House of Commons
Thursday 16 June 2005
The House met at half-past Ten o'clock
Prayers
Mr Speaker in the Chair
Oral Answers to Questions
Education and Skils
The Secretary of State was asked—
Schools Building Programme
We receive many representations on the schools building programme. In recent months, for example, my officials have offered discussions to all authorities on their capital strategies. That will continue, as we fulfil our commitment to rebuild or refurbish every secondary school in the next 15 years, and half of all primary schools from 2008–09.
I welcome the Government's commitment to improving the quality of secondary school stock through their building schools for the future programme, but I understand that that will not have an impact in Southend before 2011. However, there is at present a limited supply of secondary school places, parents have limited choice and I understand that the allocations will benefit only one particular school. Is there any possibility that the right hon. Lady might consider bringing forward the programme for Southend, given the special circumstances there?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. It is really good to hear an Opposition Member welcoming the Government's significant capital investment programme. One thing is worth making clear: when the Government came to power in 1997, capital investment in school buildings was £700 million. That might be said to have been a lot of money, but capital investment this year amounted to £5.5 billion. I understand that Southend has already received significant capital investment, and that it is eligible under the targeted capital fund for additional investment to replace a whole school, or to receive two separate tranches of £6 million for two different schools. We will announce the results of the bidding process in the autumn.
Everyone welcomes the massive expenditure and investment in our schools building programme, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the schools that we build in the future can be either awful or wonderfully well designed and sustainable? This morning's Financial Times contained a worrying article in which a member of her Department said that future schools—and even academies—could be built more cheaply and effectively using off-the-shelf designs. For me, off the shelf means that the buildings will be poorly designed and unsustainable.
I can guarantee that school building designs will never be off the shelf, but that does not mean that there will not be a range of designs available to inform architects' design processes, and into which head teachers can have an input. However, it is important that we include an element of innovation in school design as we move forward.
May I support the plea for additional educational resources for Southend? Around the border between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), there is a problem arising from the lack of secondary school places. It would be very helpful if some additional resources could be made available so that extra secondary school places could be provided. The intensive house building that has gone on in both constituencies has made the problem worse.
There is a danger that a consensus might develop across the House that capital investment in schools is a good thing. I welcome the support for the Government programme in Southend expressed by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). If they feel that this is a serious matter about which they would like to write to me, I will of course consider that representation.
Most secondary schools in my constituency are now over 50 years old and well past their useful life as quality buildings. Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State aware that Tameside council, through the building schools for the future programme, is embarking on rebuilding seven high schools as part of the largest school building programme in the borough since the 1950s? Will she do all that she can to ensure that the long-term investment put in by this Labour Government continues, so that excellent Labour councils such as Tameside can eventually meet their ambition to rebuild and refurbish not just seven high schools but all the secondary schools in their areas?
I will answer, and I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. It is important that we begin in those areas where educational need and social disadvantage are most acute. As we roll forward this programme over the next 15 years, we will be able to rebuild, renew or refurbish to world-class standards every secondary school in the country.
Special Educational Needs
The Government's special educational needs strategy entitled "Removing Barriers to Achievement" was published in February 2004 and sets out a clear vision for improving support and outcomes for children with special educational needs. It also sets out action to ensure that children with special educational needs receive the help that they need from schools and other services as quickly as possible. That strategy was informed by a review of special schools, and we believe that such schools have a crucial role to play in teaching children with severe and complex needs and sharing expertise with mainstream schools.
I thank the Minister for that answer and congratulate her on her new appointment. Will she join me in praising the excellent work of Mowbray special school in Bedale in the Vale of York? Is she aware that there is a severe shortage of places for 16 to 19-year-olds, particularly those suffering from autistic spectrum disorder and severe learning difficulties? What does she propose to do to meet that lack of provision?
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks. I am aware of the developments in Mowbray. They map out what many local authorities are trying to do in reorganising, reconfiguring and improving the quality of provision for young people with special educational needs. She has raised with me a particular shortage; I am sure that the local authority is taking that issue on board. If she writes to me I will look into the matter, but she knows that responsibility for meeting the needs of all children across the board, including those with special educational needs, rests with the local authority. Our strategy sets out how local authorities can best do that.
Has the Minister experienced the frustration of parents who face almost insuperable barriers in securing a statement only to find that it is so unspecific as to be virtually unenforceable, and their frustration that very few schools provide the adequate resources and capabilities required? There has to be a moratorium on the closure of these schools. Does the Minister agree?
On the hon. Gentleman's last point I do not agree. I think a moratorium on closures of special schools at the moment would create complete gridlock in the system. It would create chaos and great uncertainty for parents, and it would create difficulties for local authorities, which are trying to go through a process of reorganising and improving schools. Sometimes that does involve closure, but if the hon. Gentleman looks across the country he will see that where there have been closures, there have almost always been mergers, openings of new schools and extensions of existing schools, because local authorities are trying to provide an improved service and better provision.
On the particular point that the hon. Gentleman raises, I think that there are issues with the statementing process. We know that some parents find that bureaucratic and delayed. But the best practice that we are promoting among local authorities, and which some are achieving very well, is to in a sense set aside the statementing process to intervene very early, to identify children's needs early—which is what parents want— and then to give the resources to schools, so that children can be supported adequately. Where that is happening, parents are not seeking statementing; very often they are seeking it as a lever for resources, and if the resources go in early they do not need a statementing process.
I hear what the Minister says but a situation is developing in north-west Leeds where parents' wishes are being totally ignored. The private company that a past Secretary of State put in to run education is closing the school, threatening governors and taking no notice of parents, and the children do not know where they will be going when they come back in September. We do not have a local authority to deal with education in Leeds, so I wonder whether the Minister would ask her officials to look at this, and would she care to meet a deputation of Members from Leeds to discuss this matter?
Of course I am happy to meet Members of the House at any time to discuss local circumstances. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is talking about special schools here or talking more generally.
Special schools.
My hon. Friend will know that in any local authority area, whatever the arrangements, there is a robust process, which everyone must abide by, that allows local people and a local committee and, if necessary in relation to special schools, an independent adjudicator, to make decisions if there cannot be resolution at local level. I do feel that this has to be a local decision. I understand that sometimes that is very difficult for parents and that there is disagreement, but there is a robust process to ensure parental involvement and to resolve the issue in a fair way at the end of that process.
In Crawley, we have a brand-new school for young people and children with special educational needs called Manor Green. It is proving to be one of the most wonderful innovations for parents and children in my area. But West Sussex county council has decided that because the school has moved slightly closer to many parents, they cannot now get travel arrangements for their children. Will my right hon. Friend look at that issue and find a way to compel West Sussex? Parents in my area who are trying to get three or four children to this fantastic new school, where they desperately want them to go, are finding that West Sussex has put enormous difficulties in their path.
I understand that my hon. Friend wants to support parents in the changes that have taken place in her constituency, but she will understand that it is for local authorities, with parents, to decide such issues. Ministers are often berated for involving themselves too closely and for wanting to take local decisions, yet sometimes when local authorities make decisions that are not fully supported, there are calls for Ministers to intervene. I am certainly happy to discuss the matter with her, but at the end of the day the decision has to be for the locality.
My constituent, Julie Maynard, is one of many people who feel that the whole system of special needs statementing seems designed almost to hinder parents rather than to help them. Will the review, which the Secretary of State promised during the run-up to the general election, include the statementing process, and can the Minister give Mrs. Maynard and many other constituents of mine a genuine and categorical assurance that if any policy changes are proposed and implemented they will be matched pound for pound by central Government funding?
As I said in my first answer, there was a full review of special school arrangements in the lead-up to the formulation of the strategy that was published in February 2004. The review was undertaken by an independent working group and published its report in March 2003; it is available if the hon. Gentleman wants to read it. There was a full review of the whole process and its recommendations were incorporated in the strategy we produced a year later. The audit that is going on at present comes from that strategy; it is a specific audit of provision nationally and in local authorities for the relatively small number of children who have high and complicated needs relating to specific conditions. The audit was called for because those are the children for whom it is most difficult for local authorities to find adequate placements. As there will be only a small number of such children in an individual local authority, the first stage is to map where the provision is so that local authorities can work together more closely and find suitable places, if necessary outside the local authority area, for the small number of children with high levels of need.
I have already commented on the statementing process, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point about it. Work is going on. I understand that some parents find the process bureaucratic, but the answer is to intervene early so that we do not need a statementing process for so many children, because parents feel that their needs are adequately met at their school.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a tendency for many local education authorities to ignore the expertise of teachers in both special needs and mainstream schools? Does she agree that the same freedom should be given to special needs teachers as is given to mainstream teachers in leading improvements and innovatory practices in the education of special needs children?
I certainly agree, although I am not aware that teachers in special schools universally feel that way. What is happening, and I very much welcome it, is that there are links between special needs and mainstream schools. Sometimes, where there are new developments and reorganisations, special schools are being built on the same sites as mainstream schools so that there can be real reciprocity and partnership. When that is not possible, such partnerships take place none the less, drawing down the incredible expertise of dedicated teachers in special schools and infusing it more widely through the mainstream system, so that youngsters with a lower level of special need who are in mainstream schools can be taught more effectively. The expertise of special needs teachers helps teachers in mainstream schools better to meet the needs of their pupils.
It has been very helpful to listen to the Minister's answers to the concerns expressed on both sides of the House. I am sure that she shares our concern that parents of children with very special needs should have a choice between mainstream and special schools. Will she explain why the audit, to which she has just referred, of special schools—91 of which have closed in the past eight years—will really consider only children with the most severe disabilities and learning difficulties? Given that schools for children with moderate learning difficulties have been threatened with closure, and some have been lost already, should not the audit go wider?
As I set out, there has been a full review of special schools, leading up to the strategy that was published last year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman must be aware of that. The strategy identified that a further and closer examination needed to be made of the provision for the children with very high level complex needs whom he identifies. Those children present the most challenges to local authorities.
Choice is absolutely paramount. Our changes to the Education Act 1981 made the choice for parents of children with special needs more effective. There has been a great deal of debate and some misunderstanding about the current position in the law and in Government guidance. When any parent of a child with special needs states a preference for a special school, there is no presumption of inclusion in a mainstream school and the local authority has to make the recommendation for the placement on the basis of the usual criteria: the needs of that child, the needs of other children and the issue of resources. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, in addition to that and at every step of the way, there is a robust system of appeal for parents—an appeal if they are refused an assessment, an appeal if they are refused a statement and an appeal if the statement does not include their preferred special school. Choice for parents is paramount, and I think that we have a system that gives parents choice and that supports that choice with a robust appeals system.
May I ask in the nicest possible way for shorter answers?
I hear what the Minister says, but she must accept that parents up and down the country feel that the law is biased. If they do not mention a preference for special schools, they are sometimes not even told that they exist. Should not the audit consider such issues? We are grateful for some extra detail but we want to know who is on the audit, who is running it, who will be consulted and what the precise remit is. No details have been given to the House. In the meantime, why will the Minister not take up our clear proposal that there should be, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said, a moratorium on the closure of special schools until the audit is actually reported and discussed. She says it is gridlocked, but is it not the case—
Order. I should have said that questions should also be brief.
In the interests of brevity rather than avoiding the question, perhaps I can refer the hon. Gentleman to what I have already said to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) about a moratorium. It would create chaos and uncertainty for parents, and would take away from local authorities their responsibility for decision making. It is interesting that other parts of the hon. Gentleman's party are calling for more devolution of decision making but, on this issue, they want to pull back power.
I will be brief, Mr. Speaker, but it is important that the debate does not polarise the issue. It is an important, emotive and complex issue for every parent and child. Some parents want their children included in mainstream schools, but others want a place in a special school. We need to ensure that the system can deliver as easily and accessibly as possible what individual parents want. I am with the hon. Gentleman on that. With consensus on those points at least, I hope that we can work towards that end. I think that statementing needs some improvement but, generally, that the system is working for most parents.
School Discipline (Leicestershire)
The Government are providing schools in Leicestershire with powers, training and guidance to deal with disruptive behaviour, including audit and training materials in secondary schools and new support for primary schools in teaching the skills for good behaviour. Leicestershire also has a behaviour consultant funded by the Department for Education and Skills.
Front-line professionals, with the support of parents, make the difference in schools. That is why we have asked 13 heads and teachers with a proven track record to advise us by the end of October on how to ensure that good practice is spread and on whether new powers are needed.
Rather like in this Chamber, the prerequisites for good behaviour in the classroom include discipline and respect, both of which are more likely to flow from staffroom initiatives than from ministerial edicts. Will the Minister accept the invitation from Ashby school, a large and successful 14-to-19 comprehensive in North-West Leicestershire of which I am a governor, to look at our good behaviour incentives and totting-up system that imposes a varying number of points from the most minor misdemeanour to the most serious offences? Twelve points will lead to exclusion. Is not this approach—a mixture of reward and sanctions—the most likely to achieve improvement both in the classroom and in this Chamber?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ministers can ensure, as we are doing, that support and training are in place for our schools, but we cannot legislate for good behaviour. Teachers and other staff in our schools and classrooms are ensuring that those places are orderly in the vast majority of cases, and I also agree that they are more orderly than the Chamber for a vast majority of the time.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about how we can ensure that best practice, such as that to which he refers, is shared, and that is one of the tasks that we have given to the leadership group. I would be pleased to visit the school and hear about its approach, and I am sure that the group would want to hear about it, too.
Will the Minister tell me what on earth is a behaviour consultant? How much does that person cost, and would the money not be better spent directly on schools in Leicestershire, which is the lowest funded local education authority in the country?
Considerable extra money is being spent in our schools on supporting good behaviour and raising standards. One issue rightly identified by staff in schools is the support available to help to implement the changes that many of them are putting in place. It is easy for the hon. and learned Gentleman to take a slightly sneering approach to the support provided for schools. Of course we need to get the balance right, but many schools have welcomed the assistance provided by behaviour consultants. It is also important that we get the money for behaviour as close to schools as possible, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has proposed that we devolve more money and give head teachers the responsibility to collaborate to come up with new approaches on supporting behaviour and tackling disruption that could be even more effective than the current system.
Good behaviour is an issue among students themselves because they recognise the disruption that can be caused. During my discussions with sixth-formers, they often identify specific problem years in their schools. I would like to go back to what the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said about school funding. The fact that Leicestershire continues to be the lowest funded authority causes severe problems in individual schools when new initiatives come along because we are trying to catch up with existing initiatives without adding on others. I say that as a governor of a school that is having difficulties implementing the work force agreement. Funding is currently being discussed, so will the Minister look again at the funding formula to ensure that Leicestershire gets the extra pocket that would allow us to make real progress?
I am sure that my hon. Friend is pleased to know that just behind the key stage 3 strategy on behaviour and attendance an additional £75 million is being made available to places including Leicestershire, as I have spelled out. I am aware of the arguments about funding that he is making. I am meeting the F40 group today to discuss precisely some of the issues that he raises, so I assure him that they remain high in my mind.
May I gently tell the Minister that the front-line professionals and parents about whom she speaks do not talk to me in Leicestershire about marvellous new initiatives on good behaviour in the classroom because they talk to me all the time about funding, as the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) said? There is a remarkable cross-party consensus on the matter. Why is Leicestershire the worst funded education authority in the country? Two years ago, I took a cross-party group to see the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), but we still have no satisfactory answer to why we are so badly funded compared with Leicester, which is across the boundary from my constituency.
I have responded partly to the points about Leicestershire's funding, but I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman talks to parents and front-line professionals in his constituency, they also talk about the considerable improvements to standards and behaviour that they have seen due to the extra £740 per pupil that has been received in Leicestershire since the Government came to power. I also have no doubt that during the general election campaign they compared the Government's record and plans for further investment with his party's plans for cuts.
Primary Schools (Admissions)
Primary schools and local authorities need to have regard to the admissions code of practice when setting their admissions arrangements. They may not introduce selection, but faith schools may give priority to applicants of their faith.
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. During the election campaign, parents expressed concern that primary schools would be able to select on academic ability. Will she reassure me that that will never be on our agenda?
I certainly make the pledge that not only will we never introduce further selection at the age of 11, but we will not introduce selection at the age of five either. I will have nothing to do with that now or in the future. Perhaps now that the electorate have delivered their verdict on the Conservatives' proposals, they will drop that foolish idea as well.
In setting admissions criteria for primary schools, should local councils, as local education authorities, be allowed or, indeed, encouraged to give preference to their local residents?
When determining admissions arrangements, local councils must have regard to the admissions code of practice, which contains various matters that local schools and authorities can take into account—for example, whether there are siblings or whether people live in a local catchment area. Those are legitimate things to have regard to, and I, from central Government, would not want to impose any particular model on schools.
Education Maintenance Allowance
By the end of May 2005, 2,425 young people in the Durham local authority area and 294,488 young people in England had received one or more education maintenance allowance payment.
I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Head teachers in my constituency have told me that EMAs are of tremendous value in encouraging young people to stay on at school, improving attendance and enhancing the qualifications and skills that young people can obtain. There is, however, a concern that communication could be better. Will she explain what is being done to make the benefits of the scheme more widely known?
We expected some 300,000 young people to be benefiting from the scheme by this stage, and we are very close to that. We do not think that nationally there is a problem with awareness. I am told that a variety of media campaigns—web-based leaflets, local radio and newspaper advertising, and information in schools and colleges—highlight the benefits. Additional information is also provided via the Connexions service for those who are, perhaps, harder to reach. I am confident that there is excellent communication on the benefits of the scheme.
Education maintenance allowances were piloted in Liverpool. Does my hon. Friend regard them as a success? What additional proposals does she have to expand opportunities for vocational and academic education for people in Liverpool?
The pilots, which took place throughout the country from 1999 onwards, showed a great deal of success in reaching the target groups and increasing the staying-on rate among our 16-year-olds. We have to remember that we have one of the lowest staying-on rates in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the point of the policy is to address that.
We have plans to ensure that EMAs are expanded into vocational education so that those who are on unwaged training programmes also receive the payment in due course. Certainly, the pilot programme showed an increase in the staying-on rate of just below 6 per cent. as a result of the policy, so we have high hopes that rolling it out nationally will be a good thing.
Adult Education
I, and my ministerial colleagues, meet and correspond regularly with a range of partners across the further education sector, including individual colleges. There is also, of course, regular dialogue between these organisations and officials.
I thank the Minister for his response. Is he aware that there is growing anger and concern in Bexley borough that from September fees will increase, courses will be cut and concessions reduced for adult education students because of cuts in the Learning and Skills Council's funding? Does he agree that further education should be not just for skills, development and training, but for leisure learning as well? Why are the Government letting down adult education?
There is consensus about the new priorities that the Government announced in both the 14-to-19 strategy and the skills White Paper. We need to develop the skills base of our population, among 16 to 18-year-olds in particular, and among adults requiring basic skills at level 2, which is the equivalent of five GCSEs, in the work force. It is right that the current transition in FE seeks to make funding and, therefore, participation rates, among those groups much higher.
I do not accept that being clear about those priorities means that adult education courses have to close. We see no reason why courses that people value should close. We will continue to support those on income-related benefits who qualify, but there is a discussion about rebalancing between the taxpayer, the individual concerned and the employer the issue of who pays how much and for what. Raising fee income is one way in which we can benefit colleges. Indeed, colleges might like to consider collecting some of the £100 million that they currently waive on fees.
I welcome the additional funding for further education that the Government have provided over the years, but on further education funding generally, an issue that remains of concern to staff, parents and students at Varndean sixth-form college in my constituency and at Brighton, Hove and Sussex sixth-form college, which serves the city of Brighton and Hove, is the continuing disparity in funding between sixth-form colleges and school sixth forms. Does the Minister to propose to address that issue in the near future?
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recognition of the extra money for 16 to 18-year-olds and FE funding. Indeed, 25 per cent. more is being spent now than in 2002–03, and there has been a 4 per cent. overall increase on last year's funding. There is recognition of the funding gap between sixth forms and FE colleges. We recognise that it is an issue, and we have a commitment to close the gap, but as funding allows us to do so. That is the challenge before us. The important point is to increase learning participation rates among 16 and 17-year-olds, so that they enter the work force better skilled and able to take up jobs and sustainable employment.
Does the Minister recognise that adult and further education is not only for leisure learning, but opens the door for many people to have a second chance and for some to have a change of career, and lifts many out of poverty? What would he say to the 200,000 people who the Association of Colleges says will not be able to benefit from such courses next year? Will he explain to the House whether it is as a result of the failure of Government policy that funds are having to be redirected towards 16 to 19-year-olds who are leaving school without numeracy and literacy, which means that funds are diverted away from adult education?
Far from being a failure of Government policy, it is the intent to shift our priorities to the country's economic needs and to support the ability of individuals, particularly 16 to 18-year-olds, to get skills that allow them to leave education and go into the world of work better qualified to get better-paid jobs for their own benefit and development as individuals, as well as for the benefit of companies and the country as a whole. We believe that those are the right priorities.
I believe that there is a consensus in the country about raising skills and we recognise on both sides of the House the importance of raising skill levels overall. What we are doing is a clear way of implementing those priorities. That is not to say that adult education and leisure courses, in which many Members of Parliament may have participated, should not be supported, but it is right to ask about the balance in respect of who pays for leisure adult education courses. We believe that there is an opportunity to raise fees for some leisure courses where people can afford to take them, while maintaining the taxpayer's contribution to support those in poorer areas on low incomes, so that they can also participate in those courses.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the people of this country have welcomed the reintroduction of apprenticeships—they have certainly done so in Swindon—and can he tell me what FE colleges are doing to promote modern apprenticeships?
My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the value and importance of apprenticeships. During the general election campaign, I knocked on doors and heard people say, "I'll tell you what you should do for young people: bring back apprenticeships." We have already done so, but this is one of those issues that do not get much popular recognition. We are already talking about moving from having some 50,000 apprenticeships in 1997 to having 250,000 or 300,000 a year.
I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that I will attend the annual apprenticeships awards ceremony this evening. I am looking forward to taking a very good opportunity publicly to thank and recognise the successful and excellent apprentices whom we shall see tonight, as well as those in our colleges who are transferring their skills so that the talented craftspeople in our FE sector can be valued as well.
The Minister dismisses the crisis in adult education funding and says that colleges should sort out the situation by raising fees, which is not a practical option. His Department cut the Learning and Skills Council's adult education budget by £55 million—a cut of more than 5 per cent in real terms. How does he justify that cut when 11 million adults of working age do not have the equivalent of five GCSEs?
Of course, Kingston college is getting an 8 per cent. increase in its funding this year, which is above the rate of inflation. Yesterday, I visited Highbury college in Portsmouth to open its new centre of vocational excellence, which will deliver the kind of skills training that the hon. Gentleman has recognised as being essential. The Liberals always say that there is a crisis in further education, but overall FE funding has increased, and nine out of 10 FE colleges have received increased funding. One in 10 FE colleges have not received increased funding for particular, localised reasons and we expect them to discuss with their local learning and skills councils managing the funding transition in a way that makes sense to the local community. The Government are committed to skills, which are the new priority for the third term. We will deliver the skills agenda so that the Chancellor's successful economy is sustained over the years ahead.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's comments about the funding gap between schools and FE colleges. Will he publish a timetable showing when he expects it to be closed?
As I said, we recognise the difficulty, but my hon. Friend knows that closing the funding gap depends on the availability of resources. Our current priority is increasing the staying-on rate for 16 to 18-year-olds to address this country's skills gap, which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) mentioned. Unless we address that by transforming the funding process, we will not succeed against countries such as China and India, which are investing heavily in skills, let alone against our European competitors. We must put more money into the FE sector, which is exactly what we are doing.
David Collins, the principal of South Cheshire college, has said:
"We're getting 2.2 per cent. less than we were meant to. We will cut our adult education programmes by around 1,000 places . . . I would like to see more honesty from the LSC and the Government in saying that they can't afford to do what they promised."
Does the Minister think that his and the LSC's cuts in adult education are the right response to the UK's serious competitiveness and productivity problems?
We recognise the productivity, competition and skills issue and have spelled out our priorities in the White Paper, "14–19 Education and Skills". We are shifting funding towards 16 to 18-year-olds, apprenticeships, basic skills and adult level 2, because we want to get more of our work force to achieve the equivalent of five good GCSEs. The hon. Gentleman and I agree on that priority, and the Government are putting in more money to make the transition happen. Local colleges will manage their budgets at local level with their local learning and skills councils, but I repeat that being clear about those priorities and that transition does not mean that all adult education courses must close. Other alternatives include raising fee income and rebalancing the taxpayer's contribution to leisure courses such as Australian cake decorating, which are perfectly valid. Where demand exists, we should provide adult leisure courses, but perhaps adult learners should pay for them.
Overseas Students
The latest figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show that there were 231,400 students from overseas in English higher education institutions—an increase of nearly 40 per cent. compared with eight years ago. The Department has taken steps to encourage higher education institutions to attract more international students through the Prime Minister's initiative. We recognised in the Department's international strategy the importance of the initiative and emphasised our commitment to continue to expand the numbers of international students.
The 3,200 international students in Bristol contribute more than £28 million in fee income to the two universities in the city, inject millions more into the local economy and contribute greatly to the city's intellectual and cultural life. Given the Government's decision to increase entry visa fees by 136 per cent. from 1 July, does the Minister agree that that sends the wrong signal to students who are considering whether to come to this country or go to one of our competitors? Will he ask his ministerial colleagues, perhaps even the Prime Minister, given the initiative that the Minister mentioned, to reconsider the decision?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest in the issue. I understand institutions' concern but I am sceptical about the contention that a visa fee of less than £100 for an overseas student's course that probably costs £7,000 or £8,000 a year is the critical factor in determining whether students come to this country. Nevertheless, given the importance of the overseas student sector, we must ensure that we consider all the issues that affect the attractiveness of this country. I therefore regard setting up the joint education taskforce, which will be involved in the sector, as an important step forward. Let us examine the evidence and consider what has happened since the introduction of the Prime Minister's initiative. There has been a substantial increase in the numbers of overseas students, in marked contrast to what happened previously.
My hon. Friend will know, as a former entry clearance Minister, that it is not simply a question of an increase in the visa fees. The Home Office's proposal to abolish the right of appeal for those who want to come here as overseas students will have a massive impact on several universities. What discussions has he had with his Home Office colleagues about the proposals? Will he give an undertaking that, if any impact study shows that the number of overseas students will decline as a result not only of the proposals for entry clearance fees but the abolition of the right of appeal, he will try to persuade his Home Office colleagues to think again about these absurd proposals?
I am in regular discussions with the Home Office on those issues. It is critical to get the judgment right in the first instance through the entry clearance system about whether an overseas student is eligible for a visa. The clear advice from the Home Office is that an appeal process often means that the time lag is too great and the course has been completed. I have dealt with such issues and I know that to be the case. It is important to get the judgment right in the first place. The fact that we have set up a taskforce to oversee those issues should enable us to keep on top of the matter.
The Minister knows that, of the many welcome overseas students in the country, 40,000 from other European Union countries are entitled to access to the student loan system. Unfortunately, the Government appear to have no recourse for getting the loans back from them when they return home. Is it not perverse that we appear to have a grant system for some overseas students in our universities but only a loan system for British students? What will the Minister do about it?
We are bringing back student grants for British students, but we will have a robust process to ensure that we recover debts from other European Union students. We especially anticipate relying on European Council regulation 44/2001 for the recovery of debt from borrowers who live in other parts of the EU. We are already working on the process and we will ensure that, by 2006, we have a robust system in place to recover the money.
Foreign Languages
I believe that we have made good progress with language teaching. We have trained more than 1,200 new language teachers for primary schools. Our key stage 3 strategy continues to have a positive impact on pupils' attainment. Alternative qualifications and vocational options at key stage 4 allow pupils more flexibility in their studies. In universities, there has been a growth in recent years in the number of students who study languages.
Does the Minister worry that Britain is developing a terrible tendency to achieve an effortless English language superiority and to think constantly that, if only we speak English louder, Johnny Foreigner will understand? Does he also worry that the number of students learning modern languages at primary and secondary schools is falling, which is leading to fewer going on to university to study them? Finally, does he worry that we are still obsessed with learning languages that are becoming increasingly irrelevant, such as French, as opposed to languages that might be more important for our international competitiveness, such as Mandarin and Arabic?
As a former French graduate, I will not take umbrage at my hon. Friend's last comment, but this is a critical issue. We need to do more to encourage young people to study modern languages and students to take up modern language teaching through the postgraduate certificate of education scheme.
The most significant thing that we can do is to fulfil our commitment to ensuring that, by 2010, every primary student, from the ages of seven to 11, gets access in the classroom to modern languages teaching. Many, many years ago, I was part of a pilot project in a state school that enabled me to start studying French at the age of eight. That is one of the things that enthused and interested me in modern languages. I ended up studying French at university. That is the way forward and it is what this Government are committed to.
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment.
I disagree with the views of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on studying French. The Minister will be aware of the 8.5 per cent. fall in the number of 15-year-olds taking GCSE French. The numbers have fallen from 316,000 in 1994 to just 289,000 last year. Given Britain's very special relationship with France, does he regret that trend? If so, does he also regret the Government's decision to end the requirement to study a modern foreign language from the age of 14?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, to which I respond in kind.
I am not saying that everything in the garden is rosy. We have a significant challenge in interesting young people in the study and applicability of modern languages. On the post-14 situation, we will not encourage young people to take an interest in modern languages by forcing 14 and 15-year-olds with no aptitude for or interest in studying those languages to undertake such courses. We must start at a much earlier age, which is why our commitment in primary schools is so important.
Solicitor-General
The Solicitor-General was asked—
Crown Prosecution Service (Nottinghamshire)
The new charging scheme in Nottinghamshire brings CPS lawyers into police stations to work closely with the police from the start of the case. In May 2005, a joint CPS-police liaison group was established to improve CPS-police working relationships in Nottinghamshire. An action plan has been drawn up following a post-implementation review. It aims to identify and resolve issues, and the group is helping to take the plan forward.
Will my hon. and learned Friend take time to thank the CPS in Nottinghamshire for some very successful prosecutions, which are only now entering the public domain? They have provided great relief and pleasure to the people of Nottinghamshire. Does he accept that the experiment of having prosecutors in police stations has been a success? Nottinghamshire was a pilot area for that scheme. Does he also accept that there is still much more that could happen informally, with prosecutors, the police, magistrates and members of the public interacting so that they all understand each other's problems? That would lead to more successful prosecutions.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and will convey his thanks to the CPS in Nottinghamshire. It is indeed carrying out successful prosecutions and what appears to be a successful experiment in bringing together the police and the CPS, but these are early days and we need to see how things develop. There is a lot of training going on to build the better relationships that he mentioned. I see from my notes that, in September, courses will start on training lawyers in inter-personal skills. You might feel, Mr. Speaker, that many lawyers would benefit from such training.
