly, the recommendation mentions an issue that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) referred to earlier:

"Should the Government believe that a balance needed to be made between security of tenure and the opportunity to re-invigorate the office, we recommend it reconsider appointments on a five year basis with the possibility of reappointment for a further five years."

The Committee is thus making a threefold point in its recommendation and I look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary clarifying the Government's response.

Finally, I want to mention briefly the eighth recommendation, which deals with the Welsh Language Board. There is a possibility of people's complaints falling through the cracks between the Welsh Language Board and the ombudsman. We have received reassurances that that will not happen. In fact, the Welsh Language Board submitted written evidence on the possibility of developing a protocol between it and the ombudsman. I am sure that that would provide a way of dealing with that potential difficulty of complaints regarding the Welsh language falling down the cracks.

I was gratified that in the evidence that we received from the ombudsman—it is set out in page 54 of the evidence—it was made clear that failing to adhere to a Welsh language scheme could of itself be viewed as a matter of maladministration. That point was confirmed by the Welsh Language Board's evidence later. Welsh citizens will be given a further opportunity to look for redress, which I believe will be valuable. With those few words, I look forward to debating the Bill in Committee and to hearing the Under-Secretary's response.

I, too, look forward to debating the Bill in Committee, but I am not certain when that Committee will meet. If all the rumours are true, the Prime Minister will be on his way to the palace by tomorrow and I suspect that the Bill might not get the scrutiny in Committee that it otherwise would have received. From what I have heard in the Chamber so far, it is clear that there is a general consensus that the Bill should become an Act. I certainly heard what the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) had to say about the Bill's applicability in Wales, but not in England. We led the way with the Children's Commissioner for Wales and England subsequently followed, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait too long, under the next Conservative Administration, before the good effects of the Bill are rolled out more widely.

I assume that with four bodies being reduced into one, it means that four quangos are being reduced to one. It could be argued that this is the bonfire of the quangos, but I am not sure whether the Government are going to sell the Bill in that way. Quite frankly, it is a common-sense measure.

Much has been said about the appointments, and I want to comment on the appropriate length of service in the post of ombudsman. I was joshing with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) that with a five-year appointment there might be a danger of not getting the right people for the job, but that is the term for which we are elected as Members of Parliament, so I am not sure whether we get the right people for the job. Perhaps the Government are trying to argue for an extension of Parliaments to seven years, as under the Septennial Act 1715. The President of France serves a seven-year term—[Interruption.] It has been reduced to five.

There are pros and cons. A seven-year term is probably sensible if, as the schedule states, the ombudsman cannot then be reappointed, but if we want the post to be reinvigorated, there is merit in having a five-year term renewable for a further five years. However, if a seven-year term could be extended to 14 years that would be too long because there will be a lot of work for and a lot of pressure on the ombudsman.

I am pleased that the ombudsman can be removed only on grounds of ill health or misbehaviour because that provides independence and if they decide that they want to be critical, perhaps of the Government, they must have that independence so that they are not always looking over their shoulder in case the Government decide to remove them from office. Independence is absolutely necessary.

Paragraph 3(5) of schedule 1 states that the ombudsman can be removed only after consultation with the Assembly. Does that mean that the Assembly will be told that the ombudsman is being removed for misbehaviour or ill health, or will the Assembly have an input in the decision?

On disqualifications and ineligibility to become the ombudsman, paragraph 5(1)(a) of schedule 1 states that a Member of the House of Commons cannot be appointed, but that leaves open the possibility of a Member of the House of Lords being appointed. Have the Government thought that through? A Member of the House of Lords could have parliamentary, Government or Executive influence.

The Bill states that the ombudsman will be unable to comment on policy, and that is appropriate. Governments are elected to create policy and, whether the ombudsman likes it or not, it is up to him or her to look into the administration of Government policies. I shall not prejudge the debate that we are about to have on the Adjournment of the House, but the ombudsman could be very busy.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) talked about the cross-border issue in the national health service. We were told today that the cost of prescriptions in Wales is being reduced to £4 and will eventually be reduced to zero. There is fear of NHS tourism and that people from England will waltz into Wales with their prescriptions. That could provide a substantial saving for some people living on the border if they are having treatment, for example, for cancer and so on. The First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, has said that the Assembly will ensure that prescriptions will be written in such a way—in the Welsh language as well as English—as to ensure that people cannot come from England with their prescriptions and pay only £4 and eventually nothing, but I would welcome clarification on that.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire posed an interesting question about people who live in Wales but have a general practitioner in an English village across the border. Will general practitioners near the border have a stash of bilingual prescription pads so that such people qualify for the lower prescription charge? That is an interesting question. When the charge moves to zero, having access to such prescriptions will become even fruitful.

Irrespective of the merits of the provision, it blows open the fact that English taxpayers will pay money into central coffers and that money will then be redistributed. Their money will ensure that Welsh people will eventually be able to pay nothing for their prescriptions whereas those in England will have to pay the going rate. I assume that the ombudsman will not be able to consider that anomaly, but many people living in a village neighbouring the Welsh border will have to pay the full whack for prescriptions when those across the border get them for nothing. None the less, the interesting point for the ombudsman is to work out whether someone living in Wales is treated badly by the system because they go to an English GP—who might be the nearest one—and are denied access to the lower charges. I imagine that that might be one of the first issues that the ombudsman considers, but I am not sure that the First Minister has thought it through properly.

When I first considered the costs, I assumed—stupid me—that the proposal was designed to save money, but I am not sure that it will. We all want streamlining to take place, and it should result in efficiency gains and savings that, I hope, would be returned straight to front-line services. That is what we have asked for. However, £250,000 is now being made available for the relocation of the offices, and I heard what was said at the beginning of the debate about where the new offices should go.

A bit of transparency at this juncture would have been nice. I want to ensure that not everything that happens in Wales happens in Cardiff. There is no reason why it should. If devolution is to mean anything, it should mean that everyone in Wales benefits from it and from the distribution of governmental bodies throughout the whole of Wales. Perish the thought, but such bodies could actually be relocated to north Wales. Why not? I would welcome that. They are bureaucratic in nature and could end up almost anywhere.

One of the difficulties that my hon. Friend has touched on is the cost, and he will be aware that a money resolution for the Bill appears on the Order Paper. If I am right—the Minister will correct me if I am not—it provides for any relocation to be paid for out of this Parliament's budget, and that is another example of waking the beast of English nationalism that my hon. Friend rightly mentioned. It might create a real problem for Wales.

There appear to be additional costs in all this, and that is why I am baffled that efficiency savings are not being made. Some £20,000 is being made available for publicity to tell people all about the scheme, and some £41,000 has already been put aside to meet the estimated cost of an increase in the number of complaints. Surely, efficiency gains could have resulted in savings that mitigated the impact of some of the costs. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

Will the power of the ombudsman to name and shame be sufficient? The Government say that they believe that it will be, but my noble Friend Lord Roberts successfully moved an amendment in the other place to ensure that a case could go to the High Court if the ombudsman's recommendations are ignored. The Government are not keen on that, but do they believe that the naming and shaming of someone in a report will be enough or do they think that the ombudsman's powers should be stronger?

I will finish as I started, by saying that we are moving into general election mode. I shall be interested to hear the Government's response. We need to ensure that the Bill continues to receive the good will of the House. As a result of its sensible nature, we must ensure that it is not held up because of little local difficulties—some tidying procedures—otherwise known as a general election.

With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate.

I am grateful for the support of colleagues and for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked about the location of the office for the ombudsman. The separate offices were co-located and relocated to new premises in Pencoed last month in preparation for establishing a unified service. I am sure that he will welcome that information.