The Solicitor-General will acknowledge that the magistrates courts play a key role in the process. He will be aware of the report published by the Public Accounts Committee today, which blames much of the delay on lay justices. Will he take this opportunity to reject that as complete and utter twaddle and will he acknowledge that lay justices are the cornerstone of British justice and give them his full support?
Lay justices are an enormously valuable and important part of our criminal justice system, particularly in local areas where they have local knowledge. Stipendiaries also play a vital role, particularly in our larger cities. It is therefore important to ensure that we have a criminal justice system that delivers for the victims of crime and that ensures that the guilty are punished.
As my hon. and learned Friend said, it is early days, but the co-operation in Nottinghamshire has led in the past 10 days to the first successful jailings of people in my constituency for breaches of antisocial behaviour orders. Will he examine how the Nottinghamshire experiment is working so that those of us who have been demanding that we name, shame and jail the neighbours from hell can see that kind of success continuing?
One of the key changes that the Government have introduced is ensuring that we focus on dealing with the issues that concern people in areas such as Nottinghamshire—issues of antisocial behaviour. It is crucial that we link together the work that the police are doing, and that many community groups are doing, and that we ensure that the courts deliver on this issue. I shall certainly take account of the work done in Nottinghamshire, and ensure that it continues to be successful.
Murder
The Law Officers meet the DPP regularly to discuss a range of criminal justice issues, including sentencing for murder. The Government have said that we will establish a review of the law on murder, and the Home Secretary will announce the way forward shortly.
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, approaching 40 years after the abolition of the death penalty for murder, it is now appropriate that we have a detailed and mature consideration of the law as a whole relating to murder and the sentencing relating to it?
Yes, we need to consider all those issues. Last August, the Law Commission produced a report on the law in relation to murder and made some recommendations. The Home Secretary has made it clear that he wants to retain the mandatory life sentence for murder. None the less, we need to consider the wider issues presented by murder and the law on it, and the Home Secretary will make his announcements on the review in due course.
I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman to his new appointment. Does he agree that one of the reasons why the mandatory life sentence for murder should be retained is that that is the way to ensure that anyone who is released is released on life licence and can be recalled if necessary? Were a change to having finite sentences for murder introduced, someone could not be so recalled, which would be likely to cause serious public disquiet.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his best wishes on my appointment. He makes a valuable point. In any review of the law on murder and sentences for murder, we will need to examine that issue. The Government's key responsibility is to ensure that we maintain confidence in the criminal justice system, protect victims and bring the guilty to justice. We must therefore have penalties in which the public can have confidence.
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his attention in the past few days to the case of John Barrett, who was given a life sentence for the manslaughter of Denis Finnegan, who lived in my constituency. Does he agree that the criminal justice system owes a massive apology to the Finnegan family for a systemic failure that meant that they were not told for two months about the halving of Mr. Barrett's tariff from 15 and a half years to seven and a half years? May I urge him to take action to ensure that such appalling disregard for families' rights never happens again?
This is a bad case. I agree that the criminal justice system owes an apology for errors made by the agencies in failing to tell the family about the reduction of the sentence. Lessons need to be learned. The Crown Prosecution Service has spoken to Mr. Finnegan's brother and sent him a written apology for the agencies' failures. I met the Crown prosecutor for London yesterday to discuss the case. The Government have made it clear that victims should be at the heart of the criminal justice system, but this case provides an example of where that has not happened. We are putting new measures in place to ensure that it does not happen again. If it would help, I would be happy to meet the Finnegan family.
I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman to his new post.
Most sensible people would recognise that murder is a uniquely abhorrent crime, but they would also recognise that murder can take place in a variety of circumstances, which should be recognised by the courts. Is not the most important factor in establishing confidence in the court system, and in ensuring that victims and their families recognise its integrity, the need to have honesty in sentencing so that people clearly understand what the sentence means, how long the person will stay in prison if it is a custodial sentence and what will happen when they are released from prison short of a full life sentence?
It is certainly important that people who are sentenced and the general public are aware of the implications of a sentence. That is why it is crucial that the judge should make clear in sentencing the reasons why a particular sentence has been passed. It is also why we have been clarifying, over recent years and particularly in the 2003 legislation, the basis on which decisions on sentencing should be made. Much of what the hon. Gentleman said is right and I agree that it is important to maintain confidence in our criminal justice system.
Extradition
Yes—today, hopefully.
Is it not wrong for the Government to have signed an extradition treaty with the United States that is not reciprocal? British citizens can be extradited to the US on suspicion whereas the US, quite rightly, requires a higher burden of proof for its citizens to be extradited from the US to here. When are the British Government going to stand up for the rights of British citizens rather than sign unequal treaties? Will the Solicitor-General suspend the treaty until the US Congress passes into its law a fully reciprocal agreement?
I entirely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's analysis. There are similar arrangements in place for extradition for 48 countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, European countries and the US. Precise reciprocity in extradition arrangements is impossible because legal systems are different. Today, arrangements with the US are broadly comparable in most respects, including with respect to the standard of information needed for requests either way—from the US or here. We now require information that is similar to the US requirement of probable cause. Before 2003, we required a prima facie case, which is a higher requirement than probable cause. We are satisfied that the balance of reciprocity is comparable now. We are doing the right thing now, and we believe that making it more difficult for those accused of crime to be brought to court, as the right hon. Gentleman wants, is the wrong approach.
Business of the House
Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 20 June—Second Reading of the Violent Crime Reduction Bill.
Tuesday 21 June—Second Reading of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.
Wednesday 22 June—Opposition Day [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on special schools and special educational needs followed by a debate entitled "Threat to the Integrity of the Electoral System". Both arise on an Opposition motion.
Thursday 23 June—Second Reading of the Regulation of Financial Services (Land Transactions) Bill.
Friday 24 June—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week after will be:
Monday 27 June—Second Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill.
Tuesday 28 June—Second Reading of the Identity Cards Bill.
Wednesday 29 June—Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 30 June—There will be a debate on Africa on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
At 6 pm the House will be asked to approve all outstanding estimates.
Friday 1 July—The House will not be sitting.
I am delighted to hear that we finally have a date for the Identity Cards Bill. We look forward to what will no doubt be a vigorous debate.
Will the Leader of the House give us, as a matter of urgency, an opportunity to discuss the Home Secretary's decision to ban protests from a wide area around the Palace of Westminster? The Government have already tried to introduce house arrest without trial; now they want to ban political protests around the mother of Parliaments. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that such actions make it more difficult for this country to stand on the moral high ground when criticising repressive regimes such as those in Burma and Zimbabwe?
Talking of Zimbabwe, last week the right hon. Gentleman brushed off my request for a statement on the situation there. He will have read in today's papers that circumstances in Zimbabwe continue to go from bad to worse. Why is it not possible for a Foreign Office Minister to come to the House and tell us what the Government are doing to help to forge an international response to the problems?
May we have an early debate on the suspension of the regulations introduced in the House two years ago to implement the food supplements directive? The right hon. Gentleman will know that the European Court of Justice has made a provisional decision that the directive cannot stand, but the regulations will still come into force on 1 August. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an opportunity to suspend them, so that organisations no longer have to work with them although they may be set aside shortly? That would remove the black cloud that currently hangs over the industry.
Did the Leader of the House have an opportunity to drop in to the "race against time" lobby on Duchenne muscular dystrophy earlier this week? As he will know, this is a terrible disease that threatens the lives of many children in my constituency and, I suspect, in his. Will he make time for a debate so that we can discuss the research programme that is trying to sort out the problem and deliver a real solution for those children, so that we can discuss ways of helping to give them a better future?
Finally, may we have a debate on local dialects so that the House can congratulate the Leader of the House on his success in entering the dictionary of cockney rhyming slang? The website cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk gives the example:
"You're a right Geoff Hoon you are."
It appears under the eye-catching heading
"What on earth does 'Geoff Hoon' mean?"
Over the past few weeks, I have become used to being grateful for the kind observations emanating from the Opposition Front Bench, not least in relation to identity cards. I am sure that Labour Members look forward to discovering what precisely is the Opposition's position on that important issue. When they find their identity, no doubt we shall all be reassured.
I must say the same in respect of political protests in and around the precincts of Parliament. Following a detailed debate, the Government have sought to put into legislation the recommendations of the cross-party Procedure Committee, which in the last Parliament was chaired by a Conservative Member. If the Opposition Front Bench is now disowning the results of a detailed piece of work done in the House by, among others, Conservative Members, I regard that as a matter of considerable regret.
The hon. Gentleman raised again, quite properly, the question of Zimbabwe. As I said a few minutes ago, an Opposition day is forthcoming. We have yet to hear from the Opposition what the subject of the debate will be, but it presents the hon. Gentleman with a tremendous opportunity to demonstrate just how sincere he is by ensuring that Zimbabwe is debated. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House would be delighted about that.
We shall certainly look carefully at the decision of the European Court of Justice on food supplements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will ensure that we observe the terms of the judgment precisely. As for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the regulations be suspended, I will ensure that my right hon. Friend writes to him accordingly.
The disease research programme is important, and obviously the House will have to consider it carefully in due course.
I am sure that the reference in the new dictionary is meant to be entirely complimentary.
I am trying to be as helpful as always. Would it not be useful if, prior to the Second Reading of the Identity Cards Bill, there was a full and frank discussion in Cabinet, as there was originally, and during which some Cabinet members apparently expressed reservations? Such a full and frank discussion would give the Cabinet an opportunity to decide whether the measure should go through, bearing in mind the concerns expressed in the past 18 months to two years about the possible failure of biometrics—there seems to be not much doubt about that—and the vast expense: it is now being said that the card will cost in the region of £300 rather than the original sum. Should not all that be taken into account before 28 June?
I assure my hon. Friend that all discussions in Cabinet are both full and frank. The Cabinet has discussed this point. We set out the position of the Labour party in our manifesto, upon which we achieved success in the general election. I know that my hon. Friend has considerable reservations about identity cards, but it is the settled opinion of the Government that the legislation should go forward, which is why we have put it into the programme.
I welcome the full day's debate on Africa, which I requested last week. With such prompt service, I must clearly be careful what I ask for in future.
The right hon. Gentleman will have heard his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say, in answer to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy), that he will soon bring forward proposals for the proper scrutiny of European legislation. Given that we had yet another Adjournment debate on the European Union yesterday, which I am sure was valuable in its way but which was unfocused, is not there a clear need to have a proper process of scrutiny of what our Ministers do in the Council on behalf of this country? At the moment, we have no such scrutiny proposals.
Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the report issued today by the Public Accounts Committee on non-attendance at court, which has become a very significant problem? Might we also debate the comments of the chief constable of Avon and Somerset, Colin Port, who suggests that perhaps what we need is a national agency, along the lines of the US marshals, responsible for tracking down fugitives and bringing them to justice? That would certainly merit debate.
Can we have a standing slot, on a regular basis, for a debate that might be called, "New policies announced by Ministers but of which details have unaccountably never been given to the House"? There we could, for instance, consider the ambitious plans announced for first-time buyers, which we still do not know anything about, and discover when the free travel for pensioners on buses will be implemented, which is a question that is often asked. Moreover, it might decrease the number of opportunities that Ministers have for making statements outside this House instead of coming here and making a proper statement.
Lastly, could we have a debate on the serious medical condition of amnesia? It seems to me that some right hon. and hon. Members simply cannot remember the position that they took only a matter of months ago on ID cards, demonstrations in Parliament square, or the extradition treaty with the United States.
On amnesia, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the considerable work of the Modernisation Committee on European scrutiny. I have been looking carefully at those recommendations. It is a matter that we need to resolve. I agree that it is important that we should improve the quality and quantity of European scrutiny. It is clear from elections here and votes in countries such as France and Holland that the European population is anxious to see an improvement in the way in which we deal with European issues. I am sure that this House, which has always set the standard for scrutiny, will look carefully at the proposals when they are brought forward, and when I have thought about them.
As for the PAC report on non-attendance at court, we very much welcome those recommendations. A great deal of work has been done over a number of years to improve case management before the courts, and it is obviously necessary that that should continue. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's observations in that respect. It is of course the case that Ministers always report new policies to the House first, and I have continued to emphasise that to my right hon. and hon. Friends. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, are especially concerned about that, and I give you my assurance that my colleagues will observe the proper rules and practice of the House to ensure that right hon. and hon. Members are fully informed as new policies are announced.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations on ID cards, although I daresay that they were directed not at the Government but at other Opposition Members. The Liberal Democrats have always been consistent on the issue, but sadly they have been consistently wrong.
Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate about religious and sacred desecration? I have tabled an early-day motion today that condemns such an act at a Jewish cemetery in my constituency and welcomes the solidarity of the local multifaith community, which has condemned the incident and stood alongside those who have suffered as a consequence of that barbarous action.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that important issue. The Government deplore all anti-Semitism, especially the appalling expression of it that we saw in her constituency recently. Before the general election, I spoke at the annual fundraising meeting of the Community Security Trust, which does so much important work protecting our Jewish community. It is important that we do not allow anti-Semitism to operate in this country.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for an Education Minister to make an urgent statement to the House on adult education funding? Had he been here for Education questions earlier, he would have heard that many Labour Members are extremely concerned about that issue, as are Opposition Members. In my constituency, Dunstable college faces a £600,000 cut in adult education provision. The staff will have to decide next week which courses they will not offer, but budgets could be rearranged by taking money from the headquarters bureaucracy of the Learning and Skills Council to deal with that problem. Will the Leader of the House ensure that a Minister is available to deal with that issue next week?
I was not present for Education questions, but I am always impressed by the number of Education Ministers we have. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have had the opportunity to raise his question. I draw to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends the points made at business questions and I will ensure that that point is drawn to their attention.
Will my right hon. Friend consider making time for an early debate on the issue of children's homes and whether they need planning permission? That is especially important in the west midlands where a company called Green Corns has been buying private properties, and housing children in their care in them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that while those children must of course be housed somewhere, it does not foster confidence in the local community when it is done with no reference to local authorities, to social services departments or to the local communities in which the children are placed?
My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which has coincidentally arisen in my constituency, so I am familiar with the problems that can arise. He is right to highlight the issue and it is important that the Government look carefully at the relevant planning laws to ensure that local authorities are consulted about such proposals.
It is six weeks since the general election and five weeks since the new Parliament first met. In that time we have seen the European constitution come and go and new Ministers take up their responsibilities. We have also seen all sorts of new policy initiatives announced, but we still have had no announcement about the formation of Select Committees, which carry out the important business of scrutinising Government activity. Can the Leader of the House tell us what the problem is and when he will come forward with proposals for those important Committees?
I appreciate the concern of the hon. Gentleman and of other right hon. and hon. Members, but I have set the position out clearly. It is a question of all of the political parties represented in the House making their nominations to the vacancies on Select Committees. That process, as I understand from my own party, is well under way and progress has been made. But the democracy of the House is dependent on the democracy of the political parties, and that process can sometimes take longer than some Members might like.
Last weekend, the residents of Ramsbottom, Holcombe village, Holcombe Brook and Hawkshaw, in my constituency, were surprised to wake up and discover that they had been fingered by the former Conservative Government as a potential site for dumping the nation's radioactive waste. Given that residents in many parts of the country have been made aware of the list produced by Nirex, which was finally published under freedom of information legislation—more than 10 years too late—and given that our Government have a far more open and transparent approach to the problem of radioactive nuclear waste through the work of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, does my right hon. Friend think it timely to have a debate on the long-term storage of nuclear waste, in order to assess the progress of the Committee charged with looking at this issue?
That information was of course published by the Ministry of Defence, consistent with the relevant rules under freedom of information legislation. Such information is of an historical kind only and should not in any way provide guidance for any issues currently being considered. This is a good opportunity for Parliament to discuss the relevant issues, not least because of the publication of this material. But my hon. Friend is a skilled and experienced parliamentarian, and I anticipate that he will find ways to ensure that the debate takes place.
The Leader of the House will be aware that on Tuesday we had the Second Reading of the Government's National Lottery Bill, through which they are attempting to commit one of the greatest acts of larceny in the 21st century. If he has had the chance to read the report of that debate, he will know that I pressed the Minister for more time to consider the Bill in Committee when the House returns in October. The Government are attempting to fob us off with four days, but to be fair, the Minister on that occasion did say that he and the Whips want the Bill to be properly scrutinised, which suggests that we will be granted more than four days. Can the Leader of the House use his influence through the usual channels to ensure that this incredibly important Bill—it creates the Big Lottery Fund, which is already up and running and has made allocations—gets the scrutiny that it properly deserves?
I am slightly surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman complain about the amount of time allocated. As I recall, the Second Reading debate was scheduled to continue until 10 o'clock on Tuesday evening, but for some unaccountable reason it finished rather earlier. I can only conclude, therefore, that the overwhelming majority of Members were entirely satisfied with the Bill and felt no need to speak.
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the location of medical assessment centres for claimants of incapacity and industrial injury benefits? We have just discovered that Atos Origin, which won the contract to run these centres, has decided without any apparent consultation to close 21 centres, including both the Derbyshire ones. It would help to have such a debate, so that we can discover whether Ministers have been able to assess how severely disabled and ill people will manage to travel very long distances, potentially involving several bus or train journeys, in order to claim the benefits that they desperately need.
My hon. Friend raises an important issue that is, I am sure, of concern to many right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies across the country. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions replies to her.
Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on the case of Mr. Ian Norris, a constituent of mine who faces deportation to the USA on alleged price-fixing offences? The last of those alleged offences took place before 2003, when price fixing became a criminal offence in England, so it is doubtful whether grounds for extradition exist. Mr. Norris is 62 and in ill health, and needs the protection of his sovereign Government. I urge the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity not only as Leader of the House but as a lawyer, to find time to bring this issue before the House or before his colleagues at the Solicitor-General's office.
The hon. Gentleman has made his point very effectively, and I am sure that those responsible for these matters will have heard him. He knows full well that it is not appropriate for Ministers to comment on, or to intervene in, current legal cases.
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on how new wheel-clamping regulations and the licensing system are working? I would particularly like to know how they are working in villages such as mine, where a wheel-clamping firm investigates complaints, so it says, without talking to the complainants. It clamps people if they visit a particular group of shops in the village, and then moves to another group across the road, thus increasing traffic and congestion and partly destroying village life, which has always worked on the principle of give and take. Can we debate how the regulations are working in practice, and what can further be done to regulate such firms?
This is what is described in my office as one of those hardy perennials. I recognise the concern that wheel clamping causes and the strong feelings that it arouses in constituents throughout the country. My hon. Friend will doubtless find an opportunity to secure an Adjournment debate, which is the appropriate vehicle for discussing this issue.
Was the business of the House so tight today that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was unable to come to the Dispatch Box to make an announcement on the appointment of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which is done by other means? The Secretary of State has appointed as chairperson a bigoted, anti-Unionist political reject, who will be incapable of getting the support and confidence of the Unionist community.
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not discuss this subject in detail, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has set out in a written ministerial statement the points about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. That would seem an appropriate way of informing the House.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that just before the election, the Procedure Committee produced a report on the sub judice rule and its application in this House in respect of matters before coroners' courts. Will he look at that report and find a way to introduce its recommendations, and does he agree that this is an important issue? For the past year, it has been impossible to ask questions about the death in custody of a Northamptonshire teenager. The coroner's court opened a hearing more than a year ago and adjourned it, but it has been unable to resume proceedings because the Crown Prosecution Service still has not reached a decision on charges. This is an important matter, on which it ought to be possible to ask questions and gain information.
This is an important issue but my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that, given the number of such cases raised with me, I incline to a rather stricter view of the rules than she perhaps does. That is an entirely personal observation. It is important that we strike a balance between Members of Parliament—and, indeed, members of the Government—not intervening in cases before the courts while at the same time allowing Members to comment on matters of concern, particularly those of concern to their constituents.
Does the Leader of the House recall that the Government's 1998 strategic defence review recommended small cuts in the number of frigates and destroyers and the construction of two large aircraft carriers? Given that seven years have since gone by and large cuts have been made in the number of frigates and destroyers, but there is no sign yet of the order even being placed for the first of those aircraft carriers, may we have an urgent statement from a defence Minister on when that order will be placed, given that it is only another seven years before the first of those carriers is due to enter service?
I had fondly imagined that my change of position after the general election would relieve me of the pleasurable responsibility of responding to the hon. Gentleman on defence matters. I am delighted that he has continued to haunt me with these issues, and I assure him that there has been no change in the Government's position in respect of the commitment made in the 1998 strategic defence review to acquire two large aircraft carriers. He will understand that it takes a little longer to build those carriers in reality than may have been the case when he used to build their Airfix equivalents.
Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at early-day motion 234, in my name? It states:
That this House welcomes the announcement in the Queen's Speech of proposed measures to tackle offences involving knives and guns; and urges the Government to ensure such measures include a ban on replica guns and a ban on the sale and possession of air weapons, except under licence for genuine sporting and other necessary uses such as pest control.
The EDM deals with controls on replica weapons and airguns, and is supported by 63 hon. Members. A similar EDM has gained the support of 53 hon. Members. Will my right hon. Friend point out that level of support to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and suggest that the already good proposals in respect of airguns in the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, which we will discuss on Monday, should be strengthened by means of amendments proposing the even tougher clampdowns suggested in the two EDMs?
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Government recognise that this is a vital issue, as the proposals in the Violent Crime Reduction Bill to which he referred demonstrate. I am sure that he and other hon. Members will be able to table amendments in due course if they judge that the Government are not taking sufficient powers. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes this matter very seriously indeed, which is why it has been included in that Bill.
Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing resentment among my constituents in Crockenhill and Swanley at illegal Traveller sites, and at repeated applications for other illegal Traveller sites in the green belt? Can he give the House an indication of when the Government's review of Travellers and planning legislation is likely to be published, so that we can see whether they are getting a grip on what is becoming a very serious problem?
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have passed legislation to improve the position of local authorities when it comes to dealing with illegal sites. I regret that the ingenuity of Travellers in challenging the existing legal position has meant that we must continue to keep under review the way in which further legislation could have appropriate effect. I share his concern: all hon. Members come across this problem from time to time when their constituents have to deal with the appalling consequences of that sort of illegal behaviour. It is important that local authorities and others have appropriate powers to deal with it.
Can we have an early debate on ways in which we can encourage younger people and schools to visit the House? I do what I can to encourage schools from my area to come down to see Parliament. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Welsh Assembly pays the travel costs of schools that visit it? Could a similar proposal be considered for this place?
My hon. Friend will know that the House authorities are looking carefully at ways to improve visitor access to Parliament. It is important that we encourage younger people, in particular, to understand the processes by which legislation is passed and Ministers held accountable. That work is in hand, and I am confident that we will be able to improve the arrangements.
Last week, the Leader of the House promised a full debate on all the issues surrounding the G8 visit to Perthshire. Apart from a welcome debate on Africa, there seems to be no announcement of any such debate in future business. The G8 visit to Scotland begins on 4 July, so when will the debate take place?
I announced that debate at business questions last week. I recall saying that I recognised that hon. Members would be able to raise any issue relevant to the summit in the course of that debate. I am sorry that, having agreed to hold a debate, I cannot satisfy everyone and that the hon. Gentleman wants further opportunities.
My right hon. Friend will know that we are waiting for the Volcker commission's final report on the oil-for-food scandal, which seems to get ever deeper and murkier. Does he agree that the House should have every opportunity to look at that report to determine the implications for the UK, and in particular its relations with other countries and the UN? The US is carrying out its own investigation, and that process should be replicated here.
This is an important issue and I am sure that my hon. Friend's observations about the oil-for-food programme and its operation will have been noted by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who will respond accordingly.
The House expects a high degree of assiduity from the Leader of the House, but he has been dragging his feet. I have raised the crisis in NHS dentistry before at business questions, and drawn attention to the fact that 1,600 people in Spalding in my constituency had to queue for eight hours to register with an NHS dentist. The matter was raised again at Tuesday's Health questions, in respect of a different part of the country, Devon. When will we have a debate or statement on the extent of the crisis in NHS dentistry? The crisis is profound, and the Government must give a clear indication of what they intend to do about it so that they can fulfil the pledge made by the Prime Minister after the 1997 election that everyone would have access to an NHS dentist.
As I understand it, the issue was raised in Health questions, when a significant exchange took place between hon. Members and the relevant Ministers. I do not doubt the importance of NHS dentistry. The Government have put a great deal of extra money into the health service to ensure that treatments, including dentistry, are available to everyone. If only the previous Conservative Government had matched that.
In August 2002, an incident took place on the A42 near Worthington in my constituency. A Birmingham man with twice the permitted level of alcohol in his blood drove deliberately at a police car, killing PCs Andrew Munn and Bryan Moore, widowing Allison Munn and Sarah Moore, and leaving two children and three children, respectively, without fathers. At an earlier hearing, the man was found guilty of the murder of one of those police officers, but that verdict was overturned. He went to Stafford Crown court this week and pleaded guilty, but a legal technicality meant that he pleaded guilty only to the offence of manslaughter. Does the Leader of the House agree—
Order. I have been advised that this case is before the court and that we should proceed no further with it.
I thank the Leader of the House for complying with our request for a debate on Africa, but does he agree that the very serious situation in Zimbabwe will not be covered adequately in that debate? A Minister must come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement. Does he accept that the Government and the country should take a lead in mobilising international action against the disgraceful Mugabe regime in Harare?
On a previous occasion, I set out to the House the steps that the Government have taken, both in our own right and through the European Union. On Tuesday my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary issued a written ministerial statement on Zimbabwe. That shows that the Foreign Office is seized of the importance of the issue, and that it is determined to take the matter forward.
The Leader of the House will be aware that the inevitably lengthy process of appointing Select Committees has meant that the Liaison Committee has missed its normal July sitting, at which questions would have been put to the Prime Minister. Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that that sitting will be held as soon as possible after the summer recess, and that we will return to our normal cycle in the new year of question sessions with the Prime Minister in January and February, and in June and July?
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister very much values and appreciates the opportunity to meet the Liaison Committee. I know that he will be disappointed if it is not possible to hold a sitting in July, and that he will look for ways to ensure that he meets the Liaison Committee as and when it is appointed.
The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) was unable to complete his question, but I am sure that the whole House would wish to express its sympathy for the bereaved families of the police officers to whom he referred.
My question refers to the same part of Leicestershire, as it has to do with Nottingham East Midlands airport. The Leader of the House will know that the Civil Aviation Bill will receive its Second Reading on Monday week, but my reading of the long title leads me to believe that it will not be possible to debate the police costs incurred at Nottingham East Midlands airport. The Leader of the House is a Nottinghamshire MP, and he will know that that airport lies wholly within the county of Leicestershire. It therefore follows that it is the citizens of Leicestershire who pay those police costs, even though Nottinghamshire is very pleased to have its name in the airport's title.May we have an urgent debate in Government time on the fair allocation of police costs of regional and national airports, so that my constituents, who live between 30 and 50 miles away from Nottingham East Midlands airport, are not obliged solely to pay for a commercial enterprise that is enjoyed by the right hon. Gentleman's constituents?
I join the hon. and learned Gentleman in expressing the Government's sympathy for the families of those two police officers. I assure him that the costs faced by police authorities in terms of the type of policing conducted in those police authority areas is taken into account in the determination of the appropriate grant, so notwithstanding the new title of Nottingham East Midlands airport, the costs of its policing are considered in the process of calculating the Leicestershire police authority grant. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will find other, still more ingenious, ways of raising these questions.
I now understand that the information I received was inaccurate. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) has pointed out that the case he referred to is over—it is not before the courts—and I will allow him to complete his question.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said—in a debate that was triggered at Solicitor-General's questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who asked for a debate about murder, the legal framework and the penalties that are available—the crime of murder is "uniquely abhorrent". The only charge that could be laid against the man that I mentioned at Stafford Crown court earlier this week was manslaughter. He pleaded guilty to that and was given a sentence of 14 years. He had been in custody for three years; he may be released in four further years. This is no form of justice for the families that had their lives destroyed three years ago by the events that I described. Is it not about time that we looked at the law surrounding murder and the penalties that are available, so that no legal technicalities can stand in the way of justice in the way that the Munn and Moore families endured at Stafford Crown court earlier this week?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I am sure that it is kept under constant review in the Home Office. Legal definitions of murder, manslaughter and so on have been the subject of various reviews in the past. It is something that the Government keep under constant notice.
In the light of the National Audit Office report published earlier this week on the state of readiness of our armed forces, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House and make a statement, which would also provide an opportunity to raise Devonport and its future role as a dockyard and a naval base?
The contents of the report were not unfamiliar to me and I have been slightly surprised by the way in which this matter has been represented, because the report contains a very useful analysis of the way in which the Ministry of Defence and our armed forces prepare in the event of contingencies. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it simply would not make sense to keep all of our armed forces at the highest states of readiness all of the time. That would be absurd, in terms of their equipment and the impact on individuals. It is necessarily the case that armed forces are kept at different levels of readiness, according to the circumstances that they face. What the National Audit Office report concludes, in a complimentary way, about the Ministry of Defence is that for the very first time we have a technique available for identifying that level of readiness in order that we can then go on to improve it. That is a matter for congratulation, not criticism.
This country continues to suffer from a serious and growing problem of alcohol abuse; we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) an example of the things that happen. But setting aside the problem of crime and disorder arising from alcohol abuse, there are also health questions, and I refer particularly to the problem of foetal alcohol syndrome. Estimates suggest that up to 1 per cent. of babies born are damaged by alcohol consumed by mothers during pregnancy. This is a very serious issue; the number of birth defects is far bigger than that arising from other causes. The Government's strategy on alcohol was published in the previous Parliament, but we have not yet had a full debate on all aspects of the country's alcohol problems, particularly the health problems. I ask my right hon. Friend to make time for a full debate on our alcohol problems.
My hon. Friend raises a vital issue and, given the importance that the Government attach to dealing with the consequences of alcohol abuse, he is absolutely right to raise the question of prevention, which is at the heart of the Government's health policy across the board.
Notwithstanding the welcome announcement of a full day's debate on Africa in two weeks' time, may I appeal to the Leader of the House to find time for an urgent statement or debate on the crisis in Darfur? Given the massive ethnic cleansing that continues to take place in that region, does he accept that the opportunity not for an Adjournment debate, however welcome, but for a full debate on the Floor of this House would be eagerly seized, especially by those colleagues who believe that the Government ought to grasp the nettle and argue the case for a peace enforcement mandate, which with the support of the international community and the backing of the United Nations would allow us to disarm the Janjaweed, to erect the no-fly zone and to offer some hope to the people of Darfur? Thus far, the black African population of Darfur have suffered too much, for too long, with too little done about it.