Let me clarify something for the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). He asked whether the ombudsman could issue guidance on planning delays across the 22 unitary authorities. As I made clear, the local planning authorities are within the ombudsman's jurisdiction. If he considers it necessary, he could issue guidance to local authorities, generally under clause 31. That could cover best practice in avoiding unacceptable delays in exercising planning functions. The ombudsman is required to consult listed authorities or such persons who represent them as he considers appropriate before issuing such guidance.

The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) welcomed the Bill and touched on a number of things. In particular, he mentioned clause 5 and the limit of one year. He asked when the notice period begins and what power the ombudsman has to extend it. The period of one year in clause 5(1)(b) begins when the complainant first has knowledge of the matter, or when the complainant ought to have been aware of the matter giving rise to the complaint. By virtue of clause 2(4), the ombudsman may disregard that time limit if he considers it reasonable to do so in a given case. That might be because a listed authority has dragged its feet in dealing with a complaint.

The hon. Gentleman and others mentioned costs. I assure him that they are intended to be minimal, but there are no quantifiable savings. The purpose of the reform is not to make efficiency savings per se, but to recognise that it makes sense to create one unified ombudsman service. The co-location and relocation of the ombudsman office is a one-off cost of £250,000, but it was not intended as a cost-saving exercise.

The hon. Gentleman said that the Government refused amendments to keep Members informed of ombudsman reports. He has wide powers to send copies of his reports to such persons as he considers appropriate and/or to publish his reports. I am sure that the ombudsman designate, Adam Peat, who gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, will have taken note of the comments made.

Is it a possibility that all the reports could be made available on the internet so that people can access them for themselves?

I am sure that that will be a possibility. I cannot answer for definite, but if there is any doubt, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Leominster and others raised concerns about the length of the appointment mentioned in the Committee's report and the call for a five-year appointment renewable after five years. I certainly hear what was said, but the imperative for the Government is that we maintain the independence of the office, free from any actual or perceived pressure from the Executive. At the same time, we want to attract candidates of a suitable calibre to apply for posts. A seven-year fixed-term appointment achieves that. A five-year renewable appointment does not. That is the basis for our decision thus far.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned cross-border matters and said that we need to ensure there is no gap in jurisdiction regarding regional flood defence committees. There is no gap. The Bill ensures that all regional flood defence committees are within the jurisdiction of the new ombudsman or the local commissioner in England. It ensures that the new ombudsman will investigate matters relating to the discharge of committee functions in relation to Wales, and that the local commissioner in England will investigate matters relating to the discharge of committee functions in England, so there really is no gap.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the general approach of the Opposition in the other place and the amendments that they tabled. He expressed concern that the Government might seek to reverse any of those amendments. We noted the comments made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley about the time frame that we may face. I can assure the hon. Gentlemen and the House that the Government have no intention of seeking further amendments to the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) referred to the report of his Committee, which was most welcome. The hon. Members for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and for Ribble Valley raised a number of matters relating to the report. I have explained why the Government take the view that seven years is the proper length for the appointment. The Welsh Affairs Committee reported on 21 February, and I hope to respond to the report shortly. I am grateful to the Committee for its detailed work in considering the Bill. At present, however, the Government are not minded to make any further changes to the Bill in response to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee supported calls for the Secretary of State to be required to consult the National Assembly on the appointment of the ombudsman, in addition to consulting it on his removal from office. As the Committee noted, the Government amended the Bill to that effect on Report in the Lords. As I say, I will be responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South and his colleagues shortly.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) welcomed the Bill and spoke of the confusion that we have at present with a number of separate ombudsman offices. He also raised cross-border matters; he thinks that these will be greatly improved by bringing those offices together under one ombudsman.

I regret the fact that I was unable to take the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). He said that this is an excellent Bill, and he will be pressing for something similar in England. I can tell him that the Government are in discussions with the ombudsman in England to see what measures can be taken to allow the ombudsmen to work jointly. I am sure that through his work with the Public Administration Committee my hon. Friend will continue to press for something similar for England, and I am sure that that will be noted. I do not wish, or feel able, to go as far as saying what measures my fellow Ministers will introduce for England, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will ensure that the matter is on their agenda.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon welcomed the Bill but expressed concern that Welsh language matters may fall between the two stools of the ombudsman and the Welsh Language Board. I do not think that there is a risk of that. I am also of the view that failure by a listed authority to comply with its own Welsh language scheme could well amount to maladministration or service failure. Hon. Members will be pleased to note that by virtue of clause 8(3), when a listed authority discharges any of its functions, even in relation to England or elsewhere, if that function relates to the Welsh language or Welsh culture, it will be within the ombudsman's remit.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley raised a number of issues about the appointment. He welcomed the independence of the ombudsman. I can tell him that the Bill now provides for a single term of office of seven years, so there is no possibility of someone serving 14 years—two terms. I cannot add much more to the points that I have already made about that.

The hon. Gentleman asked what is meant by consulting the Assembly on the removal of the ombudsman. The duty to consult means a proper and effective consultation. It would mean that the Assembly's views needed to be taken into account before the Secretary of State made the recommendations to Her Majesty. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the location of the offices, which I have covered. They will be at Pencoed, which means that some posts previously located in Cardiff will now be moved to Pencoed. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Members of this House not being eligible to become ombudsman, and referred to Members of the other House. I will have to reflect on that; I will write to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

To close the debate, let me repeat some key messages. The Bill is about ensuring that the Welsh public sector ombudsman services reflect and can evolve in step with the changing face of public sector service delivery in Wales. It has been warmly welcomed by everyone who has been consulted and who has considered it, and I believe that it is immensely worth while. It will give Wales a first-class ombudsman service in the 21st century. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6)(Programme motions),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

Proceedings in Standing Committee

2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 14th April 2005.

3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

Programming Committee

6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Programming of proceedings

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Question agreed to.

Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill [Lords] [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)(Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under another enactment.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Question agreed to.

I pay tribute first to the former Prime Minister Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, who died only a few days ago. The first Welsh Prime Minister since Lloyd George, he was a much respected adopted son of Wales, and we are proud of him and his legacy.

May I also express Wales's sorrow at the death of His Holiness the Pope? Tens of thousands of Catholics in Wales are in mourning, and we stand in sympathy and support with them. We remember the Pope's visit to Wales in 1982, the huge impact that he made and the heartfelt warmth with which he was received.

I also place on the record my appreciation of those Welsh colleagues who are standing down at the next election, having, between them, served for 117 years as Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence), my right hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) and for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) have a wealth and breadth of experience that will be much missed in the House.

When the annual Welsh day debate was held just a few weeks before the 1997 general election, there were nearly 110,000 unemployed in Wales. Now, there are fewer than 60,000. In 1997 Wales was lagging well behind other parts of Britain, written off as backward and failing; now we are forging ahead, dynamic and succeeding. In 1997 business confidence was low; now business activity in Wales has increased for 23 months in a row. In 1997 communities in Wales had been devastated by years of economic mismanagement and neglect. For example, the heart had been ripped out of the Pembrokeshire economy. Now communities right across Wales are being regenerated, and Pembrokeshire has the fourth highest business start-up rate in the whole of Britain.

When we met in the last days of the Conservative Government, thousands of care workers, cleaners and security staff in Wales were earning just £1.90 an hour, hundreds of them in my constituency. By October this year it will be illegal for them to earn less than £5.05 an hour, with a further increase to £5.35 next year, benefiting 80,000 low-paid workers in Wales. Back in the 1990s the Leader of the Opposition told us that the minimum wage would cost 2 million jobs. Since then 2 million jobs have been created, 125,000 of them in Wales—

In the public sector.

The hon. Gentleman mutters about the public sector. No. As I will remind him later, around 40,000 jobs have been created in the public sector, and we are proud of that. There are more nurses, more doctors, more police officers and more teachers. The remainder of the 125,000 are in the private sector. In other words, for every public sector job created, two private sector jobs have been created in Wales under this Government.