Once again, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise this important issue. He has done so consistently and I hope he accepts that the Government have responded to him by allocating—to quote his words—"a full debate on the Floor of this House" on the question of Africa. He will be able to raise those issues on 30 June, as he requested at the last business questions.
May I ask for an urgent debate on the responsibility and accountability of regional assemblies? Many people in England are unaware of how powerful these bodies have become. For example, there are plans by the South West regional assembly to build 21,000 more homes on Bournemouth's green belt, yet Bournemouth council is now powerless to stop this and no longer allowed to make its own judgment as to the planning requirements needed for its area.
Those are important issues. It is obviously necessary to balance the overriding requirement for decent, affordable housing for people with the consequences for local communities. Whenever those issues have come before local planning authorities, the Government have sought to ensure that before approval is given, the necessary infrastructure is available and in place to support the demand for extra accommodation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will continue to be the Government's policy.
Earlier today, the excellent House of Commons Library confirmed to me that the budget for the NHS for next year would be about £74.4 billion—something that I think hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome. However, may we have an urgent debate as to why that money and those facilities are not getting into the front line of the NHS? I am sure that other trusts around the country are similarly affected, but when I met representatives of my local hospital trust last week with my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke), they told me that they were £30 million in debt and that if they did not cut back their debt this year they would not have the money to pay doctors' and nurses' wages. So massive cuts are being instigated across the board in our hospital health trust, and in April 2006 the blue-light facilities will be switched off at Hemel Hempstead hospital. That means that our cardiac unit, our stroke unit, our intensive care unit and our accident and emergency unit will close. Where is taxpayers' money going?
It is going on 79,000 new nurses, 27,000 new doctors, 83 major new hospital building programmes and a range of extra facilities. By financial year 2007–08, the budget for the national health service, compared with what we inherited from the Conservative Government whom we replaced in financial year 1996–97, will have increased by three times—a three-times increase in spending.
Alongside that increase, to deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific point, it is obviously important—I believe that this was one of the valuable changes actually made by the previous Conservative Government—that local authorities manage their own money, and it is important that the trusts can manage those extra resources effectively. Local control of those budgets has made a significant difference to the consequences in the local community of having effective health care, and it must continue. But I will take no criticisms whatever from the hon. Gentleman in relation to the size of the national health service budget.
Orders of the Day
Transport (Wales) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide powers to enable the National Assembly for Wales to deliver a world-class integrated transport system for Wales. Along with existing powers and those that the Assembly is acquiring under the Railways Act 2005, the Bill will provide the Assembly with a comprehensive and coherent set of transport powers for the first time. That fulfils our Labour party manifesto commitment to deliver a further devolution of powers over transport to Wales, and will ensure that the Assembly has the powers it needs to deliver a properly integrated transport system.
A well-functioning transport network is essential for maintaining the unprecedented period of economic stability that the Government have delivered, and is critical to the future development of Wales. It plays a crucial role in the development of a diverse, competitive, high-value-added economy and is the backbone of economic growth. Set against that is the risk to business investment and performance posed by increased congestion on our roads and inadequate public transport provision.
Transport is also key to our social agenda; for example, in regenerating communities and tackling rural isolation. The most deprived areas in Wales have low levels of car ownership, and inadequate public transport is too often a barrier to finding a job. It also inhibits access to key services, GPs and hospitals, and can have a severe impact on people's quality of life by limiting access to leisure activities.
The thrust of the Bill is welcome, but on the subject of an integrated transport policy, may I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the decision, last week, of Virgin Trains to cut two Saturday services from north Wales to London during the summer, thereby undermining the tourism economy of north Wales? I spoke to Ministers about that on Monday, because I am extremely concerned. Virgin spoke to various local authorities in north Wales about the Monday-to-Friday timetable, but did not mention Saturday. The company then cut two of the five Saturday services for the whole summer period, which will damage the Welsh economy. Will the Secretary of State investigate the matter urgently?
I am happy to do that. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and that of other north Wales MPs, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who has just been muttering in my ear about the matter. I am advised that the reduction in service will be temporary, to allow the upgrading of the west coast main line, and it is expected that the services will be reinstated. I hope that that advice is correct, but if it is not, I shall inform the hon. Gentleman.
The Bevan Foundation has identified communications as a major issue that needs to be tackled to develop the south Wales valleys. Too many places are isolated by poor communications, even though some are relatively close to the main centres of population.
As well as advancing our economic and social objectives, a properly integrated transport system is crucial for fulfilling our green agenda. Road transport accounts for more than 20 per cent. of all UK carbon emissions, and by reducing the need for people to travel by car, we can help to reduce the overall impact of personal transport on global warming. As a Government, we are determined to think long term about how to ensure that our transport system best serves the people of Wales and those economic, social and environmental objectives.
The Secretary of State will know that one of the problems in the south Wales valleys, where many people's journeys to work are complicated, is that much of the public transport simply goes down the valley to Cardiff. The integration of public transport systems is vital if we are to reduce economic inactivity in the south Wales valleys. One difficulty is that some public transport services continue to use old rolling stock. Does my right hon. Friend anticipate a significant improvement in the rolling stock on the valley lines?
As my hon. Friend knows, rolling stock is constantly being upgraded under our Government, with record investment in railways and more rail travellers than at any time in the past 40 or 50 years. Nevertheless, he makes a valid point and, as a valleys MP, I can confirm that it is crucial to get things right. People, especially the elderly, in many pit villages in my constituency and, I am sure, in the Rhondda, do not own a car, and buses—sometimes railways if they are lucky, but often it is buses alone—are a lifeline in every respect. I am not satisfied that bus services in my constituency are good enough—for example, in the Swansea valley and the lower Amman valley—and that is probably true throughout the valleys. I know that the Assembly is seized of the need to address that problem with the bus and railway companies.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently spoke about the need to have a national debate about the future role of road pricing. I am sure that he was right to do so. As Secretary of State for Wales, I, too, am determined to think long term about our future transport needs. I believe that the Bill will enhance the Assembly's ability to serve those needs effectively. Overall, the Assembly has made impressive progress on delivering improved transport in a relatively short time, despite the limited powers currently at its disposal.
I am listening with interest to my right hon. Friend's observations on road pricing. At this early stage, has he held any discussions with National Assembly Ministers about whose responsibility it would be to set such charges in Wales should the scheme ever arise?
That is an important debate. We are talking about a programme that cannot come in for another 10 or 15 years. All those matters, including how Wales would fit into the scheme, will be debated and resolved, and my hon. Friend is welcome to contribute to that process. We should not fear the principle, however, and I am glad that it has been widely welcomed throughout the political spectrum and across public opinion. We must reduce congestion on our roads or they will jam up. A 4 per cent. reduction in traffic, especially at peak times, could reduce congestion by up to 40 per cent. If we can manage the situation better through road pricing, we may escape the gridlock that awaits us. The Bill will make that much easier to manage in Wales—if not to solve—by allowing much more integrated forms of public transport.
I rather doubt that Wales would have flexibility to set prices. Even on the basis of the White Paper, whereby primary powers on transport and other matters would be devolved, I doubt that what is in essence a fiscal issue could be a Wales-only matter. However, that is for debate.
Does the Secretary of State agree that particular care must be taken in rural Wales, and indeed in rural parts of the United Kingdom in general, where there are no alternative public transport facilities? It would not be possible to limit people's car use.
I fully agree. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point as the representative of a largely rural area. There is little congestion on rural roads, which is why in any road-pricing regime the charge per mile would be very low indeed—perhaps only a penny or two, as one model suggested. The reduction in other charges for car use would put rural drivers in a much better position.
These are early days, however. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has launched a national debate. It is a serious debate; we are not trying to ram a policy down anybody's throat and we shall welcome contributions from all parties, including from the hon. Gentleman and other Welsh MPs. We have to get things right for Wales, not least in rural areas.
We have to do something. For example, the congestion going into Cardiff, and even into Swansea, during the rush hour is terrible. The M4 across the bridge and on the way to south-west Wales is getting more congested all the time. Something has to happen.
The Secretary of State seemed to suggest that the charging regime would be based on the principle of reducing congestion. However, his following comments were far from clear on whether the empowerment that he sought in the White Paper would be passed to the Assembly and allow it to have a say over the fiscal element. Has he talked to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about what now appears to be a fund-raising, rather than a congesting-beating, exercise?
I realise that the hon. Gentleman has a job to do as Opposition spokesman.
And is doing it badly.
No, I would not be so uncharitable as to suggest that. These are early days, and the issues all have to be discussed. Although we will discuss this, I was making the point that I rather doubt that we could have a different road-pricing regime for Wales from that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend mentioned congestion on bridges, and there is absolute chaos, particularly at bank holidays, on the Menai and Britannia bridges that connect Anglesey to the mainland. Will he meet me and a delegation to discuss the problem and raise it in bilateral meetings with the Assembly Government?
I will be very happy to receive a delegation from my hon. Friend. Having visited his constituency before and during the general election on a number of occasions—
Very successfully.
Very successfully to help my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) achieve his magnificent victory. Having visited the constituency, I know full well that the problem on the Menai bridge is becoming more acute. One of my earliest decisions as a Wales Office Minister was to deal with the road across Anglesey—that is important and prosperity is developing in Holyhead and across the island—but this additional issue needs confronting.
To give a few examples of what the Assembly has done in a relatively few years, I refer to the fact that the Wales and Borders rail franchise has been awarded, meaning that, for the first time since the rail network was broken up by the Conservative party, all local and regional train services in Wales are provided by a single operator. The franchise is now in operation and will deliver a phased programme of service improvements over a 15-year period.
Does my right hon. Friend foresee more joined-up thinking between train operating companies within Wales? The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has already made a point about Virgin Trains services, but, with the newly published summer timetable, we have the ridiculous situation in which a train from Blaenau Ffestiniog arrives at Llandudno junction at 10.03 and the Virgin Trains service leaves at 10.03. People cannot make that connection. We need more joined-up thinking by the train operating companies if we are to succeed.
I was not aware of that problem, but it is ridiculous. I hope that Virgin Trains can sort it out and bring about an improvement. As I have experienced, if connections are not made, it can cost hours of time. I will certainly make sure that my hon. Friend's representations on the matter reach Virgin Trains. However, the powers provided under the Bill will give the Assembly Transport Minister a much greater ability to crack down on such absurd anomalies.
The Secretary of State is in the happy position of being able to survey at close hand an example of successful integrated transport links in Northern Ireland, where the buses and trains are integrated to a laudable degree. May I suggest therefore that it would be instructive and helpful to use the Northern Ireland success story as a model for what might be achieved in Wales along the lines that the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) suggested?
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's constructive advice. I shall certainly look at that model, but I am probably not yet as up to speed on the integrated transport system in Northern Ireland as he is.
There has been major investment in the valley lines, leading to the restoration of rail services in some areas for the first time since the Beeching cuts of 40 years ago. For example, the Vale of Glamorgan line has been reopened to passenger services and work is in hand to commence passenger services on the Ebbw Vale line in 2006–07.
Does the Secretary of State regret the Beeching cuts, which took place under the 1964 Wilson Government?
That was a much better question than the hon. Gentleman asked me yesterday, so he is obviously on a steep learning curve. The truth is that the railways were allowed to run down under the dreadful Conservative Government of the 1950s and leading up to 1964. The whole programme was in train, if I can put it that way. The historical failure of all Governments—Labour and Conservative—right the way through the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s was not to invest sufficiently in transport. If the hon. Gentleman concedes that point—and the Conservatives were in power for the vast majority of that time; more than double the time Labour was in power if I remember correctly—I will concede his point.
It strikes me that there is a paradox. While the Labour party takes full credit for the national health service, which was dreamed up in about 1942 by a civil servant called Beveridge, it wants to escape any responsibility for the cuts in the railways, which were again dreamed up by a civil servant prior to a Labour Government taking office in 1964. The reality is that the Beeching cuts were implemented from 1964 onwards and, if the Labour party had not wanted them to happen, it would have had the power to stop them.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was born then. His reading of political history is as dodgy as the rest of his politics. The serious point is that we had serious under-investment—especially in the 1980s and 1990s by the Conservative Government—and everybody recognises that. We have tried to put that right, and one of the ways that we are putting it right is by reopening a whole series of services that were cut in the past. The Welsh Assembly Labour Government and the Labour Government in Westminster deserve credit for that. I would have thought that even he in his most uncharitable mood would be prepared to give us that credit.
The introduction of free bus travel for the over-60s is another fantastic achievement by the Welsh Assembly Labour Government. Free bus travel is now available for pensioners and disabled people, and it has been fantastically successful both in terms of the take-up—more than 530,000 bus passes have been issued—and the effect on overall bus usage. It has been so successful, in fact, that it inspired my colleagues to imitate it with a similar policy in England. It is a good example of Welsh Labour policies being exported across the border to England, as we have seen in other cases as well.
My right hon. Friend is right about the introduction of free bus passes for the disabled, but does he agree that one of the big challenges ahead is ensuring that the disabled people who currently cannot get access to buses have some form of support to enable them to access transport and benefit from this excellent scheme?
I understand my hon. Friend's point. It is recognised—certainly by the Welsh Assembly Government and, indeed, by the bus companies—that low steps on buses are extremely desirable for people with disabilities.
In addition, the Assembly is delivering a five-year programme of support for local authority transport schemes worth £300 million. Following a major review of the Assembly's transport programmes, Andrew Davies, the Assembly's Minister for Economic Development and Transport, announced plans to invest £8 billion over 15 years as part of the all-Wales integrated transport strategy, money that would be put at risk if the Conservatives ever got back to power.
There will be a range of measures designed to reduce congestion, increase consumer choice and improve transport links throughout Wales. These include increased investment in the gateways of Wales, including proposals for a new section of the M4 around Newport, continued investment to improve the road and rail networks, a new internal air service linking north-west Wales with south Wales, and improved integration of our transport network.
In order to build on the impressive progress made by the Assembly, it is essential that it has the powers that it needs to tackle the challenges facing our transport system, such as the inexorable increase in the demand for travel and the threat of gridlock on our roads.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need to strengthen the provisions on the Assembly's duty to promote sustainable development, with reference to section 121 of the Government of Wales Act 1998?
I think that that is being addressed, but the commitment to sustainable development, and the fact that the Assembly has that as an objective, was one of the pioneering aspects of the Government of Wales Act 1998. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary points out to me that the duty is in clause 1(1)(a) of the Bill, so my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) can determine whether the provision meets her objectives.
Traffic growth in Wales has outstripped that in the rest of the UK in recent years and, with a booming Welsh economy, that trend is likely to continue. Wales also has higher than average rates of dependency on private cars for travel to work, despite the fact that we have some of the shortest commuter journeys in Britain. On public transport, our major cities are lagging behind others in the UK where incremental improvements have been made over several years. However, the Assembly's limited and fragmentary transport powers have restricted its ability to deal effectively with the challenges that we face and deliver a first-class integrated transport system.
The lack of transport powers has long been recognised. As far back as 1997, the Welsh transport advisory group, which I chaired as a Welsh Office Minister, started examining the transport legacy that the Assembly would inherit. Subsequently, both the Assembly's cross-party Environment, Planning and Transport Committee and the House's Welsh Affairs Committee have concluded that the Assembly requires additional powers. There was thus broad agreement on the legislative changes needed to take Wales into a new transport age, which was why we brought forward the draft Transport (Wales) Bill in May last year. Following pre-legislative scrutiny as well as an extensive public consultation, the draft Bill has been refined into the Bill that is now before us.
There will be a new statutory duty on the Assembly to develop and implement policies for the promotion of safe, integrated, sustainable, efficient and economic transport facilities and services. The Assembly will also be required to prepare and publish a Wales transport strategy to set out those policies and how they will be implemented. The Assembly intends to consult widely with all stakeholders when drawing up the strategy.
Where local authorities are already required to prepare local transport plans, the Bill will now provide a formal mechanism to ensure that those plans are consistent with the Assembly's overall vision for transport in Wales. To ensure that local transport plans are consistent with the Wales transport strategy, they will need to be submitted to the Assembly for approval. Refusing approval will be possible only with the approval of the Assembly in plenary session. I anticipate that such cases will be wholly exceptional and that the Bill will thus not mean that local transport planning will be taken out of the hands of local authorities.
Another important element of the Bill is the provision to facilitate greater joint working by local authorities to produce transport plans, which is essential to make real improvements in key transport corridors. The particular geography of Wales—a fact to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) referred—means that transport issues often cross local authority boundaries and thus need to be tackled regionally. The best example of that is of course south-east Wales, which covers 10 local authority areas and contains about half the population of Wales. Here there is a pattern of travel-to-work movements from the valleys into Cardiff and Newport that is superimposed on more strategic east-west movement along the M4 corridor and, to a lesser extent, the A465 heads of the valleys road.
A regional approach would address both public transport and road traffic management and deal effectively with the interface with the strategic trunk road network, which is why the Assembly has identified south-east Wales as an area that might benefit from one of the other key powers in the Bill: the power to establish joint transport authorities. Powers granted to a joint transport authority might, for example, include the co-ordination of bus timetables, a standardised approach towards bus lanes and bus stops and improved services across local authority boundaries.
The next main provision of the Bill will enable the Assembly to provide funding for transport services directly to transport operators to ensure that unmet transport needs in Wales are met. Currently the Assembly has to rely on a patchwork of different Acts, some of which date back to 1919. For example, the new power might be used to support services that cross several local authority boundaries to implement the Assembly's long-distance bus and coach strategy. The Bill will also give the Assembly the power to provide revenue payments to airline operators or capital funding for new airport facilities, subject of course to the constraints of European Commission competition law. That will allow the Assembly to implement its policies on intra-Wales scheduled air services, for example.
The Secretary of State will be aware that public service obligations are working well in places such as Scotland, where the mainland is linked with some of the islands and people can sometimes go on to other destinations. Will the funding under the Bill allow the establishment of not only intra-Wales services, but links to other capital cities, the Republic of Ireland and, indeed, London?
I am not quite sure about that. It probably would be allowed, but it would have to be clear that the service was beneficial to Wales and not just a transit arrangement. If the service were funded from within Wales, it would have to be beneficial to Wales itself.
Is the Secretary of State still of the view, as I am, that Wales really needs an integrated intra-Wales network? Connecting Wales quickly with major capitals such as London and Manchester would be an important opportunity, so it might be easy to argue that a multi-stop flight starting from Ynys Môn, perhaps, and finishing in London would be consistent with the requirements of European competition regulations.
The problem would be whether an intra-Wales service was being proposed. I do not think that it would be possible for the Assembly's funds to be used to subsidise something that was effectively a UK service, desirable though that might be in principle. The hon. Gentleman has long been a champion of this argument and I have joined his cause politically and, indeed, literally, by flying up and down to Welshpool airport with him, along with the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott), who was then working for him—she was working her passage, as it were. I am an enthusiast for air services in Wales, which is why I am delighted about the new air service from Valley in Anglesey for which my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn has fought long and hard. There is scope for more such services.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) talked about the transfer of funds. Will the Secretary of State confirm my understanding of the Government's response to the Welsh Affairs Committee report, which says:
"There will not be a transfer of funding to the Assembly; any support which the Assembly wishes to give to air transport or air services will have to be found within the Assembly's existing budgetary provision."
Is it the case that no funds will be transferred for any development in Ynys Môn and that that will thus be down to the Assembly itself?
Yes, it is. The hon. Gentleman would know if he ever got the chance to be in government that that is exactly the kind of hard choice that is involved. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) is muttering from a sedentary position, although I will be happy to take an intervention from him.
Why did the right hon. Gentleman not give that response to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) instead of covering it up and giving a rather woolly answer? The point is that there is no new money, and no new money available for that service.
I am not covering up anything and I never give woolly answers, certainly not to my hon. Friends. The Bill does not passport lumps of money to Wales. That comes from a separate channel, as the hon. Gentleman understands. The Bill is about giving the Assembly powers to do things from within its existing and future budgetary resources that it cannot do at the moment.
On the slightly different issue of how we ensure that the integrated policy is not just about transport within Wales, many of my constituents have to make regular journeys into England and, for that matter, down to London, but the new timetable does not integrate the valleys line service with the Cardiff to London line service. It is increasingly difficult for people from my constituency to get to London until quite late in the day. They also have to leave London earlier because the last train up to the valleys does not meet the last London train. Will there be a significant improvement on trains, as well as on air travel?
That is exactly the problem that we need to address, and the Bill helps us do that. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look into that to see whether we can apply ministerial pressure, along with the pressure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda applies as the local Member of Parliament, to improve the situation.
This is an important point. I understand how the funding works and the money will be new. The public service obligation—the application is being made—will allow the National Assembly for Wales to raise money that is matched by the European funding system. That will allow new money to come into the sector. My specific question, which the Secretary of State was unable to answer, concerned external flights, not intra-Wales flights, which I am fully aware will attract new money.
My hon. Friend makes the point well. I was simply trying to make it clear that if a flight originated from outside Wales or if Wales was a transit point for flights, it would not be possible to attract new money from within the Welsh budget.
At the risk of sounding like an aviation anorak—perish the thought—the most sensible way to fund the scheme is, if the Minister's interpretation of the regulations is right, to provide support for the intra-Wales legs of the flight from, say, Ynys Môn to Welshpool and then down to Cardiff, and for the operator to self-fund any additional journey. It would be free to fly wherever it wanted after Cardiff, but it would have to ensure that that part of the journey was visibly separated by a financial firewall from the investment in the intra-Wales network. It can be done, but it has to be accounted for carefully.
We have to consider the specifics. If there is the possibility of leveraging in—or flying in—more money into Wales, we will definitely do it.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) is wrong when he says that there is no more money? The reality is that money has increased from a budget of £7 billion at the inception of the National Assembly in 1999 to £14 billion in 2007. That is more money in anyone's language.
That is masses of more money. In fact, it is double the miserable inheritance that we were left by the Conservative Government. It would stand in sorry contrast to the desperate state that transport in Wales would be in if Plaid Cymru ever got its wish and hived Wales off into independence. There are free bus passes for pensioners and the disabled. The extra subsidy for rural bus services has made a big improvement, although there is still a lot to do. There is extra road building, such as the £300 million heads of the valley A465 road, and extra road upgrading. On rail, there are the Ebbw Vale and the Vale of Glamorgan lines to consider. Those advances in transport provision are on the back of the unprecedented economic stability, success and prosperity that the Labour Government have delivered for Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. Long may it continue under this Government because it would be jeopardised by a Conservative Government.
Whatever else we may say about the Secretary of State, he has been generous in giving way. He once again raises the myth of cuts under the Conservative Government. Can he name one single year between 1979 and 1997 when the money to the Welsh Office was reduced by the Conservative Government?
Most of that increase was eaten up by inflation. The hon. Gentleman knows that, under the Conservative Government of that period, the inflation rate was more than double what it has been under Labour. I know from personal experience of coming into the old Welsh Office in May 1997 that funding was at a dreadful level for education, health and transport. We set about the task of rebuilding Wales's infrastructure. I am surprised—uppity though he is—that he has the gall to challenge me on public spending of all things when the Conservative Government remorselessly cut public spending, closed hospitals, reduced education provision and saw the transport system go down the tubes in Wales. That is the reality.
The Secretary of State mentioned the extension of the A55 across Anglesey. Will he concede that by far the longest stretch of that road was constructed by the last Conservative Administration?
I do not know offhand whether it was all constructed under the last Conservative Administration. The hon. Gentleman might find that some of it was in the pipeline, and was perhaps carried out, under Labour. I do not deny that fact, however.
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way and the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) for leading with his chin. The very fact that the road was not finished led to the decline of many industries on Anglesey. The previous Labour Administration earmarked the project for the whole of north Wales. It was not completed under the Conservatives because Lord Roberts, who represented Conwy, built a tunnel under the River Conwy because of objections from local residents. The tunnel absorbed all the money, which meant that the A55 links to Ireland could not be completed, and that led to the decline of port communities like Holyhead.
Order. The history of transport in Wales is, of course, very interesting, but perhaps we could return to the Second Reading debate.
I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I read about nothing else when I go to bed except the history of transport in Wales.
My hon. Friends have been making the point that there is a rapid increase in investment, and in the level of quality and service, in transport in Wales after miserable decades of cuts and under-investment. That investment will carry on and transport services will continue to improve in Wales. The Bill provides a vehicle for delivering that.
In addition, the Bill will enable the Assembly to establish a public transport users committee for Wales. That is a new provision, added in response to views expressed during pre-legislative scrutiny. It will cover all public transport modes—ferries, air services and taxis, as well as buses and trains—ensuring that the voice of the passenger is heard.
Finally, on the rail provisions that were included in the draft Bill, the equivalent arrangements, modified to reflect the reformed statutory framework, were included in the Railways Act 2005. The provisions that appeared in the draft Bill have therefore been removed.
Is there a risk that it might become burdensome for the Assembly to review each local transport plan and, possibly, to vote on them if it does not approve them? How often does the Secretary of State expect it to consider local transport plans?
The Welsh Assembly Government, especially under the new provisions setting out the distinction between the Assembly as a legislature and the Executive, as proposed in yesterday's White Paper, will continue to consider local transport plans all the time. The Bill gives it additional leverage in doing so. I think that the hon. Gentleman is asking how many times the plans will go to the Floor of the Assembly, if the arrangement remains in place after 2007. I cannot foresee the number. The power is a deterrent. If a local authority does not take account of its regional context, the backstop power will be used. That will encourage authorities to look ahead, open their eyes around their boundaries and introduce transport plans that do not face the prospect of effectively being vetoed by the Assembly. The short answer is that I hope that such things will not happen at all, for the reason that I have given, but if they do, the power will be in place.
We face a daunting challenge, given the ever-increasing demand for travel. A world-class transport system for Wales is vital to our future economic and social development. We are determined to ensure that the Assembly has the powers that it needs to respond effectively to that challenge. The Bill provides a balanced package of measures that, taken together with existing powers, will enable the Assembly to deliver integrated transport for the whole of Wales.
I commend the Bill to the House.
May I begin by apologising to the House, as I shall not be able to remain for the closing speeches? That is a great shame, as this debate gives me the opportunity to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Wales to his new role. I am sure that he will conduct himself as admirably as his predecessor. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), who will be standing in for me.
I have a pressing engagement in my constituency, but I shall not share the full details of my diary with the hon. Gentleman—and I certainly will not publish pictures of what I am doing on the internet.
There is nothing wrong with the Bill's aim to create a safe, integrated, sustainable, efficient and economic transport facility and services, although I suspect that it was slotted into the Government's legislative programme and that the White Paper on rail transport gutted the aims of the Bill, which would have allowed the Assembly to have places on the Strategic Rail Authority. However, in order to achieve what the Bill seeks to do, improvements can be made and questions need to be answered.
The Bill leaves many uncertainties and several gaps. The proposal for the transport commissioner to be relocated to Wales has been ignored, despite the recommendations of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs that that should happen. Such a move was agreed to be a positive step by a great many of those consulted about the Bill, but despite its obvious potential for increasing the local knowledge of the commissioner, that move and any possibility of further powers for the commissioner have been discarded.
We must execute due diligence in ensuring that the way in which the Bill is interpreted and enacted is as positive and beneficial as it can be. In order to achieve that, we must have clarification and assurances on a number of issues. We must have a great deal of detail on the ways in which the Assembly will implement the Bill. Although we welcome the move to grant the Assembly more responsibilities and duties to deliver services, rather than greater powers as such, we must have assurances that the Bill will work in practice.
It makes sense to develop a national strategy for Welsh transport. From reading the evidence of companies such as Network Rail, however, it is clear that there is a definite feeling that, in developing the transport strategy, certain bodies should be statutory consultees. Currently, clause 2(5) provides for Assembly consultation with local authorities and
"any other persons it considers appropriate."
That seems to leave open the possibility for no other consultation, despite the fact that the companies that are likely to be affected by policy should be consulted. There should be a list of possible bodies for consultation, and it should probably be a prescribed list. Transport companies, businesses and professional and community bodies that are likely to be affected should all be consulted, and there should be a duty on the Assembly to consult them.
As with the rest of the proposals in the Bill, we must be certain that schemes featured in the Wales transport strategy are developed with the certainty of sufficient resources. Similarly, several cross-border issues need to be addressed. What impact will the development of the Wales transport strategy have on services that cross the border regularly? Will the bus and train services that move through both England and Wales face control and regulation from the Assembly alone under the strategy? We must be sure that the procedure for consultation with both English and Welsh local authorities is sufficient and accountable. In a case of impasse with English local authorities, adjudication should be carried out by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs or another senior Minister in this Parliament.
We must also be careful to consider the position on concessionary fares in Wales. Will such Assembly measures be included in the Wales transport strategy? If so, we must be assured that the issue has been tackled thoroughly enough. There must be discussions on that issue in drawing up the Wales transport plan. Could those from England who regularly use Welsh public transport be entitled to concessionary fares? If so, where will we draw the line and what extra funding will be required to carry out such a move? We must be certain that the impact and implications have been properly considered.
The development of local transport plans is important, but the Bill seems to make it possible for a great deal of time to be wasted in developing them. The Bill states that if an authority fails to submit its replacement plan within five years, it must do so "as soon as practicable" after that five-year period. No mention is made of what length of time is reasonable in that regard, what incentives there will be or what action local authorities can expect to be taken if they do not provide a plan as soon as is practicable. The situation is similarly woolly in respect of the publication of local transport plans, which must again take place "as soon as practicable" after alteration of the plan. Will the Minister explain the procedures?
We must also be sure that the development of such plans and any changes that have to be made by local authorities will not affect schemes that are already in place. The Bill provides for the Assembly to direct local authorities to work together in the joint discharge of transport functions. That raises several questions, not least about the cost involved in such a move. The Welsh Local Government Association has expressed concerns that the Bill will result in costly administrative reform with no benefit to the travelling public.
I return to the hon. Gentleman's point about the phrase "as soon as practicable", which looks like a get-out clause. Does he agree that it seems that the Government have not made up their mind about whether the provisions will be compulsory or advisory? If there is no compulsion, let us be honest and say that they are advisory. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified that either now or in his winding-up speech.
The hon. Gentleman has made his point to the Minister. We will seek to tease out the details in Committee. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the point to the Government's attention. The wording suggests that there is compulsion without any compulsory obligation, so we will seek clarification.
The director of the Welsh Local Government Association said:
"Reorganisation with no substantial additional investment is not a recipe for service delivery success."