In that Welsh day debate in 1997, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), then Secretary of State for Wales, told the House:

"There is no question but that Labour's policies would reduce employment, and they would certainly reduce employment opportunities for the future in Wales. The minimum wage would damage those opportunities . . . as would the adoption of the social chapter.—[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 458.]

The Conservatives were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

The facts speak for themselves. When we met eight years ago the Welsh economy was on its back. Today it is striding forward, with 7,000 business start-ups funded by the Assembly last year—up 20 per cent. from the previous year—and a higher survival rate than in Britain as a whole. Earnings are rising faster than the UK average in Wales. Economic growth has increased by 6 per cent. since 2002. After almost eight years in office we can be proud of Wales, and not just on the rugby field.

I think that the Secretary of State is right about rugby, but I do not think that he is right about the economic indicators. Perhaps he would care to comment. Does he think that the proportion of those unemployed, when combined with sickness and disability, is higher or lower than anywhere else in the UK?

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have historic levels of ill health and industrial injury in Wales for all the reasons that everybody understands. He knows also that levels of economic inactivity have been falling, in some respects at a higher rate than in any other part of the UK, and that is encouraging. Further, he knows that in respect of people with disabilities, the pilots carried out at Rhondda Cynon Taff and the Ogmore valleys have shown that more than 1,000 people have come off incapacity benefit and into work. Given the opportunity to work and the dignity and prosperity that that brings, they have taken it. Surely he should be welcoming this.

I realise that the hon. Gentleman has great difficulty in finding any reasons to criticise this Labour Government's record in Wales, particularly by comparison with the record of our Conservative predecessors. However, he should not alight on aspects of the economy that stand up to his criticism.

Is it not a bit of a cheek for the Tories to start raising the issue of incapacity benefit in the valleys communities when it was the Conservatives who closed the pits and then persuaded people to move off the unemployment figures and on to incapacity benefit? They wanted to persuade people to make that move to massage the figures. That is that sort of thing that we should be hearing the Conservatives talk about. People are worried about communities in south Wales being trashed by them again.

Indeed. The truth is that the facts speak for themselves. The facts are that under the previous Government people were pushed off the dole and on to incapacity benefit in record numbers to try to camouflage the huge amount of unemployment in Wales and throughout Britain. Also, when they lost their jobs in the pits, in Rhondda Cynon Taff and elsewhere, including Neath, there were no other jobs awaiting them. Now, if people lose their jobs, there are plenty of vacancies and they have the opportunity to reskill, retrain and move into work, as they have done by the thousand as the Welsh economy has been changing these past few years.

I am proud that not only is Cardiff booming, but throughout Wales, towns and cities such as Swansea, Newport, Wrexham and Holyhead are booming too. In north-east Wales we have Airbus, our industrial jewel. Many other world-class industries are also growing.

On Hawarden, does the Secretary of State agree that Wales has the opportunity to specialise in aerospace, and that by being focused and strategic on a collective basis we could share the benefits of Airbus's unquestionable success throughout the wider economic base of Wales?

I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was going to say that there is the opportunity to specialise in air flight. I know that he is a particular specialist in that area. I agree with his point. In north Wales, and north-east Wales particularly, there is a real centre of world excellence in the aerospace industry. That is on the basis of launch aid provided by the Government through the Department of Trade and Industry, a budget that would be axed by the Conservatives if they came to power.

I wish to help the House. Obviously the Liberal Democrats need to do a little more research. Airbus is in Broughton.

Hawarden.

I was being kind by not correcting the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend is a much tougher and harder Member than I am.

Not too hard.

I am a great believer in manufacturing excellence and its spread. Typhoon, for instance, is manufactured in my constituency, but there will be a knock-on effect for smaller manufacturers throughout the United Kingdom, including Wales. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Liberal Democrat policy of scrapping tranche 3 of the Typhoon programme would jeopardise the manufacture of jet aircraft in this country for a very long time indeed?