What reassurance can the Government give that appropriate and adequate funding will be available for changes proposed to local authorities' responsibilities? The Bill states:
"The Assembly may give financial assistance to . . . joint transport authorities, and . . . local authorities in Wales".
Can the Minister confirm more precisely whether joint transport authorities will be funded from local authority funds or whether the money will come from the Assembly? Would there be a process for applying for grants by the joint transport authorities? If so, what would determine funding allocations? We must have further information on the procedure that will be involved in implementing the provisions. If the Assembly can choose whether to give funds, surely the likelihood is that many local authorities will be left to foot an increased transport bill without assistance.
Bus Users UK reports that many authorities are currently
"understaffed and spending too little money"
on providing public transport services, which will further increase the cost of improvements. Local authorities are already struggling against the Assembly's habit of changing their responsibilities without providing extra funds.
The running costs of a JTA are assumed to be approximately £1 million per annum in addition to the £100,000 to £200,000 of set-up costs. What impact will that have on the taxpayers of Wales and what assurance do we have that Welsh taxpayers' money will be spent wisely? Much of the £1 million running costs will be spent on the authority's senior management and accommodation, which sounds like an opportunity to create costly administration and support teams, new quangos and more bureaucracy. The attempt better to co-ordinate policy and delivery is admirable, but it threatens to create another costly tier of administration, which is a risk that must be monitored closely.
The wider co-ordination of transport strategy clearly has some merits, not least in attracting the highest quality staff and projects. Nevertheless, JTAs open up the possibility of accountability being taken away from the Assembly and the Welsh Transport Minister. If those developments are to work for the benefit of the people of Wales, the implementation and management of JTAs must be monitored closely. We must also know those bodies' precise powers, which responsibilities will be left in the hands of the Assembly and which responsibilities will be transferred. How will the JTAs and the Assembly be held accountable for their actions?
Does the Minister know which powers the Assembly is likely to confer on JTAs under the provision in clause 5 on discharging "specified transport functions" to regions of Wales? We must be certain that the opportunity to make positive changes to the delivery of transport in Wales is taken. The Confederation of Passenger Transport Wales has suggested increasing enforcement powers for bus priority schemes. Bus lanes in Wales would be much more effective if they were better monitored and if the law were enforced, and giving a local authorities the power to control aspects of public transport could be very successful
In the development of public transport as a feasible alternative to cars, it is essential that every possible move is taken to assist the delivery of those services. We hope that JTAs will help the delivery of Welsh public transport services, but we have many reservations. It is not clear whether the Assembly will have the power to direct JTAs to work together in providing services that cross each other's boundaries, which is clearly a must in delivering integrated transport, especially in areas such as national parks where public transport provision is often specialised and where there is no one owner of responsibility. That point is also important with regard to cross-border transport services.
The Minister must clarify the situation for not only Welsh transport providers, but those from across the border. Can English and Welsh local authorities form JTAs, and if so, how will they work? Do we face the possibility of an all-Wales body here? If so, we must scrutinise that move very carefully because it would risk unnecessary remoteness and expense and should be strongly opposed.
Many unanswered questions remain on the provision of public passenger transport services. What extra funding will be required for that provision? What conditions will the Assembly use to determine the necessity of transport requirements? Furthermore, any power that the Assembly intends to grant must be exercised with regard to its effect on other transport services and strategies across the UK and the ability of the infrastructure to provide an effective network.
We broadly support the idea of a public transport users committee for Wales, but we must carefully monitor its development. That idea has the potential to progress into another example of waste and bureaucracy by this Government, especially given that the Bill grants the Assembly powers to
"make payments to the committee of such amounts, at such times, and on such conditions as it considers appropriate",
as well as controlling officers, staff, proceedings and the committee's functions. The regulatory impact assessment estimated that setting up such a committee would cost £305,000 per annum, plus £50,000 in setting-up costs. Those are substantial sums for the Welsh taxpayer to bear, and the Assembly's new responsibilities will be carried out with no extra funding from Westminster.
The Bill seems to grant the Assembly powers for the transport users committee without any provision for the review of such a body. Surely some opportunity must be provided to review the usefulness and effectiveness of this committee. We must also consider the cross-border implications: will those who use Welsh transport regularly, yet live on the other side of the border, have a voice? A minority of people will potentially be left without the ability to air their views on the transport that they use on a daily basis.
The provision to deliver financial assistance to air transport services in Wales again raises the question of funding. The financial implications are huge—granting the Assembly the power of financial assistance for air transport with no transferral of funds means that support will have to be found within the Assembly's current budget. It looks as though significant amounts of Welsh taxpayers' money, which some might argue could be better spent elsewhere, will be spent on the additional costs of this Bill's proposals.
The extra money from the Welsh Assembly budget will be spent on a subsidised transport system. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that trains and buses are heavily subsidised? The air service is also likely to reduce the number of road journeys, which will help the environment.
I referred to people who might argue that the money could be better spent elsewhere, because the debate will rage over whether the money is best spent on flying, given the number of people who use the service and the possibility of providing further subsidies to rail or buses. Transport experts will have an internal debate about the best way to spend money on transporting people around Wales.
I want to clarify the Conservative position, because there is cross-party support for an intra-Wales air network Will the shadow Secretary of State for Wales confirm that, like many Conservative Members, he agrees in principle with an intra-Wales air network?
I knew that I should not give way again to the hon. Gentleman. I will not confirm our position one way or the other. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] I have not seen sufficient evidence on the viability of that suggestion, which, again, I hope to explore in Committee. I have not ruled out the suggestion and my mind remains open.
The hon. Gentleman is an extremely magnanimous person. He just said, "some might argue", and then proceeded to advance an argument that he has obviously examined in considerable detail, otherwise he would not have chosen to bring it to the Chamber today. He must have reached some sort of the view on the matter, or is he using weasel words and hiding behind other people's arguments?
I am not inclined to use weasel words—I leave that to the Labour party. The best possible use should be made of Welsh taxpayers' money, and it is not yet clear whether subsidising air transport is the best use. As I have said to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), however, if the case is made, my mind is not made up and I remain open to the argument. I recognise that the Bill will open up the argument, which must be had and won in order for the subsidy to be justifiable.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to add the time that businesses save to the per-mile formula? For instance, a businessman from north-west Wales who travels to Cardiff not only spends four and a half hours travelling in one direction, but possibly stays in a hotel, which might make the whole trip last for a day and a half. That is a lot of time and effort for a small businessman to spend away from his business, which is a factor that should be brought into the equation.
The hon. Gentleman and I visited RAF Valley together, and he must bear in mind the environmental impact of flying and factors other than speed and cost. My mind is open, and the Assembly must decide whether to go down that route. I have not in any way sought to influence that decision because I want the debate to take place. Hon. Members may feel that I am fudging the issue—
Let me be clear: to have the debate we need to go through the arguments. Clearly, some hon. Members have made up their minds. However, I believe that the environmental impact is important and that the bus and train companies will argue strongly that they deserve the money more and that their claims outweigh the potential gain from air traffic. Hon. Members must make up their minds, but I suspect that such a debate will take place and I look forward to participating in it and making my mind up when I have heard all the evidence. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does the same.
I do not intend to be churlish today, but perhaps I could refer the hon. Gentleman to the extensive evidence—for both sides of the argument—in the Select Committee report. Surely he could have prepared for the debate by reading that interesting document.
When the hon. Gentleman gets up in the morning and decides not to be churlish, he should stick to that resolution.
The purpose of the Bill is to give the Assembly the option. The Assembly will have to wrestle with its decision, just as I have. It would be nice simply to say yes or no, but why should I do that when I have strong reservations about the environmental impact and when there are important questions about the sort of air transport to be put in place, its financing and its viability? That debate must take place and I welcome that. I do not believe that the Select Committee report is conclusive. We should not be boxed in on Second Reading of a Bill that empowers someone else to provide the money for the transport.
Other hon. Members should be keener to listen to debate and enjoy the argument, from whatever position they choose to start, rather than closing their minds. It would be easier simply to say that the option is not currently viable and that the power should not exist in the Bill. However, I do not agree with that. The Assembly can make the best of the power if it sees an opportunity to do that. The points that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) made are legitimate, but so are the environmental ones. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is chuntering from a sedentary position. I shall happily give way to him if he wishes to sally forth.
The hon. Gentleman sounds moderate and reasonable, which is untypical. However, he wants to abolish the Assembly. He is nodding. What, therefore, is the point of making his speech?
My personal views on the continuation of the Assembly are widely known, but the question of whether air transport is devolved is not a difficult aspect of the Bill because the people of Wales will judge whether the right decision is made. The Secretary of State's difficulty was summed up in his statement yesterday: will the people of Wales get the right to express their opinion? I have always believed that they should have the opportunity, through a referendum, to say whether they want the Assembly to continue, remain as it is or be further empowered. Yesterday, I discovered that the Secretary of State believed that such a referendum would be lost. That is news to me because he spent the entire election campaign telling me that I was wrong.
I will not stray outside the terms of the debate, but I was intrigued by the assertion that the hon. Gentleman was expressing a personal view. He is talking about one of the key policy areas that face Welsh politics. How, as shadow Secretary of State for Wales, can he express a personal view on the abolition of the Assembly and not expect it to be interpreted as party policy?
Order. We are not debating the existence of the Welsh Assembly. The hon. Gentleman should proceed with the rest of his speech.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall take your wise advice gratefully, but I would have loved to continue the debate.
Granting financial assistance for air transport with no transfer of funds means that support will have to found from the Assembly's current budget. It appears that significant amounts of taxpayers' money, which, some might argue, could be better spent elsewhere, will be spent on the additional costs of the proposals.
The development of transport and the economic possibilities in Wales is of the utmost importance. However, it is also important to remember that the commercial viability of flights in Wales today is questionable. The need for subsidies to begin running air transport services raises the question of whether the services would be workable in the long term. Relatively few people would benefit from the development of air services in Wales, compared with other more sustainable and less environmentally damaging forms of transport. There is no definite evidence of an unmet demand for flights in Wales. As Bus Users UK stated:
"required financial support is likely to be vastly out of proportion to the benefits that may accrue".
We welcome the prospects for developing Wales's economy and services, but there is a need for great scrutiny of the matter.
We welcome the responsibilities rather than the powers that the Bill grants the National Assembly for Wales. However, there is clearly a need to continue reviewing the Bill's progress carefully. The results must be what is best for the people of Wales. The relevant bodies and spokesmen who were consulted during the drafting and previous scrutiny of the Bill asked for that.
Huge questions remain, not least the details of how a truly integrated transport network, including cross-border services and authorities, will be delivered. We must be better informed of who exactly will be responsible and accountable for the bodies that the Bill aims to create. We must also know who will be responsible for delivering the appropriate funding. We clearly need to probe further into the exact mechanics of the Bill in Committee. Although we welcome the proposals, the measure must continue to be scrutinised and its finer details must be confirmed before we can accept that it truly offers the best deal for transport users in Wales.
I am pleased that the Bill has come back to the House. It has been a good week for Welsh legislation, given the announcement of the White Paper's contents yesterday. It has been an excellent week for Wales on the rugby field, with Gethin Jenkins and Gareth Thomas scoring winning tries, showing the importance of a Welsh dimension in the British context. I hope that the English coach of the British and Irish Lions will pick more of the Welsh grand slam winners for his team. That is probably the only controversial remark that I shall make in my speech. I hope that the powers that be are listening.
The Bill has been considered exhaustively by many channels. In the previous Parliament, I had the honour of being a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which considered the Bill jointly with the National Assembly for Wales. There was good partnership working between the Assembly's Economic Development and Transport Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee. Indeed, we held joint sessions in Wales and in the House of Commons, and we went through many of the arguments in great detail. That is why I was surprised when the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) said that the debate would take place: the debate on air services has happened in the Assembly, where Conservative Assembly Members had the opportunity to have some input. Some did—indeed, some came off the fence, although the hon. Gentleman is unwilling to do that.
The hon. Gentleman was generous in giving way, although he gave the impression that I did not support the environmental argument. That is not the case. The planes would be light aircraft, and their use would be balanced against the cut in road journeys from north to south. Anybody who has travelled from the north-west to the south-east knows about the log jam on those roads. Alleviating that would be helpful. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the viability of air transport and claimed that there were no working models. He is wrong. If he considers the west coast of Scotland, he will see that such models work well. An hon. Member who represents a Cornish constituency is present and that reminds me that there is also a working model from Stansted to Newquay, which helps tourism and economic development in Cornwall.
How many passengers could each of those light aircraft accommodate?
The scheme being undertaken started with the figure of 48, and there could be six to eight flights a day if it succeeds. There are 150 people in the public sector alone who travel from north-west Wales to Cardiff every day. If a third of them decided to go by plane, they would make the scheme viable, but that would be in addition to the tourism potential of the flights for bringing people to that area. If the hon. Gentleman is patient with me, I shall link that issue to other modes of transport a little later.
The Bill has been well rehearsed in the House and has in many ways been superseded by the Railways Act 2005, which contains some important Wales-only measures that give powers to the National Assembly for Wales. This is real devolution. It shows that devolution can work under the current arrangements.
A modern, sustainable—that word is rightly used in the Bill—and efficient transport system is vital for Wales, especially in periphery areas such as mine. On that point, I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales to his new place on the Front Bench. He has a hard act to follow in the new Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who was a very good Minister. However, my hon. Friend has the additional qualifications of representing both a periphery area like mine and port communities. I hope those qualifications come in handy in his job and in responding to some of the points that I have made.
When I discuss integration, I talk about full integration—road, rail, air and sea. After all, we live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which can be circumnavigated. It is possible for people to navigate their way around Wales, but not by public transport. Full integration must take all those factors into account. I note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned ferries, but the Bill contains no clause pertaining to sea transportation. I would have liked such a measure to be included so that the issue could be explored a little more.
As is the case for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, my constituency contains a big port—Holyhead, which is one of the fastest growing ports in the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is the third largest and traffic is increasing. We in Wales need to concentrate on the integration of different modes of transport, which includes the ferries at the ports that bring in hundreds of thousands of tonnes of cargo. Much of that should be transported by rail rather than road.
In addition to freight, a lot of people are carried, but they have great difficulties with the timetabling of ferries, buses and trains. The Bill will help by concentrating the efforts of the National Assembly on establishing a strategy to consider inter-modal issues.
I have lobbied hard for funds for the port of Holyhead. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence and my colleague in the European Parliament, Glenys Kinnock, worked with the Department for Transport to get additional funds into the port of Holyhead. As a consequence, Stena Line has invested greatly in the port and new berths have been created. Furthermore, the port of Holyhead now has the largest conventional ferry and the largest freight liner in Europe, as well as one of the biggest FastCat catamarans in the world, owing to Government funding and their strategy to build ports in Wales. That has created and sustained numerous jobs.
Only this week, one of the largest cruise liners in the world docked in Holyhead. A local north Wales newspaper, the Daily Post, carried the story:
"The biggest passenger ship ever to dock in North Wales, yesterday dropped anchor off Holyhead."
About 2,500 American tourists came ashore at that point, but they were brought in flotillas of small ships. That is why I am raising this point. If sea transportation was given greater prominence in the Bill, there would be a greater determination among the Government of Wales, and indeed among this Government, to build the port infrastructure to deal with this very important developing industry, the cruise liners.
I am a little disappointed that there is not much emphasis on full integration involving sea transportation, but I am very pleased—as my hon. Friend the Minister will know and as many interventions have confirmed—on intra-Wales air travel. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has been a great advocate on this point, and we have worked together on it. The decision of the National Assembly for Wales to go ahead is good, as RAF Valley in my constituency will be linked with Swansea and Cardiff. It that succeeds—I believe it will—it might lead to a round-robin system in Wales, which is very important.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) asked me about these light aircraft in an intervention. They carry some 48 or 50 people. If they flew regularly, that would help business, commerce and tourism in Wales. This is a step in the right direction. Indeed, every modern, efficient European country has such a mode of transport and every modern and successful European country links its periphery areas with its capital city. The Republic of Ireland is spreading wealth throughout the country as a consequence of using air services in addition to other modes of transport, including rail and road.
Has the hon. Gentleman any information as to the likely take-up of such an air service from Anglesey to Cardiff, outside the public sector?
It is difficult to comment, but if the hon. Gentleman had been listening rather than talking to the hon. Member for Leominster, he would know that I was developing the argument of tourism. If he considered our giving the hundreds of thousands of people who land at the port of Holyhead the option of flying to other destinations—for example, to join cruise ships—he would realise that unlimited and untapped reserves are available there. Hundreds of people could use those services.
That is what happens in north-west Europe. Some remoter ports in Denmark and Norway already have such a system, whereby people on cruise liners in periphery areas travel by light aircraft to major capital cities. There are working examples around Europe. It is impossible for me to determine the exact figure, but there is great potential there, although it was ignored by the previous Administration.
I enjoy the hon. Gentleman's vision of thousands of tourists arriving in port and immediately catching a plane, but does he not agree that, even if this were viable, although I have doubts about that, it would be made less so by the transport links from Cardiff airport towards Cardiff, Bridgend and other cities in Wales? As I understand it, cruise ships dock for only a day or two, so it is not very likely that people could go off to see something significant in Wales.
I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. There are many significant things to see in north-west Wales, for example. As I said, although I think he was talking to the hon. Member for Leominster at the time, the cruise industry is growing. According to the Daily Post, this summer alone it is worth about £4 million. That is the potential: 2,500 American tourists, who might go to Southampton or Le Havre, would have the opportunity to come to Wales, and I think that vision should be applauded, not treated with the disdain shown by the hon. Gentleman.
Of course links to Cardiff are problematic—I understand that—but if the people who want to undertake the journey can take 40 minutes to fly from north-west Wales to Cardiff and then spend some time in a car, as opposed to taking four and a half or five hours to complete the journey by train, there will be a net gain for them.
Following our earlier discussion of air transport, I understood that the hon. Gentleman had made the case that this system would be an important business link, relieve traffic congestion and have obvious positive consequences. Of course, we all know that people could travel to other airfields should they wish to do so, but he now seems to be making the case that the subsidy spent on transport by the Welsh Assembly would be for the benefit of tourists. That is why I made the case that we need to have this argument. It would be interesting to know how he decided that the aeroplane would have 49 seats and what the reality is likely to be. Clearly, a lot of information about what is to happen is missing from the Bill.
To get back to the Bill, it obviously deals with the intra-Wales link between Cardiff and Swansea and the north of Wales. I am expanding on the potential for links with other areas such as business and tourism, and I am disappointed that the interventions from Conservative Members seem to run that down. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West commented on the A55 not being complete. The first thing that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did as a Wales Minister in 1997 was to allow that to be completed, because the decay in the port communities of Holyhead was horrendous. During the 1990s, as a consequence of having no infrastructure in place, those communities had the highest unemployment in Wales. That is no longer the case, and I am therefore proud of this Government's record. The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) should acknowledge that having vision is good, as that is what makes young economies grow. I am pleased that the infrastructure now in place will allow the Welsh economy to grow.
I realise that several Members want to speak, so I shall make just two further points to the Minister. First, if we are talking about full integration, I am slightly disappointed that there is less emphasis on sea transportation. Secondly, as I said in an intervention, if subsidies are not given to the intra-Wales service, will he consider whether they could be extended to link Cardiff with Dublin or Dublin with London via the Welsh route?
I very much welcome the Bill returning to the House, and I will support its Second Reading.
Ever since the hills and valleys of Wales were formed some time in the ice age, Wales has been difficult to get around. It has lacked a joined-up transport system. The geography of the nation together with the lack of a cohesive strategy in the past has definitely held Wales back.
Previous strategies launched in the past eight years have, in my view, failed to resolve the incoherence of the Welsh transport system. We all know that when the system works, it tends to work from east to west and then back again, and that there is relatively little strategic investment in north-south routes. What little there has been has tended to go into road transportation rather than other modes.
It is therefore hardly surprising that the Royal Automobile Club estimates that it currently takes almost five hours to travel the 193 miles from Holyhead to Newport by road. It takes almost three hours to get from Cardiff to Aberystwyth, which is only 111 miles, and almost four hours to travel the 150 miles from Wrexham to Haverfordwest. Everybody knows that it is quicker to get from north Wales to London than from north Wales to Cardiff. That is not joined-up transportation, and it is not helpful for the long-term strategic intentions that this Government, and any Government, would have for Wales.
The importance of the transport system cannot be underestimated in the context of Welsh development. At present, Wales is in danger of becoming a two-tier nation, with parts of the south booming and areas of the north and west still heavily reliant on objective 1 European funding simply because of comparatively low incomes and comparatively low growth rates. Without proper Welsh-made transport, those without good transport access will be left behind, and we will see an increasing divide between rural and urban economic developments and between the north and south. We are already seeing resentment as the M4 corridor gets significant investment and is accessible, while other parts of the nation suffer in silence. The decline of manufacturing in areas such as Powys is a good example of the pressures experienced when transport links are not in place.
During the general election, a recurring theme for me was the reality of car dependence in rural areas such as mid-Wales, as has been pointed out. Let us face it: there is no point in having a bus service if there is only going to be one person on the bus. In any cohesive strategy for Wales, the role of the automobile must be considered.
Another recurring theme was the poor state of the rail services. For example, there is currently only a two-hourly service during the week between Birmingham and Cardiff. If a train is cancelled, that means a four-hour wait. Few people from that area will have escaped the problems of being left high and dry by a service terminated in, for example, Wolverhampton. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), as I always do, and while he has been cautious with respect to aviation and so forth, I was disappointed that he did not express his opinion on whether privatisation was the single most damaging thing that any Government of the last 30 years have done to the service endured by Welsh rail users.
Utter nonsense.
The hon. Gentleman has confirmed from a sedentary position that he has a strong view on the matter. That is fair enough—he is entitled to his view. I believed at the time, however, and continue to believe on the basis of the evidence, that rail privatisation has decimated the service, which should have been kept intact and, at that time, in public ownership.
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the days of British Rail were some kind of golden age for the railway?
At the time I did not think so, but looking back, I would give anything to return to the flawed but much more coherent days of British Rail compared with what we have now. By implication, I assumed that the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) and his colleagues all continue to believe that privatisation of the rail services was a good idea. It is just as well, then, that their party did not get re-elected, because if, even today, they have not learned the lessons of privatisation of the rail service, that suggests that British transport will not be safe in the hands of a Conservative Government.
The hon. Gentleman is sitting next to his party's transport spokesman. Could he tell us what the Liberal Democrats would do?
Unfortunately, because of the decision made by the Conservatives at the time, it does not look feasible to return to those days and reverse their appalling decision. If the hon. Gentleman would like more detail on that, I shall be happy to have a quick session with him afterwards, including a discussion on aviation, to enlighten him on the reasons why the Conservative Members currently in this Chamber are in a minority of four on support for privatisation of rail services.
Another issue that we must bear in mind in relation to the integrated rail and transport strategies for Wales is that these problems cannot be addressed overnight. It would be churlish to pretend that one piece of legislation could do so. However, the Liberal Democrats feel that the Bill represents a prudent move, as it gives the Welsh Assembly the power to make some strategic changes.
The Bill contains many good points. For example, it provides the opportunity for better and faster north-south road links. We all need to recognise that any expansion and extension of road networks must be approached with caution on account of the environmental damage that cars do. We must also recognise, however, that cars are a fact of life and that the north-south roads are nothing like as good as the east-west links, which disadvantages large parts of Wales, especially rural Wales.
The Bill provides the opportunity to modernise and improve the efficiency of the railway system that serves the whole of Wales. It contains a proper appreciation of the current transport situation in rural areas and of the need for fair treatment of those whose only option is the car. If passed, and, I hope, improved a little in Committee, it can directly benefit the economy three ways: tourism, industry and agriculture. It will enable the Welsh Assembly to take a strategic approach to the problems that we face.
As right hon. and hon. Members may have guessed, I welcome particularly the emphasis placed by the Bill on air transport services—a sector with enormous, and in my view largely untapped, potential in Wales. Airports, including those in Ynys Môn, Welshpool, Swansea, Haverford West, Cardiff and Caernarfon, provide a perfect opportunity to link Wales up in a fast and efficient way with minimal requirement for additional investment in infrastructure. The Secretary of State, no longer in his place, and I flew down together from Welshpool to Cardiff some years ago and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) was indeed on that flight, learning the skills that now make her such an exceptional representative as MP for Cardiff, Central. Following that fine tradition—
On the assumption that there will be further praise for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central, I happily give way.
If we secured a north-south Wales air link, would the hon. Gentleman consider leaving his parliamentary position to fly the planes? If so, it could change our minds about the viability of such a service.
If the hon. Gentleman would like to see the benefits of a north-south link, I would be happy to take him—without a parachute—for a flight in my own aircraft. Having just passed my class 2 medical, which entitles me to be a private pilot, I would not want to push for a class 1 medical, but I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's encouragement. I shall regard his suggestion as a fall-back option in case everything goes belly up in my current employment.
I heard a great deal during the general election campaign from the Liberal Democrat candidate about his opposition to air transport as a non-sustainable form of transportation. Is it Liberal Democrat policy to develop a regional network of air transport within the UK?
On the first point, the Liberal Democrats view emissions trading as the right approach so that account can be taken of the environmental damage that various modes of transport cause. On the second question, the hon. Gentleman will know, having closely studied the Welsh Liberal Democrat manifesto, that one of our commitments was support in principle for a regional air network in Wales. That is the jurisdiction about which I speak. We have already touched on the environment and environmental damage, and I will come to it later, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, because I want to deal with the issue in the context of what the hon. Member for Leominster has said.
Having seen the benefits of air transport at an early stage in Wales, I was surprised that the hon. Member for Leominster was so cautious in expressing a view on behalf of his party. He says that he has an open mind, but I believe that it is open to a fault. Many members of the Conservative party have, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said, already committed themselves to the benefits of a regional air network in Wales. For the hon. Gentleman to say that the Conservatives do not have a position on that matter implies that he has not been looking at the facts to the extent that he should have. In fairness to him, he has said that he will consider the arguments. I have no hesitation in expressing my hope that he will be persuaded, particularly in Committee, of the benefits of having a regional air network.
Some of the arguments made by the hon. Member for Leominster were rather curious. For one thing, he and the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) were badgering the hon. Member for Ynys Môn about how many seats the aircraft would have as if that were the key consideration—it is not. Partly owing to environmental considerations, a regional air network in Wales will never be a method of mass transportation. That is not what it is for: it is a method of fast transportation for the small number of people who really need to get to from one part of Wales to another quickly.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the take-up for such a service is more likely to include civil servants, Members of the National Assembly and Members of this House? Frankly, commercial demand for that service is minimally low.
The hon. Gentleman has obviously done his own research, but I want to ask him what conversations he has had with Pierre Sarre. Has he even heard of Pierre Sarre? Probably not, but everyone in Montgomeryshire knows about Pierre Sarre's company Control Techniques. It employs hundreds and hundreds of people in Montgomeryshire. It is one of the most important employers in my area. Pierre Sarre needs to get in and out of Wales quickly and he often comes from abroad. He lands at Welshpool airport, he does his business, then he heads off again. He will often bring customers from around Europe into Wales specifically to seal deals that are worth millions of pounds to the mid-Wales economy. That is a classic example of the importance of having a regional and accessible air network to enable such high-valued passengers to come in and out and make an unquestionably significant contribution to the economy of Wales.
The hon. Gentleman is being unnecessarily uncharitable to me. The Bill is not about whether or not air transport in Wales is a good thing, but whether the Assembly can subsidise it. My mind is open because I believe that the Assembly must make the case when it spends the money. It is no more complicated than that; it is very straightforward.
The only reason I am going on about it is, if I may say so without sounding childish, that the hon. Gentleman started it. [Interruption.] Oh, yes he did. If he had not told us that he was sceptical about the case for regional air networks, I would not be telling him that he should be more confident about it.
I fully take the point that there is a demand for regional air services both coming into and going out of Wales. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the example of Pierre Sarre, but my question related to an intra-Wales service. My point was that the demand for and take-up of an intra-Wales north to south service—whether it be from the valleys or Cardiff to Caernarfon—was likely to be from the public, not the private, sector.
I could provide many examples of industrialists who regard access to good airport facilities in Wales as very important. There is Carlo Sidoli, who runs Sidoli's ice cream in Welshpool. He often brings customers in and out. We all agree that that is an important reason for having an aviation infrastructure.
As to whether civil servants or others use the network, I believe that there is a good case for having aircraft with fairly small capacity to take the small number of people who go from north to south Wales on a regular basis in an efficient fashion. The hon. Gentleman mentions civil servants using it. That may well be the case, but he must recognise that one of the things that suppresses north-south economic development in Wales is the fact that people cannot make the journey quickly. The hon. Gentleman disagrees, but I can assure him that there would be a feasibility study before any system was set up. John Pritchard of KPMG has just completed a feasibility study of the expansion of Welshpool airport. He took the view that there was an economic case for having an extended runway and two new hangars in the area.
I will resist the temptation to argue in any further detail about what sort of scheduled services should be set up, but it is possible to find an aircraft for every occasion. One could use an eight-seater Piper PA31 Navajo, for example, which can transport people at about 195 mph or one could opt for a Dornier 328 or Dornier ATR42. Aircraft can be found to fulfil the demand.
The hon. Gentleman knows that a study of intra-Wales air links has already been undertaken by the National Assembly for Wales. There has also been a consultation process in respect of the aviation White Paper in the House, in which I and many others had the opportunity to participate. The research has already been done, and it is surprising that the Conservatives do not know about it, particularly when one of their number was a Member of the National Assembly for Wales.
Actually, there were two of them. I am surprised by the apparent level of ignorance of the existing information. What we do not have is a detailed assessment of what the schedules should be and precisely which aircraft should be used, but all that will be done in time. I am satisfied that enough work has been done to convince me and others that such a small aircraft network is a viable proposition for Wales.
If the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that it is a viable business proposition, would he be willing to put any of his own money into it?
That is the most extraordinary question that I have been asked in the House for a long time. I am a politician, not an airline mogul. Since the hon. Gentleman asks, however, in the late 1980s I was, as it happens, on the verge of setting up—jointly—a charter airline operating from Newcastle to national airports. The only reason we did not do it was our realisation that owing to the bankrupt economic policies of the Conservative party, the business would have gone down the tubes. So I blame the hon. Gentleman, by proxy, for the fact that I am in Parliament.
Environmental considerations are very valid when it comes to air transport, but we must recognise that any intra-Wales air network would contribute a relatively small emission, because the aircraft would have relatively small engines. I return to the example of the eight-seater aircraft. It flies on about 28 gallons per hour. If there are four passengers, that works out at about 22 miles per passenger gallon. That is not wonderful, but it is an extremely small percentage of the overall contribution of aviation to pollution. I still think that the importance of emissions trading cannot be overestimated.
The other irony is that the Conservatives complain about the environmental damage caused by aviation, although I seem to remember the leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), endlessly flying about in a twin-turbine helicopter. Presumably the hon. Member for Leominster has run off to the Conservative party leader's office to complain about that environmental damage. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman has been somewhat at variance with his party. I hope that he will think again about his caution in regard to aviation, with the benefit of hindsight.
While welcoming the Bill, we hope that the following matters will be considered seriously. We feel that the Bill attaches insufficient weight to the importance of sustainable development—which, of course, includes aviation. If the Wales transport strategy is to achieve optimum outcomes at environmental and community levels, there must be a strong emphasis on sustainable development. Sustainability is mentioned in clause 1(1)(a), but I think it should also be mentioned in clause 4(3) and clause 7(2). The goals of economy, efficiency and effectiveness must be achieved in a sustainable context. One possibility that is not often mentioned in the context of transport is the elimination of certain trips that are currently necessary. All Governments should consider promoting home working from now on. Given the availability of information technology, people's quality of life could be improved in that way, while congestion on both roads and public transport could be reduced.
Will the Minister tell us what impact he expects the Bill to have on the Welsh railway network? It is impossible to have a coherent, comprehensive transport strategy without efficient rail networks. The hon. Member for Leominster made the valid point that we need to understand the interrelation between services that start in England and finish in Wales, and vice versa.
People feel that the differences in the Scottish and the Welsh arrangements have come about in a rather arbitrary fashion. I should be grateful if, either now or in Committee, the Minister would give us an idea of the differences that the Government perceive between Scotland and Wales, and of the rationale for the changes. I think it instructive to look at what has happened in Scotland.
As I said in an intervention, Northern Ireland provides a very good example of a successfully integrated rail and bus system. There is also a degree of integration between Belfast city airport and the rail service, although I do not want to push that too far. Will the Minister assure us—especially in view of the Secretary of State's dual role—that the Government will look at best practice in Northern Ireland and ensure that the Bill we pass facilitates its implementation in Wales?
Let me return to aviation. The Bill gives us an opportunity to invest in the air network. Notwithstanding the criticisms that I have made of comments by Conservative Members, I think that the hon. Member for Clwyd, West made a fair point: we must justify any money that we put into the network. Perhaps, now or when we reach the relevant clause in Committee, the Minister will explain how he thinks the Assembly would make the calculation. He may be interested to learn that Andrew Davies, the Economic Development and Transport Minister in Wales, is flying to Welshpool airport to review developments there. I believe that he too advocates a regional air network service.
The Bill is very straightforward, and we will support it. Some points of detail need clarification, but if it fulfils its promise, we shall not only have a further opportunity to devolve important powers to the Assembly, but have the best opportunity in a generation to do something that has not been done before—to integrate the air, rail and road services that make Wales not a two-tier nation, but a one-tier tiger economy.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), I was a member of the Select Committee that, in the last Parliament, undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill in its original draft form, in partnership with the Assembly's Economic Development and Transport Committee. It was the first time that a Committee of the House had worked formally with a Committee in a devolved Administration, but I am sure that it will not be the last. It proved to be a happy and successful collaboration, although it was not without its problems.
The tightness of the timetable prevented our evidence collection from being as comprehensive as we would have liked, and the Government's announcement of the demise of the Strategic Rail Authority made major clauses in the draft Bill, and recommendations in the respective Committee reports, redundant by the time we debated the draft legislation in the Welsh Grand Committee last July. I am pleased, however, that the Railways Act 2005 picked up provisions relating to railway services that were originally part of the draft Wales Bill, and, indeed, the spirit of the Select Committee's recommendations—contrary to what the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) suggested in his opening remarks.
The National Assembly now has a clear role in any franchise that is Wales-only or includes Welsh services. It is responsible for determining priorities for local and regional services and setting fares for them, and it has a greater role in developing stations and local lives. I welcome that legislation and its contribution to the integration of transport policy in Wales. That is, in fact, very much the subject of the Bill: empowering the National Assembly to develop and implement policies that will contribute to a safe, integrated, sustainable, efficient, economic transport system to, from and within Wales.
I want to concentrate on the issues on which the Select Committee focused. I congratulate the Government on their positive response to many of our recommendations. The improvements to what was actually a pretty good draft Bill demonstrate again the value of pre-legislative scrutiny by Select Committees. Of the 14 recommendations that were relevant after the SRA announcement, eight have been accepted by the Government and included in the Bill.
The original draft Bill left the rail passengers committee and the National Federation of Bus Users in Wales as the separate representative voices of users of most public transport in Wales. As a key objective of both bodies has for some time been the better integration of transport modes, it seemed logical to us to call for a provision to empower the Assembly to create a single, joined-up public transport passengers committee. Apart from the common-sense integration argument in its favour, the establishment of such a body will eliminate the historic disparity between funding for bus users' representatives and funding for rail users' champions. The Government agreed with us, and included the necessary provision in the Bill. As the Secretary of State has pointed out, the new committee will also embrace other public transport modes.
The report drew attention to the fact that, although facilities and services for pedestrians had been given a specific mention, there was nothing about cycling in the Bill. Again, the Government have rectified the omission. We also drew attention to the absence of any reference to environmental sustainability, and the Government have included that in a general transport duty for Wales. I know that that has not completely satisfied environmental and wildlife groups. Like, I suspect, the Liberal Democrats, I received a briefing from RSPB Cymru, which called for the reference to be strengthened, perhaps by direct reference to the Assembly's statutory duty under the Government of Wales Act 1998 to "promote sustainable development". It also called for further references to that duty in clause 4, for better discharge of transport functions, and on clause 7, which relates to direct agreements between the Assembly and providers of public transport services. I have some sympathy for those calls, but they are clearly a matter for consideration in Committee. In any case, I warmly welcome the Government's inclusion of sustainability in the Bill.
The Select Committee also made recommendations to try to deal with concerns raised by local authorities and the Welsh Local Government Association about their future role under the Bill. They were worried about Assembly involvement in the production of local transport plans and the fact that councils were not specifically mentioned for consultation on the Wales transport strategy. We recommended alterations to try to address these concerns. Again, the Government have responded positively and the Bill includes an explicit duty on the Assembly to consult Welsh local authorities, and English local authorities with boundaries on the Welsh borders, in preparing for the Welsh transport strategy. They have also amended the draft Bill so that any decision to refuse a local transport plan for any reason would have to be taken by the National Assembly in plenary session. The Bill has been redrafted to make clear the central role of local authorities in the appointment of a majority of members of joint transport authorities. Those changes will help to ensure that the Assembly and local government work hand in hand to improve transport provision in Wales in the years ahead.
I now turn to issues where we failed to convince the Government and issues where I hope there might be scope for further movement. The Government have rejected our call to move the transport commissioner who has responsibility for Wales, from Birmingham to Wales. I urge that, at least, further consideration is given in the weeks ahead to establishing an office in Wales, with staff, for the transport commissioner. But my main appeal to the Government at this stage is on the Select Committee's recommendation on provision for bus franchising along the lines that we have here in London. We believe that the Assembly should be empowered to take up that option if it so chooses.
From my observations in Swansea and south-west Wales, I have to say that the bus deregulation and privatisation measures introduced by the Conservative party in the early to mid-1980s were not an entirely beneficial experience, to say the least. It certainly did not take us forward to the better, more comprehensive bus networks that we needed. However, the Tories' completely free-market approach has been modified and the situation considerably improved with the Transport Act 2000 and the introduction of bus quality partnerships and quality contracts. The partnerships allow a deal between the local authority and the bus contractor whereby the operator invests in high-quality services, more environmentally friendly vehicles and staff training. In return, the local authority invests in traffic management schemes, bus priority lanes, bus stations and shelters, other facilities and timetable information. Moving still further away from deregulation, quality contracts provide for a licensing regime whereby operators bid for exclusive rights to run services on a route or group of routes on the basis that the local authority sets the service specification and performance targets.
The Select Committee's proposal was to introduce a further option to be available to the Assembly—franchising. That would allow for a fully regulated regime when appropriate. As with London, it would mean that all services were secured by a transport authority from private operators following competitive tendering. The authority would determine the level and structure of fares to be charged, the structure of bus routes and the frequency of operation. It would be responsible for providing and maintaining infrastructure, promoting customer information and developing technology to ensure that operators deliver safe, reliable and clean buses. That is an alternative model that we are increasingly likely to need as we recognise that competition between bus operators cannot always deliver the services that we require. In particular, that very competition can stand in the way of our dealing with the more pressing competition between continued growth in the use of the private motor car and the alternative of public transport.
The approach advocated by the Select Committee of giving the National Assembly the widest choice of transport tools possible to achieve its objectives, including bus franchising, fits in with our approach to the governance of Wales. If, as the Secretary of State indicated in yesterday's statement, we are looking to empower the National Assembly as far as possible in the legislation that we pass in this Parliament that affects Wales, the power to introduce bus franchising would send a very positive message, as well as being a sensible practical measure.
My belief in empowerment of the Assembly leads me to urge the Government to resist calls from admirable organisations such as Transport 2000 and the RSPB, who oppose the provision of subsidy for air transport and therefore want clause 11 to be removed. As we have heard, that clause empowers the Assembly to give financial assistance for air transport services or airport facilities in certain circumstances. I believe that we should stick with the clause as worded, although I do have sympathy with the arguments against subsidising aviation: that it tends to benefit the better off, that air transport is a high and rising contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and that any subsidy would be more cost-effective if directed to rail and buses. I hate to agree with the hon. Member for Leominster, especially in his absence, but those are genuine arguments. The counter-case—that using this power will bring real economic and social benefits—was strongly and effectively argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). For me, though, what is important is that that argument can take place on a case-by-case basis and where it should—in Wales and, ultimately, in the National Assembly. If we mean what we say about empowerment, we must provide the Assembly with the widest range of choices possible.
As I said, this is a good Bill, and when it becomes an Act it will benefit the people of Wales. I hope that before it finally hits the statute book it can be made even better.
I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Wales to his new role and wish him all the best in it.
With no disrespect to Members of this House and those of the National Assembly who put their efforts into debating and shaping the Transport Bill during the last Parliament, I believe that it is a modest piece of work that may do little to address the fundamental transport challenges facing the people of Wales and the Welsh economy. At the same time, it contains some proposals that require further thought.
I do not object to the notion of transport planning at Assembly level, but I am sceptical of the value of grand transport strategies on paper. Hon. Members can judge for themselves what difference the Deputy Prime Minister's much-heralded integrated transport strategy has really made to travel in the UK during the past seven years. Members will recall the Prime Minister declaring in his first annual report that the integrated transport strategy was "delivered". Delivering words on paper is all well and good, but what matters in terms of transport is funding, as well as tough, and correct, choices over competing infrastructure projects and the ability to manage those projects ruthlessly through to completion.
Giving the Assembly the ability to provide a stronger and more focused lead on transport in Wales is not objectionable in itself, but I have three areas of concern. Let me start with what I believe to be an imbalance in the Bill—the heavy focus on public sector passenger transport needs. Any successful Wales transport strategy must have the needs of the Welsh business community at its heart. The efficient movement of goods, services and people is vital to a thriving economy and, to that end, business requires reliable, affordable and safe modes of transport for staff and customers, as well as swift access to markets for freight. Based on my observations of the Assembly Government in action and the specific measures contained in the Bill, I am sceptical about whether the strategy will deliver what business wants. Certainly in my constituency, there is a fairly widespread view within the local business community that the Assembly does not always have the needs of business—especially small firms—on its radar. That view is supported by the Federation of Small Businesses in Wales, which fears that the voice of the small business sector is being lost among the voices of public sector bodies in the discussion about Welsh transport needs. That must not be allowed to happen.
The Bill is heavily focused on local authority and public transport considerations. For instance, clause 2 places on the Assembly a clear duty to consult every local authority in Wales and any English councils adjacent to the Principality in drafting the transport strategy. Clause 5(c) permits it then to consult anyone else it thinks relevant. Why does the Minister not think that there should also be a requirement for the Assembly to consult business? Why should not the private sector be seen as an equal stakeholder alongside the public sector in the drafting of a transport strategy? Given the importance of transport to the economy, dialogue with business over the specific contents of the strategy should not be optional. There are precedents for a statutory duty to consult business. Aside from the section 115 requirement in the Government of Wales Act 1998, which I understand would not cover the transport strategy, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 contains a specific clause requiring the Mayor and the Greater London authority to consult
"those bodies representing persons carrying on business in London".
Would it not be appropriate, therefore, for the Bill to contain a similar provision? I look forward to the Minister's comments on that point.
The second area of concern relates to clause 5 and the proposal to create joint transport authorities. At a time when the Welsh Assembly Government are trying, too hard, to persuade the people of Wales that a bonfire of the quangos is under way, along comes a Bill giving the Assembly powers to create yet another cluster of unelected bodies funded by a levy on the taxpayer. The Minister may make the point that those will be lean and efficient bodies, but the costings provided in the explanatory notes are weak. I do not argue with the need for local councils to work closely together to deliver integrated transport networks that match travel patterns rather than merely matching local authority boundaries, but could that objective not be met through other means? For example, my local authority, Pembrokeshire, already participates in the south-west Wales integrated transport consortium—or SWWITCH—which comprises four authorities working closely together and developing a regional strategic transport framework. Should not that framework form the basis on which each constituent authority can develop its own local solutions tailored to its specific needs? The regional strategy for the SWWITCH area is quite capable of providing the basis for implementing the Wales transport strategy in Pembrokeshire and the three other local authority areas.
There is also a danger that the joint transport authorities could undermine local authorities' attempts to deliver integrated transport by separating decisions on transport and access from those made by the local authority on land use planning, economic development, social services, education and leisure. I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on whether there is a potential disconnection in that respect.
My third concern relates to the provisions in the Bill permitting the Assembly to subsidise air transport services and facilities, which have been discussed at length this afternoon. I want to add my voice to those in support of expanded air capacity in Wales. Over the past 20 years, air traffic in the UK has trebled and for the next 20 or 30 years it is forecast to grow by 4 to 5 per cent. each year. That will benefit the major international airports in London, Manchester and the big cities, but the outlook for smaller regional airports is also positive. There is no reason why Wales cannot also benefit.
I listened to the arguments made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), which were not without merit. I would have been happier had he supplemented his more visionary arguments with some hard data and statistics about the viability of an intra-Wales air transport network. New routes and services within and from Wales must only be carried forward on the basis of sound commercial principles. The key to successful local airports is the ability to identify and exploit specialised niche markets. That is a risky business and one better left to entrepreneurs, rather than to the taxpayer operating through politicians. The history of state aid to air services throughout the world is littered with examples of subsidies being driven by politicians' vanity, misplaced nationalism and economic irrationalism. For those reasons, I am wary of giving the Assembly powers to subsidise air services.
In that case, would the hon. Gentleman oppose any Government money going towards the improvement of services at Haverfordwest airport?
No, I am not saying that, but I am wary of subsidies being used. I think that they should be used only as seed funding to get a service up and running, after which the taxpayer can withdraw from the relationship, not as a long-term funding mechanism.
That was a helpful clarification. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman would be concerned if the funding were an open-ended, ongoing commitment, rather than pump-priming funding that could lead to a viable operation or a one-off investment in infrastructure at the airport.
That is exactly my view, and the hon. Gentleman expresses it better than I did.
The hon. Gentleman says that he is not against subsidies in principle, but he is worried about ongoing funding. Does he not understand that in areas such as his and mine, that funding would give the Assembly the ability to draw down European structural funds, under objective 1, which would assist the economic wellbeing of the areas in a wider context? That is difficult to quantify, which is why I did not include facts and figures in my argument. It is impossible to quantify the economic benefits to businesses in the area, about which the hon. Gentleman expressed concern.
It is not impossible to quantify the benefit. We know that £2.5 million of taxpayers' money has already been used in Scotland to support lifeline air services. Research can be carried out into the effectiveness of those and the impact on tourism and local economic development. It would be possible to produce greater evidence to support the arguments that you are making. In the absence of such evidence, I am slightly wary of and somewhat sceptical about subsidies for air services that would be used by a narrow range of people who, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, would probably be from rather higher income groups than most of the people in your constituency and mine.
Order. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that he must use the correct parliamentary language when addressing other Members.
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am puzzled by how clause 11(2) will work in practice. Perhaps the Minister could outline how the Assembly will test whether a service would not be provided without its financial assistance. Given the existence of a pot of subsidy, would it not be rational for any company tendering for a service to demonstrate that there is a shortfall in its business plan?
I just wanted to explain why I focused so much on air transport. It is because this is the enabling Bill that will finally secure an air network in Wales. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and the House for their forbearance. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the kind of passenger who would use such services. Yes, they would be small in number and probably fairly wealthy. However, for such a service to be viable, only 15 or 20 people a day would need to go from north to south. In any case, the funding would be an enabling investment for the economy, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) suggests.
I recognise those arguments, but it would be helpful to see further research on the matter. If companies were thinking seriously about providing such services, one would expect that they would carry out their own market research and develop the numbers.
I am also surprised by the wording of clause 11(3), given the heavily constrained regulatory environment in which air transport subsidies can be made. The Bill states that the Assembly "may" attach conditions to financial assistance. Surely it is the case that the Assembly must attach some pretty stringent conditions if their subsidies are to comply with EC regulation 2408/92. I should be grateful if the Minister would take a moment in his winding-up speech to explain the procedure for ensuring compliance and what role the Secretary of State for Transport will play. Will the Secretary of State merely rubber stamp a public service obligation on any route requested by the Assembly Minister?
I hope that the Bill can be improved as it moves through the House. It may be a modest piece of legislation, but that is not to say that it does not merit further deliberation and, perhaps, amendment.
I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb). This is the first time that I have participated in a debate in this House with him, and he had some interesting things to say. If I may, I will bring this debate back down to earth by focusing on land transport in Wales, particularly in north-east Wales, part of which I am honoured to represent.
When the Assembly develops transport policy in Wales, it needs to take into consideration certain circumstances that are particularly relevant to north-east Wales. That area is very strong economically under this Labour Government; indeed, my constituency now has an unemployment rate of less than 2 per cent. and a vibrant local economy. North-east Wales also has a peculiarly strong reliance on car transport, which is not a record to be proud of. My hon. Friends—my good friends—the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) have the honour to represent the local authority with the highest rate of car usage for travel to work of any county not just in Wales, but in the United Kingdom. Wrexham has the 22nd highest rate of such usage, so north-east Wales relies intensely on car transport.
It is increasingly evident that poor transport links are becoming not just an environmental problem, but an economic one that is preventing the local economy from becoming even stronger than its current state. When the Assembly considers how to develop its transport strategy, I want it to focus on the importance in a modern economy of public transport, its development and access to it. There are some excellent manufacturing industries and strong local employers in our area, but people who want to work for them find it very difficult to get to work. Because 24-hour shifts are in operation, they find it extremely hard to get to work other than by car.
Real progress has been made, however, in north-east Wales. Thanks to a public sector option, the Deeside shuttle, which serves the Deeside industrial estate, now transports people to work there. I am pleased to say that that model has been followed in Wrexham; the large Wrexham industrial estate now has a similar service. In trying to develop that service, I discovered that a vast number of organisations on the ground needed to be consulted, such as local authorities and other regional bodies. In Wrexham, the business community was also heavily consulted. We have an excellent business forum, which was at the forefront in developing the Wrexham shuttle. I agree with the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire that it is important that business be consulted, and I am sure that, even under the terms of this legislation, that will happen. Business often coughs up and funds such projects, and this Government are amenable to funding from various sources for public transport projects.
North-east Wales still needs to turn away from private transport in a much more profound way. Discounting the London line, we have two local rail services: the Wrexham to Bidston line, to which I shall return, and the Chester to Shrewsbury line. Both services travel the border, and both are not as regular as we would like. Progress has been made, however. Later this year, the Chester to Shrewsbury service will become an hourly service, and the Wrexham to Bidston service already is hourly. However, it is very important that the new transport bodies develop local rail policy in a much more imaginative way than has been the case in recent years.
I am going to part company with the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire on the issue of joint transport authorities. I have worked hard on the Wrexham to Bidston line project in particular. I have been trying to bring about the electrification of that line, which would reduce the journey time between Wrexham and Liverpool by about half an hour. A direct service would give people in Gwersyllt, Hope and other places along the line much easier public transport access to Wrexham, the largest urban centre in north Wales. They would also be able to access employment more easily than is the case at present.
I have received a lot of help in my work, and the north Wales transport grouping Taith has provided a great deal of support. The consultation process reports in July, and we hope that the project will be taken forward as soon as possible. However, from time to time I have had the feeling that I have been wading through mud as I have consulted with different bodies about the project. There is a strong case for establishing stronger regional authorities in Wales to deal with strategic projects such as the one to which I have referred. By themselves, local authorities are too small to handle important strategic issues such as the railways.
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point, but does it not support the concern expressed earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin)? He said that there was a need for much greater clarity about the cross-border arrangements contained in the Bill. In due course, those arrangements will affect the working of the joint transport authorities.
I do not know that what I said supports the point made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), but I agree that cross-border issues are extremely important. Earlier, I mentioned the Wrexham to Bidston line, but Wrexham is also served by the very important Chester to Shrewsbury line, which I believe should be developed to link Wrexham with the Chester business park, for example. Although that site is on the other side of the border, many of my constituents work there.
Under the present arrangements, it is very difficult to take that development forward. English authorities looking west are not as interested as they should be in providing services in Wales to transport people from Wales to England. Sometimes, I also feel that Wales, looking east, does not work as hard as it should to liaise with authorities in England about service access. The problem is a difficult one, but I think that the best way to deal with it is to adopt a strategic approach through the joint transport authorities.
I am very pleased with the public investment that the National Assembly is putting into public transport in Wales. I noted with great interest the opening of the Vale of Glamorgan line in south Wales, in which £17 million of public money was invested. It is tremendous to have a Government investing in public transport and the railways in that way, and I shall keep close to my heart my press cutting about the Vale of Glamorgan line when the Wrexham to Bidston line project is taken forward. I hope to have some very positive discussions in the future with my very good and hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and with the National Assembly.
We need to approach public transport in north-east Wales in a very different way in the future. Our attitude has been very unambitious, and my generation has fallen foul of what used to be called the great car economy. I was brought up in Tyne and Wear in the north-east of England, in a family where no one had a car. Between 1977 and 1979, however, I used to travel to school on a fully integrated public transport network, in which tickets could be transferred between buses and the Tyne and Wear Metro.
In contrast, however, Arriva now runs both the bus and train services in the Wrexham area. I regret to say that I have been unable to persuade that company to arrange for buses to stop at the local rail station. That shows that we have gone backwards rather than forwards as regards delivery of public transport over the past 25 years.
The Bill offers a real opportunity to adopt a much more strategic approach to public transport, and to persuade people that public transport is an option that they need to take in the future, for both economic and environmental reasons. We need to make public transport responsive to the needs of local industry and to make it a much more attractive option. I believe that the Bill will take us towards that goal, but we need to change profoundly the thinking on and approach to public transport in order to achieve that worthy goal for the future.
I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech this afternoon. I apologise for the fact that I arrived somewhat late because of a hospital appointment and a train delay.
It is a great honour for me to speak in this Chamber as the Member for Blaenau Gwent, and to be able to say that I am here as an independent Member but also as a socialist. I place on the record my sincere thanks to the Speaker for the warmth of the welcome that he gave me on the day that I first came to this Chamber, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), who has been so encouraging and supportive to me since I came here.
For me to come here is a great honour indeed—to represent the people of a great constituency like Blaenau Gwent, a constituency where we still have the great socialist and trade union values, values that some people in new Labour do not understand these days but I am very proud to represent. We believe in our fellow human beings, we believe in a sense of community and we have a warmth that extends to all about us. I will be pleased to represent those values here on behalf of my constituents while I am a Member of the House.
So, being the Member for Blaenau Gwent, one has to ask, why and how could the safest Labour seat in Wales, with a 19,500 majority, disappear overnight to become an independent socialist seat with a 9,200 majority? That is a question that many people in new Labour should answer, because it is a question that many people have asked in my constituency. The explanation for that, of course, was the way in which new Labour decided to select a parliamentary candidate in Blaenau Gwent.
It was unfortunate, to say the least, that good people who had done nothing but support successive Labour Governments for decade after decade were compromised and had their integrity stripped from them by the party. It was very sad to see what was happening. Despite the representations that were made time and again to new Labour, we were ignored, and despite the fact that people stood up and wrote letters, asked for meetings and sent petitions—not just in the Labour party but in the community in general—nobody listened. That, I thought, was a very sad reflection, because people in this great constituency, who had always been there for Labour, were forgotten—treated with indifference—and when we asked for help there was nobody there to deal with us.
It was never about women or men; it was about the right of choice. It was about the right of democracy, which is very precious to us all, because our integrity in Blaenau Gwent is as valuable to us as it is to anyone else throughout the realm, and that was the message that came from Blaenau Gwent on 5 May. It was so unfortunate that we came to that situation because nobody was prepared to listen on the new Labour party side.
But we went forward and decided that we were not prepared to be taken for granted because no one has the right to manipulate 60,000 electors, no one has the right to tell us what to do, and no one has the right to use us for a social experiment, which is what was being done in Blaenau Gwent. I was reminded at the time of that great quotation:
"The great are only great 'cause we're down on our knees
Rise up"—
and we did rise up in Blaenau Gwent, and that was the result on 5 May.
So today I stand here very humbly, and I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) is not in the Chamber, because he needs to reflect very seriously on the Blaenau Gwent result, and the 20 people who, disgracefully, have actually been expelled from the Labour party since that time because they stood up for the integrity of their own kith and kin—they stood up for the people of Blaenau Gwent and will always be respected and remembered by the people. I find it strange that people in new Labour, instead of thinking carefully about that, have gone on to add insult to injury, to make sure that they cause more damage in my constituency.
I am pleased to represent a very historic constituency. We go back a long way, steeped in great political tradition. My predecessor is Aneurin Bevan, the man who actually designed the health service. We are very proud of that. The design for the health service was based on the Tredegar Medical Aid Society, which was in a little town in my constituency, and of which he was a member. He was a great socialist and a great statesman. He took that blueprint and designed the NHS, his legacy for the whole of Britain and the envy of the world. It still works well; indeed, I am benefiting from it at present. The name of Aneurin Bevan is held in great respect. We are grateful for his work for the good of all the people of Britain. He is the greatest son of Blaenau Gwent.
Aneurin Bevan was followed by another statesman—his biographer, Michael Foot, another great socialist, greatly respected and highly revered in our constituency. More recently, my immediate predecessor was Llew Smith, a good socialist and a man with values who cared for the people of Blaenau Gwent. On behalf of the people of Blaenau Gwent, I am pleased to express our great thanks and appreciation to Llew Smith for all that he did during the 12 years that he was our Member of Parliament through his work in the constituency and in this honourable House to improve the quality of life for his constituents. He is my good friend and comrade, and a man I greatly respect. He will always have a very special place of affection in the constituency of Blaenau Gwent, and I am delighted to wish him and his wife Pam every happiness and health in their retirement.
I want to refer to the make-up of my constituency and its background. Obviously it is a working-class area and an industrial constituency—mining and steel. Sadly, the mines disappeared in the 1980s, due to Conservative Governments, who smashed up part of our community, as many people, particularly in south Wales, will remember; but they did not smash our community spirit, which still exists. The warmth of that spirit can be found throughout my constituency.
The other part of the industrial equation was steel. For 200 years, the Ebbw Vale steelworks was well known. It was in a valley 30 miles from the coastal area and was so important to the community that the town was built around it. It was a tragic day for us when on 5 July 2002 the Corus steel company—executioners and axe men, as I described them—closed that steelworks in our constituency. It had a devastating effect on us. The last 500 jobs—quality jobs—at the steelworks were taken away and immediately the community plummeted into another era of handouts and soup kitchens. Five hundred families lost their quality of life with the loss of those jobs and the local economy was devastated beyond belief. That was only three years ago. It has been a long haul and our local economy has still not recovered; the effect on the towns in my constituency has been devastating.
It was difficult for us to deal with that situation. Those great steelworkers at Ebbw Vale had only ever been guilty of productivity, quality and loyalty—characteristics that had been stamped across the world during the years that the steelworks was in being. So, we lost our steelmaking industry.
It is a sad reflection that, despite the fact that the Corus cuts were known about nationally, no Minister came to Ebbw Vale to see us—not one. I wrote to the Prime Minister at the time to ask him to come to Blaenau Gwent to see us to boost our morale and to say that the Government were concerned about us. Nobody came, and perhaps that is another reason why I am standing here today as the independent Member for Blaenau Gwent.
We have tried to find new industries for the future, but those industries have been very slow in coming along. They have not brought the quality jobs that we need, and I mean the quality jobs that everyone should be able to look forward to. From quality jobs cascades down a quality of life for everybody. Although I believe that the national minimum wage is a wonderful social development and that other measures have been very helpful, we must have decent jobs in the valley communities such as the one that I represent in Blaenau Gwent to provide that quality of life and to let people know that they have a place to take advantage of in the way that other people have always been able to.
How we deal with that issue in the future is important. Regional aid is active in Blaenau Gwent and it is very useful, but it does not provide enough new jobs and opportunity for the people. I hope that, in my work as a Member of the House, I can pursue the need for the direction of industry to places such as Blaenau Gwent. There is a need for the direction of industry if an area does not have the employment and quality of life that other people take for granted. Everyone is entitled to be able to expect a place in the sun, if that is what we believe in.
If a constituency does not have the industry and quality jobs that we need, large areas of it will be what people refer to today as "socially excluded" and "deprived". "Social exclusion" and "deprivation" are modern-day terms and euphemisms for what hides beneath them—it is called "poverty". I am sure that poverty is totally unacceptable to any Member of the House, but there is a lot in my constituency and I believe that more must be done to combat it.
For what are we about here if we are not able to reach out to lift these good people out of the poverty that they are captured and contained in and if we are not able to focus the Government on the need for strategies that will do something positive to fight poverty and to give people the opportunity to have a future and a quality of life that is not there and escaping at present? In my work in the House, I hope to join other Members in focusing on such initiatives and persuading the Government to take more action to deal with the domestic poverty problem that exists, I am sure, not just in Blaenau Gwent but in many other parts of Britain.