I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I sometimes do so at business questions to give him a helping hand. However, he is right that it is disastrous to withdraw support from businesses, whether large businesses in the aerospace industry or small businesses. His party is committed to do so in England with its policy of abolishing the Small Business Service, and the Liberal Democrats will do so across the United Kingdom with their proposals to abolish the Department of Trade and Industry.

Am I correct in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman is now committed to tranche 3 of Typhoon?

I realise that the hon. Gentleman has to try as hard as he can, and he wins plaudits from me for doing so, but he ought to do better.

Only last month, there was another huge boost for Newport, with the transfer of an extra 500 quality permanent Prison Service jobs from England. That comes on top of 600 new Office for National Statistics jobs, which will be transferred to Newport from England.

rose—

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is going to welcome the Labour Government policy of transferring jobs from the congested south-east of England to Wales—something that he has been demanding for many years, and which we are now delivering.

Absolutely. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and applaud that move. I partly support the broad thrust of his remarks, but while Wales appears to be succeeding fairly well along the M4 and the A55, a huge area of the country is not doing so. I represent part of that land mass, and we have not seen any delivery of good new jobs, which is partly why the gross domestic product in Wales is going down instead of up.

Actually, that is not true. Let us look at the hon. Gentleman's own constituency, where unemployment has gone down by 55.8 per cent. under the Labour Government. Youth unemployment has gone down by 97 per cent., and long-term unemployment for the over-25s has gone down by 79.6 per cent.

rose—

Does the hon. Gentleman want more?

I am certainly willing to hear plenty more about such things. However, I was telling the right hon. Gentleman about the lack of good-quality jobs. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) is always bleating on about low pay in Denbighshire, which is a problem. Low-paid jobs have been created, not good jobs. That may not be the case along the M4 and the A55, but a large part of Wales is not being well served.

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, as most of the investment has been of enormous benefit to south Wales, particularly the south-east, and to north-east Wales. However, we have to start somewhere. Investment in south-east Wales has spread along the M4 through Swansea. I cited the figures for business start-ups in Pembrokeshire, where there has been an extraordinary turnaround, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) will confirm. More than twelve years ago, when I first campaigned for him at elections, the heart had been ripped out of the Pembrokeshire economy. What is true of that area is true of north-west Wales, as I shall demonstrate later. Only last week, I was in Anglesey and Clwyd, West. the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) was in Anglesey, he would have noticed that in Holyhead and throughout Anglesey there is a new buoyancy and business optimism, not just because there is a Labour MP but because the economy is much stronger.[Interruption.] Indeed, when

The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. In fact, Bangor university research has shown that Anglesey has huge hidden unemployment. On the doorstep, one hears that people cannot get jobs and that there are a large number of economically inactive people on Anglesey. Shortly after the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is not in the Chamber, said that the police were performing well on Anglesey there were many murders on the island. The situation is out of control.

It is interesting to talk to business people in Anglesey, as I did on Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning last week. They are not Labour party members, though they will probably support my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, because they feel a greater buoyancy in the Anglesey economy and more business optimism. That is not to say that there are no problems remaining. Goodness me, after 18 years of Conservative decimation of the island's economy, it is not possible to turn everything round in eight years. That is why we need at least four more years to continue the job in Anglesey, with a Labour Member of Parliament to lead that renewal of the island.

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy raised the issue of gross domestic product or gross value added. The figures show that there has been a 6 per cent. rise in Welsh GDP and Welsh GVA compared with 2002, the second fastest growth rate in the United Kingdom in 2003, a higher growth rate than England and Scotland, and GVA per capita in Wales has been increasing relative to the European average for the past three years. GVA per head in West Wales and the Valleys, including the hon. Gentleman's part of west Wales, has increased by 17 per cent. since we have been in power.