In the 10 weeks since I had a personal health crisis, I have been very grateful to my constituents in Blaenau Gwent for all the wonderful support, messages, prayers and blessings that they have sent me. I cannot thank them enough. That has made a great difference to me in the time that I have not been well. I have also had the great service and support of the national health service, and I was pleased to be able to refer earlier to Aneurin Bevan's creation. It has made such a difference to me and to making sure that, since 5 May, I have been able to pursue my role on behalf of my constituents in the House, in the other place that I work and in my constituency. I am grateful to my constituents in Blaenau Gwent for that wonderful support and their care and concern. I particularly express my thanks to them, and I am greatly humbled to be here as their Member in this honourable House.
I conclude by saying that I am delighted to have been called to speak in the debate on the Second Reading of the Wales (Transport) Bill. It is a very good Bill that is in the interests of the people of Wales and those who travel to and from Wales. Once again, it offers to give further devolved powers to the National Assembly for Wales in the interests of our people. The measure is positive and follows on well from the Secretary of State's White Paper announcement yesterday, which I warmly welcome because it is in the interest of the people of Wales to devolve further powers. I have a lot of hope for the White Paper.
The people of Blaenau Gwent will be of the utmost concern to me throughout my work in the House and I will pursue their needs and interests at every opportunity. I know that I come here with their great expectations, hopes and beliefs in me, so I say today, as the proud standard bearer for the great constituency of Blaenau Gwent, that I will not fail them. I will be here to work for them and will be totally committed to fighting to ensure that today's and subsequent generations in my constituency have the opportunities that we have perhaps never seen, although other people have taken them for granted. I hope that that will eventually lead to we in Blaenau Gwent having the opportunity to see the place in the sun that we all want. I give that commitment today to the people whom I represent and I am proud to be here as their Member of Parliament.
It is customary in this place to make warm comments about hon. Members maiden speeches. I have no difficulty in admiring the delivery and aplomb of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Peter Law) and the confidence with which he made his speech. I met him when he was a capable Labour Minister in the Assembly and I wish him well in representing his constituents of Blaenau Gwent. I am sure that he will do a good job.
I would like to draw the House's attention to the background to the Bill and the unique way in which we have arrived at this point. As hon. Members have said, the Bill first appeared in draft form. I am proud that the Welsh Affairs Committee undertook joint pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill in partnership with the Economic Development and Transport Committee of the Assembly. It was the first time that a Committee of the House had met a Committee of a devolved institution to undertake such joint scrutiny. I was pleased that the arrangement followed a previous recommendation of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which proposed joint working with the Assembly in its report entitled "The Primary Legislative Process as it affects Wales".
During the consultation on the draft Bill, the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Economic Development and Transport Committee met formally on five occasions and took evidence from 30 witnesses representing 14 different organisations. One of the main benefits of such formal joint working is that it enables Committees of the House and the Assembly to mirror the joint working that takes place between the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government when preparing draft Bills. It also allows for the wide scrutiny of a draft Bill from the perspective of both Westminster and Cardiff and, more importantly, avoids the unnecessary duplication of evidence gathered by Committees of the House and Assembly, which was experienced during the scrutiny of previous draft Bills.
I shall mention the substance of the Bill only briefly because my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for Gower (Mr. Caton) will have covered the detail of the Select Committee report well. The Bill will enhance the powers of the National Assembly for Wales on transport to enable it to deliver an integrated transport policy for Wales. I am pleased that the Government have taken on board many of the recommendations made by the Welsh Affairs Committee in its report entitled "Transport in Wales", which was published in 2003. As both the Committee and the Government recognise, there are significant economic, social and environmental benefits to be gained from encouraging the development of an integrated transport network. Far from being just a slogan, I am sure that integrated transport in Wales will make real progress as a result of the Bill.
May I first refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Peter Law)—or my hon. Friend, as I hope to say? I am pleased that he is on the awkward Bench and hope to see him here in future. I have a great deal of respect for not only him, but his predecessor, Llew Smith. Some hon. Members might be surprised to hear me say that given that my party and he disagreed so publicly on matters relating to the Welsh language and Welsh nationalism, but I always agreed with him profoundly on the matters that were important to him, such as the right to peace. We certainly agreed on the nuclear issue and I was pleased that we were as one on the virtues of democracy and socialism.
In reference to my hon. Friend's fine speech, perhaps I can mention my experience as a young political activist in the Rhymni valley in the '70s. I attended several meetings in Ebbw Vale. I was working at the top of the Rhymni valley with people in Abertysswg, Beaufort, Rhymni itself and Pontlottyn, so I know the area well. I went to Ebbw Vale to attend the tragic meetings held at the time and remember a fine speech from Michael Foot, who was in the difficult position of defending development in the steel works. As my hon. Friend said, we are still seeing the effects of decisions taken at that time working out into the community that he has the honour to represent. I am sure that he will do a good job.
I hope that the Bill will address the historical difficulty that we have experienced in Wales as a result of the lack of an integrated transport policy and system. Plaid Cymru has long advocated what we call the figure of eight, which is a transport system that integrates the south-east and south-west of Wales with the north-east and north-west of Wales and puts a great emphasis on the public element of transport. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) stress that and agree with him entirely in that respect.
Hopefully, the Bill will be an opportunity to co-ordinate and extend all forms of public transport. However, as much as it empowers the National Assembly for Wales, car use continues to be important in rural areas such as mine. I wish it were otherwise, but that is the case. Car use is essential in rural areas and has to be integrated. It is, of course, extremely expensive. It is significant—I have said this before—that the level of car ownership often coincides with areas of low income. The Welsh index of multiple deprivation, for example, shows that the highest level of car ownership is in Powys, which also has the lowest wages. Clearly, there is a complicated relationship that needs to be taken into account in any transport planning. I hope that car use will be better integrated with public transport as a result of the Bill.
I note in passing, on a personal note, that I want better and safer parking facilities in stations to encourage the use of public transport. I use Bangor station, where there are great possibilities for extending the use of land for parking and other facilities associated with a station, but it has been many years since that idea was first mooted and we are still waiting.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) mentioned the use of bridges across Afon Menai. In August, we have the National Eisteddfod in Y Faenol, which is almost entirely adjacent to the bridges. We fear that there will be huge transport problems. I encourage the Minister to do everything he can to ameliorate those. Members of the National Assembly and this place have pressed the Government to do something about that. It needs to be done, otherwise we will have traffic jams all the way to Chester.
We also need to develop existing train services. There is great scope for integrating them now that Arriva is in charge. However, last year I tried to buy a freedom of Wales pass—a useful ticket that allows four days travel out of eight at a reasonable rate. It enables me to use my favourite railway line, the Cambrian Coast line, which I have mentioned before. It is a wonderful line that goes through my constituency and others. It has many small halts and a number of stations, none of which has ticket selling facilities. The freedom of Wales pass can be bought at stations, but not on the Cambrian Coast line. Unfortunately, it cannot be bought on the train either. Despite the wonderful new ticketing machines that can provide a ticket from Pwllheli to London or wherever, one cannot buy a freedom of Wales pass, even though it is supported by the National Assembly for Wales with some money. The pass allows not only local people, but tourists, to enjoy the glorious Cambrian Coast line, the Mid-Wales line and many other lines.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) mentioned the problem with Virgin Trains and the reduction of the Saturday service, and the fact that trains that used to serve north-west Wales—they served Llandudno—have been transferred to serve south-west England and areas that are in direct competition with Llandudno.
The matter has been taken up and we are assured that the measure is purely temporary. It is in place while works take place at weekends on the west coast main line. Once those works are completed, the full service will be restored.
I thank the Minister for that reassurance. During the summer, we will still be down on the services. Perhaps more pertinently, when the Bill is enacted, if such changes affecting services that come into Wales from outside are made in future, will the Assembly have any way of influencing the decisions, or will it be tied down to decisions that affect services within Wales? He may care to answer that question today or in Committee, as it is extremely important. Main line services are used in Wales, even thought they may start and end in London.
I have already referred to the use of cars. We have a road transport system that has historically not been of great advantage to Wales. In fact, problems with the road transport system have led to economic, social and political difficulties. It has been a historical bane of Wales that roads have travelled through Wales, rather than to Wales. Useful roads such as the A5, A48, A55 and M4 are engines for economic revival on a very local basis, which is welcome in those corridors, but they are essentially roads to meet the needs of others who are passing through.
On north-south travel, I again hope that the Bill will empower the Assembly to make improvements. I am amazed that there are still places in mid-Wales where only one vehicle can proceed at a time in travelling from north to south. Those places might be in very rural areas where the level of traffic is not particularly huge, but it is surprising to say the least that there are such places on the main north-south road. No one is looking for a 10-lane motorway, but there is a need for a decent straightish main road, dualled where possible for passing, perhaps enabling my constituents to travel to the capital of Wales as quickly as they can travel to the capital of Ireland. It is currently a good deal easier to get to Dublin than to Cardiff. We look forward to seeing the Assembly tackle the issue with vigour following the passage of the Bill.
We also look for opportunities from the Bill to improve freight rail use. The needs of businesses were mentioned, I think by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) or one of his colleagues. The House will be interested to know that there has recently been a successful experiment in carrying timber by train from north-west Wales to Chirk. That innovation proves that freight transport by rail is no more costly than road transport, and it is better for the environment, too.
I hope to see such developments on not only the Cambrian Coast line, but the Conwy Valley line, where a possible development involves taking slate waste from Blaenau Ffestiniog for use in the building industry. However, we must ensure that the Conwy Valley line to Llandudno junction is improved to allow that development to continue. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will make the case for improvement with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. Earlier this week, Labour Councillor Trevor Roberts of Bermo, my hon. Friend and I had a positive meeting with the Transport Minister with responsibility for that area, and if we all pull together on that important scheme, it will provide not only an engine for economic regeneration in Blaenau Ffestiniog, but improvements on the line to Llandudno Junction. In conclusion, the local transport plans are a positive step, and I am also pleased by the inclusion of cycling in the Bill.
In the last Session, the Government intended to introduce a school transport Bill, about which I had tremendous reservations, because it would have introduced the possibility of charging for travel to school in rural areas. I also understand that that provision might be included in the proposed education Bill, when it is published. It is clear that transport to school is part of the wider transport system, especially in rural areas where people use the school bus to get to work. We must examine the education Bill very carefully, and local transport plans will have to take such negative steps on school transport into account.
The Bill attempts to ensure consistency between local provision, the National Assembly's overall transport strategy and the regional co-ordination structure of JTAs. I welcome that provision and I am glad that the Government agree with the Welsh Affairs Committee that the majority of JTA members should be from local authorities. As a previous member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I am glad to see that our work has borne fruit. And I am equally glad that the Government have heeded the Committee's call to set up a public transport users committee, which will play a vital role in shaping the development of services.
We have already discussed support for other forms of public transport and I want the public transport system in Wales to be dynamic and developing. I know that "subsidy" is a dirty word for some hon. Members, but we should examine subsidising innovative forms of public transport. I look forward to the proposed super buses, which will transport people from north Wales to south Wales in extreme comfort, perhaps almost as quickly as by air transport. Many people, including tourists, use the long-running TrawsCambria service, which shows that demand exists for such provision.
Hon. Members have already referred to the telling points made by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about promoting sustainable development. As I have said, I also note that the Department for Transport will retain responsibility for aviation policy in Wales and that funding for air transport will not be transferred to the Welsh Assembly Government. I therefore hope that the Welsh Assembly Government apply for European moneys to develop the air service. I think that a service from north to south Wales would carry not a large number of passengers, but key passengers from the business sector and local authorities in my area and others in north Wales to Cardiff and back. That can only be good.
Overall, the Bill is a positive, if slightly limited, step forward and I look forward to further discussion in Committee.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on Second Reading of the Transport (Wales) Bill. I am confident that it will provide the people of Wales with a blueprint for further development of a sustainable, fully integrated modern transport system, fit for the 21st century, which will meet the needs of all our constituencies and communities, such as mine in Swansea, East.
I feel qualified to speak in the debate because my interest in Welsh transport matters was gained not only as someone who relied extensively, when a young mother, on public transport, but as a former employee of the rail industry. For several years, I worked for the rail operators in Wales as an Association of Train Operating Companies representative and on behalf of individual rail operators. During that time, I was also a member of the Wales transport forum and saw the introduction of innovative schemes such as the golden telephone line to provide travellers with an easy, bilingual, one-stop service for all rail, bus and ferry timetables.
I was also deeply involved in the negotiations for the single Welsh rail franchise, a plan that reduced the number of rail operators from a confusing seven to two. In that role, I undertook a great deal of cross-border work, working closely with colleagues in Shropshire, the west country, Liverpool, Manchester and even as far south-east as Sussex and the outer-London area.
The Bill provides for great opportunities. Its aims and objectives provide a clear and coherent way forward. We want transport provision that meets the requirements of local people and is part of a joined-up transport strategy, devised and managed in Wales. I know from my work in the past that that is what people want.
When I worked in the industry, I travelled back and forth across Wales, meeting user groups, rail and bus operators and working closely with some of the transport forums that some hon. Members have mentioned. They were clear that a joined-up approach, which embraced wider issues such as funding, road congestion and airport development, was needed. Time and again, I listened to their comments and discussed their communities with them, and I realised that people have a pretty good idea of what they need and how services tailored to meet local transport challenges can and will enable people to go about their daily lives more easily and effectively.
I am hugely optimistic about the Bill. In the past six years, Westminster and the Assembly have worked together to deliver our aspirations. Their constructive co-operation has identified many key aims and objectives and allowed information and analysis to be shared. Together, we have created a solid base of understanding and information sharing, which I believe will form the basis of future work and development in a Wales that is fully ready to take on responsibility for all transport-related matters.
Although I am interested in all aspects of transport in Wales, hon. Members probably realise that I am especially interested in rail services. Swansea is a rail city. It has played a major role in the development of rail services to south Wales and south-west Wales. It occupies a strategic place on the south Wales main line and the M4. It is also the terminus of an inter-city service from London Paddington. Many hon. Members rely heavily on that line, which provides a vital link for business travel, tourism and freight to and from south Wales.
I welcomed the introduction of new services to and from Paddington, but I now discover with alarm that there is a possibility of reducing those services to their original levels. The much publicised and welcomed additional First Great Western services could be cut. I know full well what those increased service patterns and improved half-hourly services at peak times mean not only to me but to my constituents on a business and tourism and leisure basis. Work, education and leisure opportunities will be severely affected. Swansea has prospered under successive Labour Governments. Further investment and development opportunities are vital if we wish to maintain that growth and provide even more opportunity for our citizens. If any cuts in service provision are allowed to go ahead, they could seriously affect future development. I am determined not to allow that to happen.
What is important here is the ability to have a service in Wales for Wales. The Bill not only proposes greater powers over rail and other modes of transport, but provides an opportunity for greater financial responsibility. If such cuts are not what we should be using our powers against, I do not know how we should be using them. Therefore, I shall be working strongly and closely with the Assembly and my local Assembly Member, Val Lloyd, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and others in the Swansea area. Franchisees need to be more accountable on a Wales level and must justify any proposals for cuts or changes to service patterns that they make.
I also welcome the proposed establishment of a public transport users committee. Again, I have worked very closely with user groups and I saw what they could achieve. Many of my hon. Friends have talked today about their concerns over cross-border issues. I have worked with many passenger user groups and support groups within the Wales and borders area—organisations such as the South West Wales integrated transport consortium, Taith and the South East Wales Transport Alliance—and they are ready and willing to get involved. They are able and capable of growing and developing into the services that we all need.
I have learned at first hand how greater investment locally, the transfer of powers and proper financial provision can enable Wales to take plans to the next logical stage of development. I expect that several hon. Members might consider that this is not enough, but I can assure them that the work has been done and the plans are in place. I do not think that we will ever lose that ability to have a cross-border dialogue and to realise that, wherever services begin or end and whether they go through or stay within Wales, it is in all our interests to have a joined-up railway system.
Excellent channels of communication already exist and that needs to continue. I welcome the Bill, which truly reflects our commitment to the localisation of services and greater regional responsibility. This partnership approach will build on the existing work and utilise best practice, developed over several years of joint working. The services exist in many places; we now need to build on them. The Bill offers the people of Wales the tools to achieve a better, more integrated, funded and sustainable service, which is the key to improving our public transport services.
I confess to having something of a sense of déjà vu today, first because many of the issues that we have discussed are ones that I discussed in the Welsh Assembly Economic Development and Transport Committee and, secondly, because over many years I have enjoyed bouts of verbal sparring with the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Peter Law), who is just leaving the Chamber. For a while, he was a Minister with responsibility for these issues in the Welsh Assembly, and I am delighted to see him here this afternoon.
I also welcome the hon. Gentleman's maiden speech. I disagree with some of the content, but no one could dispute the fact that it was given in the tradition of the best speeches that are made in the House. It came straight from the heart and was made without notes. He made some extremely good points. Most Opposition Members would very much agree that those who stand for Parliament should be selected on merit, not on the basis of their sex. Whatever our past political disagreements, I have no doubt about the hon. Gentleman's ability to represent his constituents.
There is no doubt either that Wales's transport system needs to be greatly improved as it suffers from many problems. The Bill draws attention to some of those and is a genuine attempt to address them, although I have reservations as to how effective the proposed solutions are likely to be.
An issue mentioned early in the Bill, but which has not yet been discussed is safety, an issue close to the hearts of many on both sides of the House. One thing that has particularly concerned me over the years is the difference in approach in Wales and in England to the designation of speed limits on trunk roads. Far too many deaths and serious injuries of pedestrians have occurred on trunk roads in Wales, yet it appears to take far too long to get the national speed limit reduced, even on trunk roads going directly through the heart of small towns and villages. In my experience, that is much less of a problem in England. Anecdotally, one of the most dangerous stretches of road in Wales is the A40449, which goes straight through Monmouth and borders a large school. Numerous accidents and deaths have occurred on it over the years, and sadly, one very serious accident occurred during the past few weeks. Despite many years of campaigning to reduce the speed limit on that stretch of road from 70 mph to 50 mph, conducted by members of all political parties and at all levels of government—in Parliament, by my predecessor, by me in the Assembly, by Liberal Democrat councillors, and although we do not have many Plaid Cymru members in government in Monmouthshire, I am sure that they would also agree with the policy—we have not been successful.
I want to pay another tribute, however, to my friend the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. A few years ago, I visited him in his capacity as a Welsh Minister, to request a reduction in the speed limit on a trunk road through the village of Llanover. At the time, he promised that that would be introduced, and he kept his word—he is a man of his word. He admitted to me afterwards, however, that it is much harder to reduce such trunk road speed limits in Wales than one would expect. It is not simply a matter of signing an order and erecting a new sign. That should not be the case, however, because as one comes out of Monmouthshire into Herefordshire or the Forest of Dean, it will be clear, on any trunk road that goes through a village, that the Department for Transport in England has taken proactive measures to reduce speed limits. Why that should not be so in Wales I do not know. I would appreciate an answer from the Minister as to whether the Bill is likely to allow the Assembly to make decisions on speed limits more quickly.
As the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James) said, there is also a clear need to introduce an integrated transport policy. I would not disagree at all with that intention. I warn Members, however, that the Assembly has been talking up an integrated transport strategy for many years now—one of the first resolutions that it passed was that it would develop such a strategy. It was not clear at the time that anything prevented it from doing so. We all agree that transport hubs and modes must be in the same place as far as is possible. Where is the evidence, however, that this Bill will help? In Chepstow and Abergavenny, for example, passengers arriving at the bus station who want to continue their journey by train or vice versa are faced with an impractically long walk to get from one station to the next. I do not see how the Bill will help to resolve that problem.
A similar but much larger-scale problem applies to transport integration at Cardiff airport. At long last, it now has a rail link. Even that rail link, however, is far from practical—it is a small-line link from Cardiff to Rhoose station, which is now renamed, rather grandly, Cardiff international station, as I understand it. Anyone travelling down from the valleys, from London or anywhere else would have to catch a train to Cardiff and then another train to Cardiff International airport at Rhoose, and would then have to get a minibus over to the airport. How many families with all their luggage, knowing that they must get to an airport at least an hour in advance to catch their planes, will choose that as a means of getting to the airport?
I just muse that Cardiff international airport must be the only airport of its size that requires one to drive through two housing estates to reach it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is an enormous waste of resource, as it takes as long to get from the airport into the town as to fly to the airport.
Indeed. That brings me on to why has the Welsh Assembly not developed some sort of viable road link straight on to the M4, which is only a few miles away geographically? I understand, as I have seen loads of figures on the potential costs, that a realistic estimate for such a fast road link on to the M4 would be £37 million. That is a lot of money but not huge in the scheme of things when we consider what is likely to be spent on the M4 relief road going through Newport. Without a shadow of a doubt, however, such a scheme would add to the viability of that airport and even make possible the development of some of the services that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) mentioned, without the need for various different subsidies.
That brings me to another problem that could worsen as a result of the Bill. I have noticed a tendency over the last few years for the Assembly Administration to deal with complaints about transport by suggesting impractical and expensive headline-grabbing solutions to meet a need that does not really exist, rather than spending the money at a local level where it could make a difference. We need to ensure that the Bill does not make that even worse by giving the Assembly too many powers to subsidise such grandiose schemes.
A couple of years ago, I well remember that the Assembly wanted to use £20 million of public money to build a futuristic monorail system, which would have transported people in driverless pods 15 ft above the ground at Cardiff bay from the Welsh Assembly building to Cardiff city hall, which is only a few hundred yards further up the road. If that pipedream ever goes ahead—I understand from an answer to a written question a few months ago that there is still a possibility that it could—it could end up being the most expensive funfair ride this side of Walt Disney in Paris.
The same mentality seems to be behind the idea to subsidise an air link between north and south Wales. We must remember that in January 2004, Air Wales actually axed a service between Liverpool and Cardiff. In October, it axed a service between Cardiff and London—not even 18 months after the service was first introduced. It is all very well giving the Welsh Assembly the powers to subsidise air routes that would otherwise not be available in and around Wales, but we should perhaps ask ourselves why those services would not otherwise be viable. The simple answer is that, although they might suit some Assembly Members and the growing army of civil servants, they would be effectively useless for the vast majority of Welsh travellers.
The link will fail because there has never really been the same demand in Wales to travel between north and south as there has been between east and west. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire spoke earlier about the history of Wales from the ice age, emphasising the difficulties of getting from north to south, but ever since Edward I took an interest in Wales, travel has been mainly from east to west. People in north Wales look towards Liverpool, just as those in Cardiff and Newport, where I come from, look towards Bristol and London. The M4 and the A55 were built to meet a demand that already existed, and the Assembly will not improve transport links by trying to service a demand that simply is not there.
The hon. Gentleman says that there is no demand for transport between north and south, but I tried to explain earlier—though I did not have the figures at my fingertips—that about 150 people per day travel from north-west Wales to Cardiff on business by car. Surely that provides an initial demand that would stimulate developments. As well as people from the health service, members of the business community have to spend a great deal of time travelling by road or rail to Cardiff. The hon. Gentleman should not dismiss such people and should not make up stories about everyone going to Liverpool.
I was not suggesting that everyone goes to Liverpool, and I am not necessarily disputing the hon. Gentleman's figures, though it was interesting to hear him mention people in the health service, which is the public sector. To put that into context, we need to reflect not just on how many people travel from north to south—of course, we know that people do that all the time—but on how many travel from east to west every day. Only when those figures are properly established can we take a decision about whether there is a genuine demand for new transport services.
That is exactly why no one is recommending building a motorway from north to south Wales and exactly why a small-scale airline operation would be appropriate for business people and, indeed, the civil servants and others who need to make the journey. The hon. Gentleman keeps on making pariahs out of public servants who need to travel from north to south, but why should they not be allowed to travel quickly? We are not asking for an A380 Airbus, which the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) mentioned, but only for a little aircraft to meet a need. Why are the Conservatives so against having an effective, cheap and fairly environmentally friendly small-scale air service in Wales?
We are not. We are all in favour of having such a service, but we are not in favour of using National Assembly money to subsidise it. If the demand were there, and if 150 people grew to 200, 300 or whatever, we could have a Boeing 747 taking them from north to south Wales every day. Good luck to whoever sets it up. Perhaps the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire could fly the planes, and Labour Members could put their money into buying shares. I do not know, but, after six years in the Welsh Assembly, I do know this. We receive a limited amount of money each year from Westminster, which must fund the health service, education and local authorities, all of which are having to raise their council taxes because not enough money is going in. Admittedly, some of the money is wasted on white elephants such as the new Welsh Assembly building, which was supported by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and his party. I agree that had some of that money been spent on a north-south air link, it would probably have been better spent. The fact is, however, that there is only a limited amount in the pot. We have no problem with the north-south Wales air link; our problem lies with the use of public money to subsidise it.
Let me return from those grandiose visions to what is important to most people: the Assembly's ability to deal with transport matters. I must say that its record has not been terribly good. People in my constituency are disappointed that the Assembly has thus far failed to sort out a wrangle between ELWa—Education and Learning Wales— and certain local authorities such as Monmouthshire over the funding of post-16 pupils' school transport. As many Members will know, Monmouthshire county council received less per head than any other authority in Wales, which has forced it to make difficult decisions. One of those decisions concerns the funding of transport for post-16 pupils doing A-levels. The council has been forced to ask ELWa to fulfil its own obligations to fund post-16 education, and to pay for the school transport that is so necessary in a rural area. ELWa has so far refused to become involved, and the Welsh Assembly is not prepared to give a lead. As a result, pupils are being forced off the buses. If we pass the Bill, we should also ask the Minister to use whatever influence he has to persuade the Welsh Assembly to resolve the matter.
Let me end on a positive note. I have always opposed the idea of a Welsh Assembly. It is no irony that I was a Member of the Assembly, as most of my constituents were against the idea as well. I also believe that having been voted for—albeit by a tiny minority—the Assembly should be made to work as well as it can on behalf of everyone. Although I do not favour giving it any extra legislative powers, I think we should allow it make the best possible use of the powers that it has. Otherwise all of us in Wales, whether for or against the Assembly, will lose out.
I see in the Bill opportunities to allow the Assembly to make better use of its existing powers over transport issues. It must do so soon, because public transport throughout Wales is frankly abysmal. Not all of that is a result of Government policies—some of it is owing to geographical and demographic factors—but we should pay most attention to those living in rural areas who depend on public transport to get around and to travel to their jobs. They currently have no access to public transport, because the trains are not there and bus services are so poor. They are forced to rely on their cars, although in some parts of Wales senior council officials have said that the roads are so badly maintained that some are in danger of reverting to cart tracks. That phrase was used by highways officer in one of the Welsh local authorities recently.
Those people's needs are not being met, because the transport system in Wales is failing at a basic level. Much more needs to be done. I do not believe that all the answers lie in the Bill, but I am prepared to view it with an open mind. Anything that will improve transport in Wales is a good thing. I recall the Deputy Prime Minister promising us an integrated transport policy for the whole United Kingdom, and I recall the Welsh Assembly saying something similar six years ago. There has been very little action so far, and I look to the Minister to reassure us that there will be action in the future.
I too pay tribute to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Peter Law) on his excellent maiden speech. He and I are old colleagues and friends from the National Assembly, and I know that although there is a certain amount of political distance between us, he will be an excellent constituency Member.
Clearly, one must applaud the aims of the Bill. After all, an integrated transport system is the holy grail that has eluded politicians over the generations, so I suppose that now is the time for Wales to pursue it. However, I must express concern as to what will be the counter-productive effects of the Bill in terms of local government. Since it was established, the National Assembly has shown itself to be an increasingly acquisitive, centralising institution. That was most recently exemplified by the absorption of the Wales Tourist Board, the Welsh Development Agency and Education and Learning Wales into the machinery of the Welsh Assembly Government so that they became, in effect, arms of government. That process continues in the Bill. It is an exercise by the Assembly in stripping local authorities of their functions in respect of local transport, but leaving them, and therefore local council taxpayers, with potentially most of the cost of any failure. That is all the more disturbing given that section 113 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 imposes a positive duty on the Assembly to sustain and promote local government in Wales. The Bill does not achieve that.
The truth is that the Bill is in many respects unnecessary in facilitating the delivery of efficient transport in Wales. Local authorities are already working collaboratively in respect of public transport. We heard earlier about SWWITCH—the South West Wales integrated transport consortium—and the Minister will know about Taith in north Wales. Are the Government suggesting that Taith is somehow failing in achieving the outcome that the Assembly seeks. In what way will the proposed joint transport authorities improve the present arrangements respect of transport delivery?
Clause 2 imposes an obligation on the Assembly to prepare a Wales transport strategy. However, the 1998 Act already empowers the Assembly to prepare such strategies as it wishes, and it can already require councillors to have regard to those strategies in preparing their local transport planning by using its powers to give guidance under section 112 of the Transport Act 2000.
I am concerned about the proposed composition of the joint transport authorities, for two principal reasons. First, although the Assembly must consult local authorities before making an order establishing a JTA, it will be at liberty to ignore whatever representations those authorities make. Secondly, clause 4(4) provides that JTAs may include representatives of local authorities among their numbers, but contains no obligation on the Assembly to ensure that there is local authority representation on the JTAs, much less to ensure that local authority representatives are in a majority for voting purposes. Those are matters that I shall wish to pursue at a later date.
While the voice of local authorities is seriously undermined by the Bill, clause 5(10) contains worrying powers for the JTAs to impose levies on those authorities that will in due course be converted into council tax. No assurances have been given, in the Bill or otherwise, as to the resourcing of the JTAs. In that respect, I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). It is unacceptable that council taxpayers may effectively be asked to pick up the tab for the failure of a JTA given that they may have no democratic representation on it.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) mentioned trunk roads in Wales. That is clearly the area where improvements are most desperately required. I remember the days when I travelled from north to south Wales along the A470 with, frankly, horror. Unfortunately, I see little in the Bill that will improve the powers of the Assembly to pursue a trunk road building programme, which is where it should be concentrating most of its effort.
The subject of air travel has exercised many hon. Members today and, to mix metaphors, has been a hobbyhorse of the Secretary of State for some time. Perhaps I should say that it is a kite he has been flying. I well remember that before the 1999 Assembly elections he issued a strict injunction that the 13 Members of the Welsh Assembly from north Wales should be required to take an air service that would fly from Caernarfon via Hawarden to Cardiff to get them there safely, cheaply and quickly, as he put it. The problem was that the plane he was talking about could accommodate only nine passengers. That led some wag to suggest that perhaps the Secretary of State was hoping that among those elected would be two right-wingers and two left-wingers.
Of course, the service failed, as I found to my cost when I was called to the colours of the Welsh Assembly. I made inquiries as to the availability of the service and was told that it had failed and was no longer operating. Subsequent attempts have been made to establish an all-Wales air service and they have also failed. I have no objection to some form of subsidy being used for pump priming, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) described it, but it would be a wrong application of public money to provide continuous subsidy for a service that would be used largely by public employees travelling north to south and back.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) mentioned, the natural routes in Wales are east to west, and air transport links would be most useful on those routes. However, the subsidy regime would not permit public moneys to be used for that purpose, unfortunately.
We are beginning to reach consensus. We have established that pump priming is acceptable and that infrastructure investment probably makes sense. If research were to show that the investment of subsidy would be more than exceeded by an increase in economic activity, would the hon. Gentleman think that it was a reasonable investment? I am not about to whip such evidence out of my pocket, but does he agree that it would be a useful area for economic research?
It would be a useful avenue to explore, and if some economic benefit could be proved, Conservative Members would not oppose such investment. However, the Secretary of State appears to be blindly committed to an intra-Wales air service subsidised at public expense, and I would not be prepared to support that. I would, however, be prepared to support better links to the important regional airports that serve my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas)—Liverpool and Manchester airports. We desperately require an improvement to the road link between the A494 and the M56, which is a significant bottleneck between Liverpool and north Wales.
I have some good news for the hon. Gentleman. An improvement to the junction that he mentioned was announced shortly before the general election.
I am delighted to hear that, because it is a significant impediment to traffic between the north-west of England and north Wales.
In many respects, the Bill is an unnecessary exercise in extending the powers of the Assembly at the expense of local government. It is the reverse of devolution, because it will suck up powers from local authorities to the National Assembly. Thus far the Assembly has not commanded tremendously enthusiastic public support. In fact, turnout in the last local government election was significantly higher than in the last two Assembly elections. The Assembly's failure on health in particular is notorious. It would be better applied if it attempted to exercise efficiently its existing powers, rather than seeking to acquire more.
The Bill, I am afraid, will be met with very little enthusiasm in many parts of north Wales, and it will have to be amended significantly before it is enacted.
Once again, I apologise for the early departure of the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, and add my congratulations to the new Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger). If he is as classy a Minister as he was a Whip, it will be to the considerable benefit of Gwydr house.
We Conservatives share many of the aspirations that lie behind this Bill, which has many worthy and commendable objectives. Who can doubt that a
"safe, integrated, sustainable, efficient and economic transport"
policy would be to the benefit of the people of Wales? I welcome the responsibility placed on the National Assembly for Wales to publish, and to be held accountable for, a transport strategy for Wales. We want public investment in transport in Wales to contribute to the safer and more efficient distribution of travellers and journeys between different modes of transport, principally rail and road. But ultimately, we want a policy that will contribute to raising the quality of life of far more people in the Principality.
We have had a very interesting and knowledgeable debate. This is the first time that I have participated in such a debate on Wales and I have learned a great deal, having listened to the high-quality contributions from all parts of the House. One of the most knowledgeable Members is certainly the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who made a thoughtful speech and is clearly a great advocate of ferries and railways—and now planes. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who, as always, was illuminating, interesting and humorous. I had not realised that if fate had taken just a slightly different turn, rather than sitting on these green Benches, he could have been the Richard Branson of 2005.
Or the Freddie Laker.
Indeed—who knows?—but the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire certainly demonstrated his wide knowledge of the subject and his considerable grasp of detail. He gave rise to an interesting debate on the question of a north-south air service, but there seems to be a slight dichotomy here. It could, as he suggests, be a small, discrete, boutique service, conveying just a handful of people daily. If so, it would by definition have a minimal impact on carbon emissions, and would give little cause for concern to those of us who are worried about the environmental impact. On the other hand, such a service could, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn seemed to suggest, make a useful contribution to easing congestion on Wales's ever-more crowded roads. But it cannot be both: it cannot be a lightweight service and also reduce congestion, so its advocates have to decide which it will be.
We are certainly not implacably opposed to such an air service, but we are worried about the Government's promoting and subsidising air travel at a time when we are urging them to be more responsible about the growth in aviation, given aviation's huge impact on CO 2 emissions and its unchecked contribution to global warming. We recognise that such a service could well play a significant role, but we are extremely sceptical about anything that could prove to be a long-term drain on public funds.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) has been a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee since 1997, so he brought considerable experience to his speech. He urged the Government to think again about their reluctance to move the transport commissioner for Wales from Birmingham. I am a relative outsider, but it seems bizarre that the commissioner should be in Birmingham, especially given the poor transport links with that city. However, I was glad that the hon. Gentleman recognised the need to take on board the environmental impact of encouraging more air services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) made a terrific speech. He is clearly going to be a champion in this House of small business and economic regeneration. He said quite rightly that he was extremely worried that the voice of business—especially small businesses—was being lost in the debate about transport in Wales. He asked why the private sector was not an equal stakeholder in the debate, alongside the public sector. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate he will address that point and reassure the House that the Government are listening carefully to the business voice in Wales. That is important, because the Bill appears to be very much focused on the public sector and public servants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire was also concerned that the Bill would create another clutch of quangos. We shall certainly want to examine in Committee the mechanisms by which any transport policy would be delivered. My hon. Friend threw his weight behind those who are keen to expand air travel, although he cautioned against subsidy—perhaps he had his business hat on again. That warning should be heeded, given that successive Governments have tried to pick winners in this sector and ended up subsidising lame ducks. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire pointed out, there is a fundamental difference between Governments providing seedcorn capital and pump-priming a new idea, and getting involved in a project that turns out to be a long-term burden on the taxpayer.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made a thoughtful and wide-ranging contribution, in which he displayed his usual knowledge. I have had the pleasure of serving with him on the Environmental Audit Committee, so that came as no surprise.
The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Peter Law) made a distinguished, historic and even moving maiden speech, and I was glad to be in the Chamber for what will come to be regarded as a parliamentary occasion. I listened to him especially carefully, as would anyone when an hon. Member has managed to overturn a Labour majority of 19,500. I am sure that Opposition Members will go through his speech in forensic detail for crumbs of comfort or tips on how that trick might be replicated more widely. I am sure that the people of Blaenau Gwent have chosen a worthy successor to the distinguished Members who have served that constituency in the past.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) was brief and concise, and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) gave a comprehensive analysis of his area's very real transport problems, although he supported the Bill overall. However, he took the opportunity to draw attention to the issue of charging for school buses. He has a good history of campaigning against that, and he said that he was worried that the matter could raise its head again as a result of mechanisms that the Bill will put in place.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James) gave the House the benefit of her considerable professional experience in transport matters. I am sure that that will be a great help to us all in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) gave us a terrific analysis of the real and everyday practical problems experienced by transport users in Wales, week in and week out. He was the first to flag up the critically important question of safety, especially road safety. I have taken an interest in road safety in my constituency, and my hon. Friend made some forceful remarks about the need for greater road safety, especially in rural areas. His speech may mark the start of a campaign, on behalf of his constituents and everyone else in Wales. People are fed up with traffic speeding through communities, often with horrific and fatal consequences. He also detailed the practical transport problems that are experienced by the people of Chepstow and Abergavenny, and the really silly problem that they have at Cardiff airport. I hope that as a result of his shedding light on those problems, something will actually be done. My hon. Friend also warned against using the Bill, which he backed overall, to back more grandiose "grands projets", for which it appears the Assembly in Wales has a particular weakness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones), following his hopeful and optimistic opening comments, made a clear and methodical analysis of the practical realities of the Bill, and brought to bear a clear mind through which he dissected many of its clauses. He has the makings of a first-rate parliamentarian and I am sure that he will be extremely effective in Committee. He warned of the possibility of significant impacts on the council tax as a result of proposals in the Bill. As he rightly pointed out, there is no democratic representation on the joint transport authorities to check their spending, and council tax payers could find themselves landed with a large bill over which they have had no say. He brought a similar common-sense approach to the issue of air transport.
We share many of the aspirations that underlie the Bill, but we have a number of concerns, which we shall want to flag up in Committee. First, we question whether the powers given to the Assembly will deliver the results that people in Wales want. We are concerned that the Bill, although it appears to be a devolving Bill, will not bring government closer to people, but will take power from local communities—from county councils and local authorities—that are already operating effectively and pass them up to the National Assembly and, worse still, to unelected quangos. In other words, we need to be satisfied that local democracy is not the loser in the Bill.
Secondly, there are questions about the joint transport authorities. Are they necessary? Will they be expensive? Have they been properly costed? Will they contribute to the stripping of powers from local government and move decision making further away from democratic representatives?
Thirdly, the Bill would empower the Welsh Assembly to subsidise to the tune of £1.5 million the Swansea-Cardiff-Anglesey intra-air route. Will that really provide value for taxpayers' money and will it provide a useful, environmentally sustainable transport scheme?
As I said at the outset, there is much that we support in the Bill, but we support it with caution. We must be careful that what seems to be a devolution of power from Westminster to the Welsh Assembly does not have the result of removing powers from local government and vesting them in quangos. Simon Jenkins, in his Halstead lecture in 2002, commented:
"I would bet that Wales has the fewest elected officials per thousand citizens, and is thus the least democratic and most bureaucratised"—
if there is such a word—
"local government anywhere in Europe."
We must not compound that sad state of affairs, for reasons of both preserving local democracy and avoiding wasteful expenditure on yet more quangos, which place extra tiers of administration between the Assembly and local government.
Ultimately, the Welsh people want action on transport. They do not want administrative reorganisation for the sake of yet more administrative reorganisation. If the Bill allows the National Assembly to exercise its powers more effectively and results in better transport outcomes for the people of the Principality, it will have our support, but we shall scrutinise it carefully in Committee to ensure that it does.
This has been a full and interesting debate. I welcome the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) to his new position. I am not sure whether he ever sat in on a Welsh debate as a Whip, but today he will certainly have seen the quality of our debates on Welsh affairs.
I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part. I am also grateful to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the Welsh Grand Committee and the Economic Development and Transport Committee of the National Assembly, which were all involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. Many people and organisations responded to the public consultation and today's debate has confirmed the benefit of that work, because as Members have pointed out, after the pre-legislative scrutiny, significant changes were made to the Bill.
I shall go through the contributions that have been made, beginning with that of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Peter Law) who made a speech from the heart. The hon. Gentleman is in the same tradition as his predecessor, Llew Smith; he, too, spoke from the heart about his community and its needs. It is an area of significant deprivation and in the hon. Gentleman's role as both Member of Parliament and Assembly Member he will have his work cut out addressing those problems. I was grateful for his supportive comments about the NHS, which was founded in Tredegar, and for his compliments on the Bill and the White Paper, launched yesterday.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) seemed to be preparing himself for the Committee. He posed a large number of questions in his contribution and I shall run through some of them. He and other Members spoke about cross-border patterns. I assure them that cross-border issues will inform our strategy for the joint transport authorities, if they are set up. Under the Bill, cross-border local authorities will be directly consulted about both the strategy for JTAs and the programmes they develop.
The hon. Member for Leominster also commented on a traffic commissioner for Wales, as did other Members. The reason that there is no provision to create a separate commissioner for Wales is that the current commissioners cover Wales. The Assembly is content with their role in Wales and with the presence maintained in Wales by the regional offices of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) that the Assembly is satisfied with the current arrangements and sees no reason to change them.
The hon. Member for Leominster and other Opposition Members asked whether JTAs would simply give rise to more quangos and bureaucracy. The hon. Members for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) and for Bexhill and Battle felt that significant powers could be taken away from local authorities—the reverse of devolution and subsidiarity. In fact, the hon. Member for Clwyd, West may not have read the Bill in what I am sure will soon be his customary detail. Had he done so, he would have seen that subsection (5) of clause 5 makes it clear that local government representation must be more than 50 per cent., ensuring accountability. That will ensure not only that local authorities are properly represented but that they are in the majority on JTAs.
Local authority representatives will not necessarily be appointed to the JTAs. It is theoretically possible at least for the JTAs to have no representatives at all from local authorities.
I again refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 5(5). I give him the categorical assurance that if the Assembly decides to create a JTA—that is not a requirement of the Bill, but a power that is being given to the Assembly—the JTA's membership will have more than 50 per cent. local authority representation.
The hon. Member for Leominster also referred to funding issues, running costs and so on. The Assembly is committed to ensuring that any additional funding will be funded by the Assembly and programmes will be funded from existing programme schemes. Andrew Davies, the Assembly's Minister for Economic Development and Transport, announced in December last year that £8 billion would be available for transportation matters in Wales over the next 15 years, and there will be substantial funding from that source for the work of any JTA or for the consortiums if their work, as they are currently set up, continues.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the need to ensure that there were cross-border arrangements for joint working. I give him the assurance that there will be consultation, but that all additional funding that might come from the work of the JTAs would be funded by the Assembly.
Many Members have referred to air transport, which is covered by one clause in the Bill, but we seem to have spent an inordinate length of time discussing it. None the less, the subject is of interest to many Members, who expressed a range of views. Many seemed to be concerned by the financial implications, but I can help them on that. There will be a process for the public service obligation, and justification will have to be made ultimately to the Secretary of State for Transport, who has overall responsibility for air transport, before any subsidy can be agreed. The European Union is also examining the matter very closely in terms of competition matters. If the Assembly makes a case to subsidise a particular route or series of routes, full regulatory impact assessments will take place. Although Members have generally supported the possible extension or development of subsidised air routes in Wales, they were concerned that they would prove to be a bottomless pit into which we would pour money. The process will ensure that that will not happen. A strong, coherent case will have to be put forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) not only championed the case for air travel, but said that integrated transport should include sea transport. He is a great champion of the port of Holyhead and the services that run from there. Cruise ships are now using the port, which brings tourists to the area, who are spending money in his constituency and other parts of Wales. Ports and sea transport are not covered by the Bill because they are reserved matters and thus the responsibility of the Department for Transport. However, the Assembly will clearly recognise the importance of ports and sea transport to the economy of Wales, so I am sure that it will take that fact into account when developing the overall strategy.
My hon. Friend also asked why it was not possible to give subsidies for air routes starting or ending outside Wales, which is quite a complex matter. Although subsidy has been made available in Scotland to encourage the generation of new routes outside Scotland, it cannot be seen as an ongoing subsidy—it can be a kick-start only. The European Union would examine closely any subsidy provided.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) waxed long and lyrical about his aviation experience, in addition to raising several points to which I shall try to respond. Now that the Secretary of State is in the Chamber, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Assembly Government will look for examples of good practice, whether they be in Scotland, Northern Ireland or anywhere else in Europe. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn asked whether statistics had been collected on likely passenger numbers and levels of subsidy. The consultants have indicated that the intra-Wales air network could have 13,000 passengers at its initial start-up and that the number could rise to 18,000 after five years.
I have already responded to the point about the commissioner made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower. He also raised bus franchising. The Assembly has considerable flexibility to develop bus policies within the existing legislative framework and does not think that there is a need to move towards bus franchising. Given that Wales has a different nature compared with London, where the scheme has clearly been a success, the Assembly thinks that quality bus partnerships probably represent a better way forward for Wales.
Although the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) welcomed the Bill, he raised several concerns, including one about the business sector. I assure him that the announcement of the £8 billion programme for the next 15 years was widely welcomed by the south-east Wales economic forum, the CBI, the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association. Although the Bill does not provide for this, it is clear that business will be consulted. Business is such a key player in developing any transport strategy that it will undoubtedly be consulted at length and in great detail when developing the strategy. I also assure him that in developing the local regional strategies through the joint transport authorities, there will be no attempt to undermine the planning, leisure and social services responsibilities of local authorities. There is no intent whatsoever for the JTAs, if they are established, to remove powers from local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made an excellent speech, raising in particular the high car usage in north-east Wales and the need to develop public transport, especially the Wrexham-Bidston line. I am more than happy to meet him to discuss how we can take that forward. Clearly, more integration is needed, and he gave examples of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), the former Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, again highlighted how excellent the process of scrutiny had been. It helped to produce the Bill in its amended form.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) raised a number of issues. In particular, he asked what powers the Assembly will have if there are changes to rail services or timetables. In relation to the franchise, as co-signatory it has considerable powers. On those services for which it is not directly responsible, such as the Virgin line that serves his area, it will be consulted by the Secretary of State for Transport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James) told us of her background in the rail industry. She obviously has a great deal of expertise and supported the work that is going on with the transport consortiums, which other hon. Members also mentioned. It is going well. As I said, although the provision is in the Bill, it does not mean that we move from the voluntary consortiums to the JTAs. The performance of the voluntary consortiums will be judged, a decision will be taken by the Assembly, and it may move to a JTA, but it is not a requirement.
The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) raised the issue of safety and speed and the difficulty, which all hon. Members have experienced, of getting a speed limit reduced. He also mentioned access to Cardiff airport. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) has regularly raised that in the Chamber. The new rail service is being launched this weekend, I think. City airport in London has a similar problem because the dockland light railway is not next door to the terminal and a link has to be provided by road transport. That situation is repeated at Cardiff airport railway station.
I accept the point about airports. However, on speed limits, on which I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House agree, why should it be much harder in Wales than it is in England to redesignate speed limits on roads?
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer, but I will find out, and I shall certainly take the matter up with Andrew Davies.
I think that I have dealt with most of the points made by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West. There is no intention to see powers taken away from local authorities. The idea of the Bill is to get them working together in a more integrated way. They have the representation to ensure that they would have a majority on any JTA if and when it were formed. I hope that, after looking at clause 5(5), he is reassured that they would have that control.
An efficient and effective transport system is critical to the future development of Wales. It plays a crucial role in the development of a diverse, competitive, high value-added economy. Our transport infrastructure serves as a backbone to economic growth. Transport is also key to taking forward our social agenda, such as in facilitating community regeneration and tackling urban isolation.
Tackling the transport problems of Wales presents a massive challenge in the face of ever-increasing demand to travel. It is an area in which Wales has made good progress, working with our key partners in the public and private sectors. We need to raise our game not only to keep up with the pace of change, but to make real advances. In order to respond to that challenge and to start to deliver the Assembly's vision for integrated transport, we have to ensure that the Assembly has the right tools to do the job. In the past, the Assembly's limited and fragmentary transport powers have restricted its ability to take forward its strategic transport agenda. The Bill gives the Assembly the powers that it needs to meet that challenge. I urge the House to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Transport (Wales) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Transport (Wales) Bill:
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 30th June 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.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Question agreed to.
Transport (Wales) Bill [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 Transport (Wales) Bill 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. Heppell.]
Question agreed to.
Northern Ireland
I beg to move,
That the direction given by the Secretary of State under section 51B(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 on 1st April 2005, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The direction before us removed Sinn Fein's entitlement to financial assistance under the financial assistance scheme available to the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly for 12 months from 29 April 2005. The approval of both Houses is of course required, and I am pleased to inform the House that on 14 June the House of Lords approved the motion, which was moved by Lord Rooker.
The background to the direction will be familiar to hon. Members. The matters to which it relates have been debated here on a number of occasions. I therefore intend to be brief, but it may be helpful to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I summarise the key events before turning to the substance of the direction.
The direction follows the Independent Monitoring Commission's fourth report, laid in Parliament and published on 10 February, which covered the Northern bank robbery and other crimes that it attributed to the Provisional IRA. The IMC's report, at paragraph 14, said that Sinn Fein must bear its responsibility for the incidents to which it referred, and it recommended that the Secretary of State consider exercising the powers that he has in the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly to impose financial measures on Sinn Fein.
The House will recall that the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), made a statement in the House on 11 January, in the immediate aftermath of the Northern bank robbery. That statement set out the impact of the robbery on the political process and its damaging effect on the Government's efforts to restore the devolved institutions. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his work as Secretary of State in support of the Northern Ireland Office during his time in office. I worked with him previously as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Welsh Office, and I know his integrity and commitment to the job.
My right hon. Friend made a further statement on 22 February after the publication of the IMC report. He said that having reflected on the IMC report, he had concluded that it would be appropriate to make a direction to remove Sinn Fein's entitlement to financial assistance and that the direction would be for 12 months, the maximum period permitted under the legislation. As required, he would take into account any representations made by Sinn Fein before reaching a final decision. Having provided Sinn Fein with an opportunity to make representations, my right hon. Friend decided that it would be appropriate to make a direction, and he did so on 1 April. A further debate took place in this House on 10 March on the separate matter of the suspension of Sinn Fein's entitlement to Westminster allowances for 12 months.
With regard to the substance of the direction, it removes Sinn Fein's entitlement to payments under the financial assistance for political parties scheme for 12 months from 29 April 2005. It is the second direction against Sinn Fein, because a similar financial penalty was imposed from 29 April 2004 to 28 April 2005 following the IMC's first report in April 2004. That report attributed an attempted abduction to the Provisional IRA, and the IMC recommended that financial measures be imposed on Sinn Fein.
In the various debates that I have mentioned, there was general support for action against Sinn Fein. The need for the direction reflects the problems—ongoing paramilitary activity and criminality—that have blighted the political process in Northern Ireland, and both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made it clear that that must stop in order for progress to be made.
It gives me no pleasure to have to bring this matter before the House. As the Secretary of State said yesterday at Northern Ireland questions, we hope that in the period ahead we shall see movement from the Provisional IRA that ensures that the final transition to exclusively peaceful and democratic means is achieved. On the assumption that such movement occurs, the IMC will continue to play an important role in attesting that the reality matches the Provisional IRA's commitments. Moreover, it has a responsibility in relation to all paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland from whatever source.
I pay tribute to the members of the IMC for their reports to date and for their contribution to promoting peace and stability in Northern Ireland, and in doing so I commend the direction to the House.
I thank the Minister for setting out the background to the motion, which, as he has made clear, extends the financial penalties against Sinn Fein at Stormont for a further 12 months by giving effect to the direction signed by the former Secretary of State on 1 April this year.
As the Minister said, the IMC reports on the relationship between Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA provide the background to the debate and the continuing involvement of that republican organisation in crime and paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. It is worth reminding ourselves of the first IMC report published in 2004, which made plain what the members of the IMC considered to be the relationship between the two parts of the republican movement. In respect of the leadership of Sinn Fein, it stated:
"Some members, including some senior members, of Sinn Fein are also members, including, in some cases, senior members of PIRA".
The Government have made the same point in more cautious language—Ministers have referred to the inextricable link between Sinn Fein and PIRA—and it has also recently been made in very direct terms by the Minister of Justice in the Republic of Ireland.
Since last April, a further four IMC reports have been published. The fourth report, published in February, was categoric in its verdict that the Provisional IRA was responsible for the Northern bank robbery in December and for three other major robberies last year. It repeated the point that had the Northern Ireland Assembly been sitting, the IMC would have recommended the exclusion of Sinn Fein from office in the devolved Executive.
Does the hon. Gentleman remember that the Chief Constable recently reported that, short of killing members of the security forces, the Provisional IRA was engaged in all the other forms of paramilitary and terrorist activity? That adds further weight to his comments about the IMC report.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the Chief Constable's verdict.
The IMC's views have been supported not only by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland but the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana. The most recent report, which was published in May and to which the Minister referred, concluded that the Provisional IRA continues to carry out paramilitary and criminal activity and that it is still recruiting, training and gathering intelligence.
Perhaps most worryingly, given the emphasis on and expectation of an IRA statement and action to decommission weapons, the IMC referred to the discovery in September last year of
"10,000 rounds of PIRA ammunition suitable for use in assault rifles, a type not previously found in Northern Ireland and manufactured since the Belfast Agreement".
The IMC concluded that
"PIRA remains a highly active organisation"
and that while
"there is no present evidence that it intends to resume a campaign of violence . . . its capacity remains should that become the intention".
The Conservative party therefore has no hesitation in supporting the motion.
The debate takes place against a backdrop of intense speculation about the IRA's response to the speech made in April by Gerry Adams. The debate and the IMC reports on which the measure rests are a salutary reminder of how far the IRA has to go. If there is to be progress towards an inclusive Executive, the IRA response must be clear and unambiguous, not only in words but in deeds. There can be no further room for fudge or ambiguity. If there is ambiguity, I fear that the blunt truth is that there will be no agreement.
There needs to be an end to all forms of criminal and paramilitary activity. There has to be complete decommissioning and republicans must accept the legitimacy of the police and the criminal justice system and support those institutions rather than try to undermine them. There must be what the Prime Minister described as far back as 1998 as the
"dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence".
The IRA must be disbanded as an effective paramilitary organisation. That will need to be transparent, and effectively and independently verified. I realise that the Government do not feel comfortable with the word "disbandment", although I note that the Minister for Justice in the Republic of Ireland is a bit less shy of using the term. Ultimately, the process must be about that.
I want to probe the Government on a final point. If, when the IRA statement is made, they believe that it and the IRA's subsequent actions amount to sufficient evidence that the organisation has gone out of business, surely their logic would lead them to ask whether that was also a sufficient basis for de-proscribing the Provisional IRA as an illegal organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. The logic would be that if the Provisional IRA had ceased to be a terrorist organisation, the need for it to be illegal would no longer exist. Conversely, if the IRA had not done enough to merit de-proscription, how could it have done enough to merit inclusion in a devolved Executive? It would be very strange to have Ministers in government inextricably linked to an organisation that Governments in London and Dublin believed had to remain illegal even though it had moved into what has been termed a new mode.
We genuinely wish the Government well in their efforts to secure a comprehensive agreement and restore devolved government to Northern Ireland, but inclusivity can be based only on all parties accepting the same standards of democracy. There can no longer be different rules for some but not others. This is what we shall insist upon when we consider our response to whatever the IRA says over coming weeks and months. In the meantime, current IRA activity more than justifies the modest sanction that is before the House today.
I welcome the Minister to his new job. Having worked with the Prime Minister for a long time this is his reward—the Northern Ireland portfolio.
We support the order and we recognise that it is necessary to implement these sanctions against parties that are not participating fully in the peace process. We cannot allow the process to be delayed by paramilitaries and those connected to them without there being some form of sanction. As I said when the sanctions were suggested, they seem to be a regrettable necessity.
Looking back, I remind the House that I was frustrated and somewhat annoyed when we were told to take on trust the fact that the IRA had conducted the Northern bank robbery, but subsequently it has become quite clear from the comments of the Independent Monitoring Commission and others that the IRA seems to be responsible for that robbery. In addition, the murder of Robert McCartney has caused the most recent crisis in the peace process. Only further action from paramilitaries can help to move the process forward again by positively demonstrating that they are committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. While we generally think of the IRA in that context, it obviously applies to all paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland.
As the House will recall, I raised an interesting proposal from the Alliance party on 10 benchmarks, which might be helpful in measuring more objectively the distance the paramilitaries have come. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has agreed to meet David Ford, the leader of the Alliance party, to discuss those further.
I suggest to the House that the 10 points are worthy of brief consideration, and the Alliance party says that they should be used to assess the sincerity with which the principles of the peace process are being adhered to. First, paramilitaries must declare an end to all involvement in any paramilitary and criminal activity, and through exclusively lawful means ensure that their activists desist immediately. Secondly, where individual republicans are involved in paramilitary or criminal activity, others must pass on any information to the lawful authorities and urge others to do likewise. The IRA must accept that obstruction of justice is a crime.
Thirdly, the republican movement must accept the full legitimacy of both the northern and southern states with respect to policing and criminal justice, including definitions of what constitutes a crime. Fourthly, all IRA front organisations and organised crime networks must be dismantled.
Fifthly, the IRA army council must end all recruitment, training and intelligence gathering, and stand down all its rank and file members. Once that is carried out and weapons are decommissioned, the organisation, including all command structures, must disband. Sixthly, the republican movement must renounce the right to engage in community policing or what is termed "internal housekeeping". There must be an end to all paramilitary beatings and shootings.
Seventhly, the practice of exiling both inside and outside Northern Ireland must come to an end. Crucially, assurances must be given to those exiled that they can return to Northern Ireland in safety. Those assurances must be carried through. Eighthly, all illegally held weapons and explosives must be decommissioned under the aegis of the Decommissioning Commission. Ninthly, republicans must co-operate fully with the commission for the disappeared and both police services in recovering the remains of the disappeared.
Finally, republicans must give a commitment not to export their terrorist techniques and expertise to other organisations internationally, either through direct training or other consultancy services, in line with the Terrorism Act 2000.
I accept that there will be different views about those 10 points. I hope, however, that the Minister can indicate that he recognises the benefit of having objective measures that consider not just the front-line violence that characterised the troubles for so long but the underlying and ongoing violence about which anybody involved in matters relating to the Province knows.
In that context, I counsel the Minister not to allow a recurring error in dealings with the IRA to happen again. On several occasions, it seems to me that unilateral deals have been done with paramilitaries, excluding the pro-agreement parties. Understandably, that has been frustrating for those parties that have consistently shown commitment and good faith in the process. It would be extremely unhelpful if, following some sort of statement from the IRA, it looks once again as if the Government have decided to do a back-door deal without involving all the other parties involved in the peace process. Will the Minister assure me that he will not allow that to happen again?
That being said, it seems that the sanctions must remain for now. Until a significant change occurs on the part of the paramilitaries, and particularly the IRA, and especially with regard to the underlying violence that continues in the Province, we must recognise that these financial sanctions need to be in place. I am pleased and find it helpful that Sinn Fein has a small staffing presence on the premises, which I find useful in terms of understanding their thinking and what is going on. That is a separate matter, however, and for now I feel that the Liberal Democrats are obliged to support what is a regrettable necessity.
I support the provision of the Secretary of State to impose sanctions on those associated with terror and criminality but regard the penalties as so small in relative terms as to make them irrelevant to those whom they are supposed to hurt. Do we really think that this House is hurting Sinn Fein-IRA by denying them such a miserable number of pounds when they have millions in store and are probably looking for millions more? It is almost laughable.
I was just saying to myself that if the situation in Northern Ireland were happening in any other part of this United Kingdom, these Benches would be filled. Were someone from that part of the United Kingdom saying that terrorists who had broken loose in Lancashire and Yorkshire must be brought into the Government, they would be laughed out of the House. Some of the things that the Alliance party has said now, I said years ago, and I was laughed out of court and told that I was a madman for saying them. In fact, I was told that never would any southern politician agree to the IRA being disbanded. Those things are now being argued over, however, and strong statements have been made not by Protestants or Orangemen or those who, according to some new Members of the House, are divisive, but by the Front Bench of Dail Eireann today. Statements are on record today that the only way this matter can be dealt with is through the disbandment of the IRA. It must go.
If the House does not agree with that, it need not say on another occasion that it will do this, that or the other thing. There are those who are propelling themselves, and trying to compel others, down the road of rebellion and republicanism, and on the loyalist side, too, there have been all types of violence. If we tolerate that, we will have no progress towards peace. We should face up to that. This is not a time for argument but for facing hard facts.