All those figures are provided by official statisticians and speak for themselves. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome them. We can argue about how best to support business creation, encourage more people to come off incapacity benefit and so on, but I do not accept his persistent whingeing about the state of Wales and his failure to recognise that Wales is now on the up and moving forward, and that it will continue to move forward as long as the policies that we introduced continue to be implemented.

Today I can announce, in that spirit, that Cardiff is to be the United Kingdom candidate for the headquarters of the European Union's global navigation satellite supervisory authority, the Galileo project. The potential to create such a prestigious project in Cardiff, with up to 30 high-quality jobs, in the year when we are celebrating 100 years of its city status and 50 years since it became our capital city, is immense. Positioning and related technologies are a vital component of the UK's knowledge economy and involve exactly the kind of jobs that we are trying to encourage in the new world-class Welsh economy.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have quoted percentages and numbers—600 jobs here, 500 jobs there. Unemployment is a personal tragedy for the person who becomes unemployed. What would the Secretary of State say, therefore, to my constituents who are to lose their jobs in Caernarfon and Porthmadog because of his Government's policy of concentrating the processing of benefit claims in Wrexham and closing down local offices, which, incidentally, will have a deleterious effect on the quality of service to the public?

One of the things I would say is that 250 jobs are coming to Bangor, very near the hon. Gentleman's constituency. That part of Wales needs those jobs—

Call centre jobs?

Yes, high-quality call centre jobs, which are important and will remain in Wales. I remind the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) of the unemployment statistics for his constituency. There has been a 58.8 per cent. reduction since we came to power; youth unemployment is down a staggering 88 per cent.; and long-term unemployment is also down by 88 per cent. He ought to welcome those figures, because they show that his constituents are doing better, even if he does not recognise it.

My right hon. Friend's announcement of the nomination of the place that he describes as Cardiff, which we in Newport call Newport Far West, as the headquarters of the Galileo project, will be welcome, because that has been our travel-to-work area. The project brings enormous possibilities—up to 10,000 or 12,000 jobs. It has huge potential and is even more important in that it represents the development of a new type of industry in Wales in the intelligence high-tech sector, such as Cogent in Newport and many other firms, and will be a vital part of a transformation of the Welsh economy. Is it not marvellous news that the Government have such faith in the Welsh economy as to nominate Cardiff?

In Neath we regard Cardiff as Far East Neath. Seriously, though, my hon. Friend is right. Those jobs are extremely important for what they symbolise. There may not be many at this stage, but it is significant that out of the entire United Kingdom, Cardiff was chosen as the place to situate the headquarters of such a crucial European project. Of course we still have to beat the opposition across the rest of the European continent, but at least we are trying to do so from a strong base and signs of increasing Welsh success.

The House need not take my word for all this Welsh success. It is clear that the Conservatives and the nationalists are not doing so. Just look at recent national newspaper headlines: in The Observer, "Welsh resurgence"; in The Wall Street Journal, "High work ethics plus a pro-investment culture bring wealth to Wales"; in The Daily Telegraph—

Oh!

I knew the hon. Gentleman would pick up that point. It is his paper. The Daily Telegraph headline reads, "Everyone turns out to be a Welshman"; and The Sun says, "Why Wales is so hip it hurts". Those are examples of national newspapers recognising the big dynamism that now exists in Wales, which is proving to be so successful under the policies that we have implemented.

I am proud of what our Government have achieved—proud that we have thousands more nurses, doctors, teachers and police officers than ever before in Wales. I am proud that we have 40,000 more staff in public services in Wales. In a fiercely competitive world, with eastern Europe, not to mention China and India, taking more and more trade and jobs each month from Europe and America, I am proud that the Government have built a stronger economy in Wales than anybody can remember.

Today Labour is not just the party of social justice but the party of economic prosperity and business success. In Wales, and right across Britain, Labour means full employment, low mortgages, economic stability and continuous growth, which allows business to plan and invest for the long term. In the past two years the Conservatives have had 40 Opposition day debates in the House, yet not a single one has been on the subject of the economy. They do not want to discuss it, because they know that on the economy Labour is a winner, and Wales and Britain as a whole are winners too, because Wales is working, Britain is working, and people do not want the Conservatives to wreck it again.

The Conservatives mean risk—the risk of economic failure, mass unemployment, public spending cuts, high interest rates and high mortgages. They are pledged to make £35 billion of cuts in public spending—that is, £50 million of cuts for every constituency in Wales, or up to £2 billion less public spending in Wales, at a time when we need sustained investment in our public services and social and economic infrastructure. [Interruption.]

I hear heckling from the Conservative Front Bench and comments that that is not true. The shadow Chancellor published a graph showing that Labour's spending in the coming few years would rise to £668 billion, and the Conservatives' planned spending was £35 billion less than that. That is a £35 billion cut in Labour's spending plans—the plans that we have for building new hospitals, opening new schools and taking forward the new deal. All those plans for extra expenditure would no longer be committed because there is a gap of £35 billion, as the shadow Chancellor himself announced, with the accompanying graph showing that Labour's planned spending of more than £600 billion over the next few years would be reduced by £35 billion, amounting to £2 billion less public spending in Wales.

Will the Secretary of State say something about the NHS? Why does he believe that with all the extra money that has gone into the national health service in Wales per head of the population compared with England, there is a worse health service in Wales, compared with England?

I shall come to that point, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised it I simply say this at this stage. As he knows, there has been a big legacy of ill health in Wales. That does not mean to say that everything that has or has not gone on in the NHS in Wales can be excused as free of criticism—of course not. But we have now seen, with the announcement by the First Minister only a few weeks ago, that Wales's waiting times for key operations, such as hip operations and heart bypasses, to relieve people from pain, are coming down to a six-month total wait from the moment one sees one's GP to the moment one enters the operating theatre. That is about 26 weeks, which is comparable with the target that we are setting in England and that we intend to meet.

At the last election, the Welsh Labour manifesto promised the people of Wales that waiting times would be cut year on year. That promise was not kept, so why should the people of Wales believe Labour now?

That is actually not true. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the latest figures, published only recently, he will see that waiting times are now coming down and there has been significant progress in reducing lists. In the last month, out-patient waits of over 18 months have been cut by over 2,000, and waits of over 12 months reduced by 3,500. We are making progress. I agree that it has not been fast enough, but we will bring waiting lists down to a level of which I should have thought everyone in Wales would be proud—a maximum of 26 weeks from the moment that a patient in pain sees their local GP to the moment that they walk through the door for an operation. That fantastic achievement will be secured only as a result of the huge investment that is being poured into the NHS in Wales under Labour.

Will the Secretary of State explain to my constituents why they have to wait 18 months to go into an English district general hospital, whereas English patients have to wait only 12 months, and why they are artificially put back in the list to allow the hospital to reach the English waiting list target?

If the hon. Gentleman had made that point to me a month ago, it might have had real force, but we now see a costed, clearly set-out programme to bring waiting times for his constituents and those of every other Welsh Member right down to the level that will be achieved by 2009 in England. I should have thought that he would welcome that—a maximum of 26 weeks for an operation to relieve pain. That was completely out of the question under the Conservative Government's policies, and would be completely out of the question without our huge investment in the Welsh health service.

This is an important point to me and my constituents. Since Christmas this year—the Minister will understand this, because I contacted him on it—Hereford hospital stopped treating Powys patients altogether for orthopaedic conditions. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says about the future and 2009, those patients are in pain waiting for their operations and being denied them.

I understand that it is not acceptable that people have to wait a long time for an operation, and the hon. Gentleman is entitled and right to press his constituents' case, which will help to achieve much speedier treatment times. But he is a fair-minded person and if he looks at the evidence, the programme and the spending that supports it, he will see waiting times coming right down to a maximum of 26 weeks. He should welcome that, and that is something that his constituents will welcome as well, because then there will be no substantial differential between England and Wales in the relief of pain.