If some of us had said what the Independent Monitoring Commission said, the response would have been "Oh, you are romanticising". However, the activities of the Provisional IRA, as outlined by the IMC, illustrate how far republicans remain from committing themselves to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The involvement of armed republicans in the Northern Ireland bank raid and other major robberies has reinforced the message that they are in the robbery and stealing business and the business of destroying peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. The previous Secretary of State made a statement earlier this year about the Northern Ireland bank robbery, in which £26.5 million was stolen. He said that
"a highly organised and brutal gang kidnapped the families of two staff from the bank headquarters in Belfast, threatening them with death unless the individuals co-operated in the execution of the largest robbery that ever took place in these islands".—[Official Report, 22 February 2005; Vol. 431, c. 170.]
There is the former Secretary of State indicting the IRA for that robbery, and I ask today whether these are the sort of people that the House wants to place in a regional government of the United Kingdom and whether the House wants to carry out a campaign against the democrats who say no to them.
I am not speaking today purely for Protestants. I am speaking for many Roman Catholics and for many people who are neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic but of another religion. They have all come to the same agreement. I received a message during the election from a Roman Catholic priest who said, "Ian, please stand firm and do not move for our people, as many Catholic people living in areas where republicans are in a majority are tormented to death by the activities of Sinn Fein-IRA." He said that anyone living in such an area would be tormented to death, so it is not only the Protestant people who are saying this. It goes across the board.
Never before have so many people of all views and persuasions in Northern Ireland said that all this must end and be finished with once and for all. They are saying that anyone who wants to be in government must do so on the same basis as anyone else—by embracing democracy and only democracy because everything else is out. However, the problem is that the Government have never made it clear that the train will leave the platform without them. I issue a solemn warning to the Government, as I did personally and brutally frankly to the Taoiseach yesterday: if the Taoiseach and Mr. Blair try to make something out of an IRA statement that is not in it and if the statement is not followed with immediate action to prove its veracity, the situation will be even worse because people will say that the Governments are not prepared to stop this and that they are with those men and their activities.
The Independent Monitoring Commission was set up and approved by the Government—not by us; we had nothing to do with it—and I have to say that it has proved to be upright and honourable. We did not support its setting up. We thought that there were enough international bodies looking into Northern Ireland without having more foreigners coming in. However, the commission has been honourable and honest in facing up to facts. These are the facts and they should not be taken as facts from me, the Democratic Unionists or other loyalists, but as the facts from the IMC.
It is interesting to note that at the end of September the police discovered 10,000 rounds of ammunition suitable for use in assault rifles of a type not previously found in the Province, so there is new weaponry. That may have been only part of a larger consignment, and it demonstrates PIRA's continuing efforts to maintain its preparedness. The IMC said that intelligence it had received led it to believe that PIRA members had been involved in the murder of Robert McCartney, and that the killers had acted on the orders of a local commander. Furthermore, they had then sought to obstruct the police investigation, forensically cleansing the scene of the crime and intimidating witnesses.
I welcome the fact that people have been arrested for that. I trust that the truth will be brought out vigorously by the prosecuting officers of the Crown, and that the people who committed the murder will be called to account. I salute the sisters and partner of Mr. McCartney for their bold stand across the world to obtain justice for the one who was killed; but he is only one of hundreds and hundreds.
Members should go with me to see the people who are vegetables and have been forgotten. They should go and see the people who have no legs, or no arms, or cannot see. After the Abercorn bombing, arranged by Gerry Adams when he was in charge of the IRA, a member of my congregation was a vegetable for more than 10 years. I used to visit her regularly. Poor woman. We should consider not only the people who died, but the people who lost any enjoyment of life, and also the people who attend to them with all the tenderness of love, while knowing that those whom they are loving cannot understand that they are loved. I say to the House that we have a responsibility to stand up now.
In the light of the targeting, recruiting, rearming and intelligence gathering, and every other sordid scam and criminal and murderous activity carried out by the Provisional IRA, does my hon. Friend agree that there can be no fudging? The organisation must be totally dismantled.
I entirely agree. I remind my hon. Friend that we sat in Stormont and listened to a debate on taking care of our children. Who spoke? Mr. McGuinness. He lectured us on how we should bring up our children. I was very angry, and I asked the Speaker if I could intervene. At last I had the opportunity. I said, "You, Mr. McGuinness, were the man who sent to the manse of my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea), on a Sunday evening, gunmen to do what? To murder his children in their beds. The gunmen fired 46 bullets into the bedroom of those children. Thanks to God's mercy, they were not all taken away. Then you have the audacity to say to me 'I will teach you how you should bring up your children'." We have reached a sorry low when all that the House can do to a man like Mr. McGuinness is say "Pay a few thousand pounds, and at the end of the year we will think about you again."
When we think about what PIRA has done, when we think of the killing of Mr. McCartney and—these are, of course, modern deeds—the arson attack on a fuel depot in September, and the fact that PIRA has continued to carry out shootings and assaults, we must surely say that it is time to come to grips with the organisation.
My hon. Friend rightly referred to the courage and bravery of the McCartney sisters after the brutal murder of Robert McCartney. Recently the body of Gareth O'Connor was found after he had been abducted by the IRA. Does my hon. Friend agree that Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness should be called on to go the second line, and make it clear that information should be provided in connection with that case and hundreds of others, not just in connection with the McCartney case? Should they not be asked to take action against their people if they do not come forward with information on all those cases?
Yes, but that action is not going to take place. No one on the Government side of the House, or even in the Irish Republic, is pushing for it, as my hon. Friend and I very well know.
I do not know what we have to do, as public representatives, to urge that the pathway of stern justice must now be taken and that these people must be brought to book for their crimes. I do not want innocent people to suffer, but I want those who have done these vile deeds to be called to account by the court of law in a proper, organised way, so that the people can have justice done. There are people in Northern Ireland who do not even know where those whom the IRA murdered are buried; it will not give up the dead bodies of their loved ones. Sometimes I sit and hold a mother's hand and she says to me, "Ian, if only I could get the body and we could carry it and have a Christian burial, I would have sweet relief. I can't get my son back again, but oh if I only had his body." There are people in the IRA who come to the negotiating table—who come to Downing street and sit down with the Prime Minister—who know, but will not tell, and then I am asked to share power with them.
We made it clear at every meeting that we attended in our negotiations that anything under discussion could take place only under two conditions: first, complete decommissioning that was verifiable and satisfied everyone; and secondly, a cessation of crime. The only people who can tell us that it has ceased are the people who are living in these areas, and they are on their backs.
I said to the Taoiseach yesterday: "I want to be brutally frank with you. When you, and Members of your Government, can stand up and tell the people of Northern Ireland, 'We could now receive the IRA into our Government and enter into a coalition', then the people of Northern Ireland will perhaps begin to believe that it is possible." That is the test. It is all right for two Members of the southern Government—the Taoiseach and his Justice Minister—to argue about disbanding, not being able to use a name, and so on, but these things are inextricably linked. If one cuts two things that are inextricably linked together, they must both fall and be different at the end of the operation.
I, personally, cannot and will not negotiate on that basis, because I am bound by a strict mandate. I got that mandate in spite of fierce odds raised against us by people who said that it could not be done in a party that has ruled Northern Ireland and in which we were all born and bred. I was in the Unionist party for years, the Lord forgive me for my sins. I fought its campaigns and won it seats that it could never have won. I was in it all the way, but then I saw, sadly, betrayals that I personally could not tolerate. Because of that, I had to raise the standard. I did that at a time when no man who rose up in Ulster and challenged official Unionism ever lived. One man—an excellent politician—challenged it, and he was so pressured that he committed suicide. I have survived, and I will tell the House why—because the people now want the truth.
I plead with the Government not to make a big show of what Adams says. Let us test it. If the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach say, "This is great, we never saw anything like it in our lives, look what has been accomplished", it will be the same as it was at the time of the last so-called decommissioning, when the man who occupied the seat in this House where I stand now said, "This is the greatest day in Northern Ireland's history." Within 24 hours, he was saying, "I have to take back everything I've said."
Let us go forward on the one path. Let truth and justice prevail and let there be clarity of speech on all sides. Let people be honest, one with the other, and then we will get somewhere. I am glad that some tiny punishment will take place, but it is far too tiny and it comes far too late.
If anybody thinks that how the Government and others handle the issue of Sinn Fein is a small matter, let them look around the Chamber. For many years, my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and I sat alone as representatives of the Democratic Unionist party. We were encouraged in later years when my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) joined us—at the time, he represented Mid-Ulster—but look at our ranks today.
It is regrettable that when we are dealing with a key issue affecting the constitutional future of Northern Ireland and the safety of its people, the three members of the Social, Democratic and Labour party have gone home or found somewhere else more enjoyable in the House. The large ranks of the Ulster Unionist party seem to have disappeared as well. However, the Minister will not get off easily, because the DUP is here in strength.
Nobody present today would argue that the Government are wrong to penalise Sinn Fein-IRA, but some will question whether their plans are appropriate and sufficient. Perhaps the Minister, when he winds up, could address another issue. As we understand it, the direction deals with funds from this House for parliamentary parties. However, the original direction suspended funds for both Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist party, which the Minister did not mention, at an Assembly level—although it was the decision of the Secretary of State. What happens to Assembly funds for parties that have not met the necessary standards according to the Independent Monitoring Commission and are in default? After all, the IMC report's strictures are addressed not only to Sinn Fein, but to the PUP. Indeed, paragraph 9.9 of the IMC's fifth report, recommends that
"the Secretary of State continues the financial measures in force in respect of the Progressive Unionist Party in the Northern Ireland Assembly."
Will the Secretary of State issue a further direction on that issue?
At the moment, the Secretary of State is considering that aspect of the report in detail and a further announcement will be made once that consideration has taken place.
I am grateful for that clarification, but the anomaly could still arise that the Secretary of State decides to cease funding Sinn Fein from Westminster, but permits Sinn Fein to be funded from Stormont. That would be inconsistent, so I am not sure why the Secretary of State dallies on the issue.
The Government attempted to bring the republican movement along by bringing it in to the political fold. They hoped that they could wean republicans off violence and criminality and that republicans would be so grateful that they would become new-born democrats. The reality, of course, has been very different: they have come into the fold, but they have brought their bad habits with them. They have not given up their past. They hold on to their weapons, continue with paramilitary activity, and still have the largest criminal empire in the whole of these islands. Those are the facts and to this date, nothing in connection with that behaviour has changed.
The IMC's fifth report makes it clear that the Provisional IRA is an active paramilitary organisation, that it is still engaged in all types of paramilitary and criminal activity, and that it has a high state of readiness for paramilitary action. It is in the light of that reality that the Government must look not just at this issue, but at a series of issues.
During the House's original debate on this issue, we argued that if the Government were serious in wanting to impose a penalty on Sinn Fein, they would have to consider a meaningful one. I find it difficult to think of any penalty that will have less impact on the republican movement than a fine of £100,000 or so. In just the past six months, this organisation has carried out a bank robbery, driving off with £26.5 million. It engages in ongoing racketeering, fuel smuggling and the sale of all manner of counterfeit goods. It has its operations along the border. It intimidates developers and builders, who have to pay it regularly. All that has gone on consistently. When I was a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we gauged that some £10 million a year was probably coming in from such activity. These republicans also license drug dealers, whom they permit to sell drugs in their area, and they punish savagely those dealers who do not pay them for the right to sell drugs in their area.
So we are talking about organised crime of a type that we have never seen before in the United Kingdom. It is major business, and the Government's hope and expectation is that the lure of government places in a Northern Ireland Assembly might be sufficient to wean the republican movement away from this major business. Anybody who looked at what happened last December should have learned a lesson. Last December, we were negotiating with Her Majesty's Government, and having talks with the Government of the Irish Republic on matters pertaining to the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Moreover, meetings were taking place principally between Sinn Fein and the Government of the Irish Republic, but also Her Majesty's Government.
While all that was going on and we were discussing in good faith how we might set up an Executive in Northern Ireland, the Sinn Fein leadership, the main participants in which are synonymous in their principles with the leadership of the IRA, were planning a bank heist. While they talked to Ministers about ending criminality, they were considering the details of their next criminal exploit. Does that not indicate something of the mindset of the organisation with which we are dealing today? It indicates clearly that these people's hope, expectation and intention—whatever the wording used on that occasion—was to give up certain elements of their paramilitary activity, but not those which allow them to keep control of their areas. A knee-capping here, an exiling there—they still want to be able to carry out such activities, to keep their rule imposed on the people in the Catholic enclaves. The one thing that they will never give up is their criminality.
The republicans do not consider themselves to be involved in criminality, as we know. According to their theology, they are the legitimate Government. As the Assembly Member for Foyle said, activities carried out in the name of that Government are legitimate, not criminal. To take one specific case, the McConville murder was therefore not considered to be a criminal event. The republican organisation feels that it has the legal authority to rule on the whole of the island of Ireland, and that everything that it does is therefore legitimate.
To deal with those people, the Minister must learn a new language—the language of republicanspeak. It is very different from what the facts or history of Ireland suggest.
The republicans' intention to maintain their criminal empire and paramilitary control of their areas will not be changed in any way by the paltry penalty imposed by the order. We need a root-and-branch punishment of the republican movement. If the Minister wants to impose a penalty, he must do so at every level of government.
In local government, councillors take an oath when they are elected that they will not engage in any activity that promotes a paramilitary organisation. I think that the republicans have about 120 councillors: each one promotes an organisation that is inextricably linked to paramilitary activity, and is therefore in breach of that pledge. No action has ever been taken against them under the law. We need effective legislation to ensure that there are financial penalties at all levels of government—local, Assembly, Westminster and European. After all, it is this House that pays the salaries of UK Members of the European Parliament.
If the Government want to be serious, they must act in the way that I have set out. If they do not do so, it will be clear that the order is merely a matter for public consumption, so that people think that the Government are doing something. In reality, however, it will have no impact on events.
My hon. Friend is right to point out the derisory amount of the sanction to be imposed on Sinn Fein, and the lack of other sanctions. Does he agree that another major defect of the order and the proposed sanction is that it will run out after one year? After that, Sinn Fein will automatically regain its entitlement to the full payments. Would not it be far better to ensure that, once a sanction is applied, the Government must return to this House—and the other place—to gain approval for Sinn Fein receiving money in the future?
That approach would be much more sensible. The House should have to make a determination, based on all the facts, as to whether funds should be given to that organisation.
So far, there has been no mention in the debate of the fact that Sinn Fein should not get the money in the first place. The Sinn Fein Members are not hon. Members in the way that the rest of us are, as they have never taken the Oath and so cannot take their seats.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I want to make it clear that the order relates to Assembly allowances, and not to allowances in this House. The penalty of £120,000 applies to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The question to which we must return, then, is why the PUP is not covered by the order. Both parties are in the Assembly, and both were dealt with by the Government at the same time, in the first instance. The Government need to offer a better explanation of why the link has been broken in this respect.
Our argument is that the penalty should be imposed at all levels of government. The House should have a role in making a determination, based on the facts, about whether funds should be made available. That would be much better than the ritual of the Government seeking extensions to the provisions in the order.
During the last number of weeks—conveniently, it must be said, at the very cusp of the general election to this House—the leader of Sinn Fein-IRA indicated that he was calling on his friends and colleagues in the IRA to bring their activities to an end, or words to that effect. Conveniently, during the rest of the election campaign we were told that that was a powerful statement made by the president of Sinn Fein, that we should all warm to him as a result of it, that it had great promise and that there was cause for hope. The election, of course, is out of the way. A statement from the IRA responding to Mr. Adams's remarks has still not been made. According to the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic yesterday, it will be further delayed, and may come before the end of the summer.
I strongly endorse the words of my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim. There is a tendency on the part of the Government, and an even greater tendency on the part of the fifth estate—our good friends in the media—to take every word that falls from the lips of republicans and indicate that this is something quite unique, quite exceptional, something to be applauded. Then, probably about six months later, they realise that actually there were out-clauses: the carefully crafted words used in the statement allowed the IRA to do something that they had not quite imagined in the first instance. May I, with my hon. Friend, urge the Government to treat any statement from the IRA with the maximum of caution? It is essential that the Government do not take any action based on a statement from Mr. Adams or the IRA. Promises will not cut the delf in Northern Ireland; delivery, and delivery only, will be able to convince people in Northern Ireland that real change has taken place.
There are three critical areas. The first is the decommissioning of weapons—weapons that have been used to kill and maim and threaten in Northern Ireland for generations. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim mentioned the attempt to kill my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea). There was equally an attempt to use those same guns to kill my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds). There are few on this side of the House who have not been threatened or attacked by the Provisional IRA. These are vital issues—life-and-death issues. These are not cold, inanimate objects that people can sign away and deal with in a business-like fashion. They are weapons that have been used to kill and have left devastation behind them, and when we are dealing with this issue, the people out there need to be convinced that the weapons have gone, and gone for good.
The leader of the Ulster Unionist party thought it was sufficient to have some activity taking place in the dark, in a hole in the corner, and for General de Chastelain to come along and tell us that something had happened—although he was unable to tell us how anything had been decommissioned, unable to tell us what had been decomissioned, and unable to give us an inventory of what had been destroyed, if it had been destroyed, or to tell us where it had been destroyed. We were all supposed to be convinced that the IRA had done something of real import on the basis of that report.
If people are to be convinced, they need to have all of the weapons completely destroyed. They need it to be done in a way that is obviously, from the point of view of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, done in a verifiable way, but we need a transparency that we have not had to date—a transparency that we have argued must include the presence of witnesses and the existence of photographs to show every stage of that operation. That is an essential component if the IRA wants to convince people that it has turned over a new leaf and that the weapons are gone for good.
People talk about the requirement to get the IRA quickly into government, as we heard yesterday; they say that there should be no vacuum. However, there must be an absolute requirement that nothing must happen until people are convinced that the republican movement has changed. It must change by handing over its weapons to be destroyed in a way that convinces people. Unless it does so, it will take longer for people to be convinced, and it should be clearly warned about that.
The second issue is paramilitary activity. Even as we speak, the IRA's paramilitary structures continue. The IMC report refers to the training that is still going on; young people are being trained in the use of firearms in what we are told is a peacetime situation. The report states that there have been new discoveries of ammunition, which indicates that new weaponry has been brought into the Province—hardly the action of an organisation that has moved into a new mode of entirely and exclusively peaceful means. Obviously, the IRA must end the exiling of people from Northern Ireland and the targeting of members of the security forces and key people in Northern Ireland. The requirement is that it should dismantle and disband its whole organisation. That is what will be needed to convince people in Northern Ireland that the IRA has gone, and gone for good.
The third issue is criminality. When we met the IMC, its members made it clear that they would need six months to assess properly whether criminality had come to an end. It is essential that the IMC is given all the time it needs so that it can report that its work is at an end and criminality is a thing of the past. However, we shall not use only the IMC as our judge as to whether that has happened; the people whom we represent are better placed to tell us about the activities of republicans locally.
In conclusion, although we shall support the measure, we believe that it is inadequate and less effective than it could be. If the Government want progress in Northern Ireland, the real way to do it is not to try to bring Sinn Fein along by enticements and concessions, but for everybody else to move on and force Sinn Fein to catch up. The surest way to get movement from the republican movement is to show its members that they no longer have a veto and that they cannot hold back the process of democracy in Northern Ireland. When the rest of the democratic world moves on, Sinn Fein will have to follow and it will do so on the terms of the democratic world, rather than the democratic world making concessions to bring Sinn Fein on board.
This is my first opportunity, apart from putting the occasional question, to address the House since the general election. I am delighted to have been returned by the electorate of my constituency for the first time as a Democratic Unionist. I had the honour to be elected for my party. There were some people who said that we could not do it, that the electorate would turn against me for stealing their votes, but the electorate gave their response. I am delighted to have their endorsement once again, and to be part of a team representing the Unionist community, and all the people of Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons.
When I was first elected in 1997, I was part of an Ulster Unionist party team of 10 Members of Parliament. Today, that team is reduced to one. There are lessons to be drawn from that, in so far as they reflect the shift in opinion that has taken place in the Unionist community. That is important when we are considering the issues before the House. Whereas back in 1998 there might have been some tolerance within the Unionist community and latitude given to Sinn Fein-IRA, that is not the view of the overwhelming majority of Unionists today.
It is worth bearing in mind that the IRA's first ceasefire was in 1994. Here we are in June 2005 and we are reflecting on, among other things, an IMC report that, in paragraph 2.13, says:
"We conclude therefore that PIRA remains a highly active organisation. We note that in November 2004 two men were convicted of PIRA membership at the Special Criminal Court in Dublin, and a further five in February of this year. We believe that PIRA is at present determined to maintain its effectiveness, both in terms of organised crime, control in republican areas, and the potential for terrorism."
We are 11 years on from the first ceasefire, but that is the report of an independent commission on the Provisional IRA.
We were told that there would be a period of transition; we were told that we had to be patient and that, in time, we would see the fruits of the peace process as it was described. It has been a long time but now even media commentators take the view that the transition has to be completed now and that the time for flexibility, latitude and transition is gone. That is the reality.
We should not be here today debating further sanctions against an organisation that has effectively been given a veto by the Government over political progress in Northern Ireland. I, like other hon. Members on this Bench, am a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but I cannot exercise the mandate in that Assembly that was given to me by the people of my constituency because it is suspended on the ground that the Provisional IRA was engaging in the kind of terrorist activity reflected in the IMC report.The people whom we represent are denied local accountable government in Northern Ireland because of the activities of the Provisional IRA.
We are all sitting around. Day in and day out, we wait for this statement to come from the IRA and we are told that there cannot be any progress until the IRA makes a statement. That effectively means that the army council of the IRA determines the pace of political progress in Northern Ireland. The rest of us have to sit on our hands and wait for P. O'Neill to deliver a statement, and then things will begin to happen. That is the reality of where politics is in Northern Ireland today, 11 years on from the first IRA ceasefire.That is simply not good enough. We cannot in a democracy allow a terrorist organisation to dictate the political agenda.
Is that not disgusting given that the Justice Minister of a foreign jurisdiction acknowledges that two of the leading members of that terrorist organisation, Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, are members of the army council? Instead of parading them in and out of Downing street, surely justice demands that they be paraded before a court and found guilty of crimes.
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am delighted to see him back in the House again representing South Antrim. I wish him many years in that position. He is absolutely right. It is absurd that two Members of this House refuse to take their seats. They are Members of Parliament and Members of the Assembly, but also senior members of the IRA army council. They are feted by this Government and the Irish Government as some kind of statesmen. The Irish Prime Minister tells us that he has met them on five occasions in recent times to discuss the political process in Northern Ireland.
Negotiations seemed to be going on during the election. The Prime Minister's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, flew into Belfast to hold secret talks with the leadership of Sinn Fein-IRA. However, all the time my party, which represents the majority in Northern Ireland and is the largest political party in Northern Ireland, is constantly told that it cannot put forward a democratic way of moving the political process ahead.
The issue was last debated in the House on 22 February, when the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), said that suggestions had been made in some quarters that the Assembly should be restored and that if it failed to take action to exclude Sinn Fein, he should take action himself using the powers available to him to do that. It is in the gift of the Government to deal with the issue and move the political process forward in Northern Ireland, so I simply ask why they are not doing so.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there can be no fudging whatsoever on the whole decommissioning issue. Will he join me in condemning the targeting and intimidation of members of the Royal Irish Regiment and their families, and of members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and their families? Not a month goes past in my constituency without members of the security forces, along with their families, being intimidated. Their children cannot go into shops, or go to school in different areas.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson)—it has been a while since I have been able to make that particular comment. He is of course absolutely right. During Northern Ireland questions yesterday I raised the way in which the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service battalions are being treated. There is uncertainty about their future and their morale is low. They are being kept in the dark, yet at the same time their members are targeted and their members' families are intimidated. I understand the difficulties involved in thinking ahead about the future deployment of the regiment and the Home Service battalions, but will the Minister understand at a human level the difficulty of the situation for the soldiers and their families because uncertainty surrounds them, yet they still face threats and intimidation? At the same time, they watch the political process and see how the people responsible for such threats and intimidation continue to be treated as though they are democrats.
It is time to remove the veto that the IRA has over the political process. I am told that the statement we were promised will be delayed until perhaps August—when the parade season has ended. There is a desire to see how the summer goes before the statement is made, so we will have yet further weeks and months of delay and procrastination. Why does one have to delay to become a democrat? One either is a democrat, or one is not, but on the basis of the IMC report, Sinn Fein-IRA clearly are not democratic in their entirety or committed to exclusively peaceful means. I tell the Minister that the Secretary of State should take the initiative. He should recall the Assembly. The Assembly should then move to exclude Sinn Fein, but if it is not excluded, he should use his powers to do that. The Social Democratic and Labour party is absent from the House today, and also absent is its courage to step forward and enter a voluntary coalition with the rest of the democratic parties. Perhaps it is time to put things up to that party as well.
I want to touch on two other issues on the subject of the financial sanctions, which the Minister has announced will be continued. Between 1999 and 2004, some £14 million was given to ex-prisoners' groups in Northern Ireland through funding for various projects. Now that is a lot of money. The majority of it has gone to republican ex-prisoners groups. I could list those, but I am afraid that my grasp of the Irish language would fail me. Suffice it to say, we are talking about a great deal of public money going into ex-prisoners groups.
Contrast that with the treatment of some of the victims groups. Families Acting for Innocent Relatives is based in south Armagh. It received a letter yesterday from the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister saying that its application for peace and reconciliation funding for its memorial centre in south Armagh had been rejected. FAIR was looking for £200,000 of capital funding for the purchase of that centre, which provides valuable support to the victims of terrorism.
South Armagh has been described as bandit country. It was a hotbed of IRA activity. Many people were murdered there. I think of atrocities such as Kingsmill, where 10 Protestant workers were lined up against a minibus and shot down in cold blood, and the attacks on Tullyvallen Orange hall and Darkley gospel hall. I could go on. There is a litany of atrocities carried out by the IRA in south Armagh. FAIR is a victims group, representing a large number of those victims and their families. It applied for £200,000 of capital funding for a project for a memorial centre and it was turned down. Yet £14 million has gone to ex-prisoners groups since 1999. Surely there is an inequity that the Government need to consider.
If the Government are in the business of applying financial sanctions and are not prepared to fund the victims, they should have the decency to cut off the funding to the ex-prisoners groups. When we consider some of the activities covered by the IMC report, we find that the people on the front line of those riotous situations who order the beatings and shootings are often the people who were released from prison and who are benefiting from the funding from the ex-prisoners groups.
My final point is on released prisoners and sanctions. When the Government included in the Belfast agreement the provision for the early release of terrorist prisoners in Northern Ireland, it was an emotive issue. We deeply opposed it. Provisions were built into the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 which enabled the Sentence Review Commission, established by the Act, to review the release of any prisoner who was deemed to represent a threat to public safety.
The Minister may be aware of the recent situation involving one of those released prisoners, Sean Kelly—the infamous Shankill bomber—who, along with his accomplice Thomas Begley, murdered nine innocent people on the Shankill road. When Kelly was imprisoned, the judge said that he should spend the rest of his life in prison. He was convicted of nine murders and given nine life sentences, but he was released after just seven years in prison under the terms of the Belfast agreement. That is less than one year in prison for each life Kelly destroyed. Yet on three occasions, he has been pictured in the Ardoyne at a riotous situation. I am not going to go into the detail of what Kelly may or may not have been doing. I simply pose the question to the Minister: has the Secretary of State, using his statutory power, referred the case of Sean Kelly to the Sentence Review Commission?
The Ardoyne is in my constituency. My hon. Friend is right to make the valid and correct point about that infamous IRA killer, who only two weeks ago was pictured in the front line of a riot when attacks were made on Protestant homes in the Twaddell avenue area. It is essential that the Minister addresses that as a matter of urgency and provides reassurance to my constituents in particular.
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right, and he will know at first hand the sense of deep frustration felt by his constituents in north Belfast, particularly on the Shankill road, about the manner in which Kelly continues to be present at riotous situations while the Government turn a blind eye.
I contrast that with the case of Ken Barrett, who was recently convicted of the murder of the solicitor Pat Finucane. Barrett is alleged to have been one of the Ulster Defence Association team that murdered Pat Finucane—the Ulster Freedom Fighters team. Recently, Barrett applied for early release under the terms of the Belfast agreement, as his crime had been committed before 10 April 1998. He was therefore eligible to apply for early release. His application was rejected by the Sentence Review Commission on the basis that he was a danger to the public. I simply pose to the Minister, and through him to the Secretary of State, this question: how is Ken Barrett more of a danger to the public than Sean Kelly? I think that we are entitled to an honest answer to that question.
I am not here today arguing for the release of any prisoner: let me make that absolutely clear. It is the double standards that are the issue. If somebody murders nine Protestants on the Shankill road, they walk free; if somebody murders a Roman Catholic solicitor in Belfast, they stay in prison. Is Pat Finucane's life worth more than that of one of the children whom Sean Kelly murdered in that fish shop on the Shankill road? I do not think that the people of the Shankill would accept that the life of one of those children whom he murdered is any less valuable than that of Pat Finucane, so why do the Government act as they do, through the Sentence Review Commission, which is supposed to be independent? We just wonder why it happens to be that the people who are returned to prison or stay there happen to be those who murdered republicans, and that those who murdered Protestants are those who are set free—and when they are free, they seem to be able to engage in whatever activity they wish, without any sanction. I hope that the Minister will address those issues.
With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the helpful comments that hon. Members from all parts of the House have made today.
First, I wish to be clear on the direction, which does indeed remove Sinn Fein's entitlement to funding under the financial assistance for political parties scheme. That is the funding that is available to parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the purpose of the direction is to reflect the removal of the funds available in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Despite many of the comments made by hon. Members, there is a general welcome for the direction. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who I know has had to leave—I understand the reasons why that is the case—and of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), as well as from other hon. Members. It is clear that the IMC has reached a measured conclusion about the level of Provisional IRA activity, which has led to the issue of the direction and to its being recommended to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has accepted that recommendation and accepted the IMC's report in its entirety, which is why the motion is before us.
Much of what hon. Members have said obviously expresses the wish to go further than the direction, but we are implementing the wishes of the IMC in its recommendations to the Secretary of State. There is also clear agreement in all parts of the House with regard to the need for an end to paramilitary and criminal activity. I emphasise that the objective of the Government in taking forward the peace process—indeed, it is a precondition for continuing the peace process—is that that paramilitary and criminal activity ceases. The Government and all hon. Members await any statement from the Provisional IRA to assist in that process, if and when it comes, and I know that all hon. Members agree on that objective.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aylesbury for his support on the objectives in the IMC report and on ending criminal and paramilitary activity. He has indicated that he wants to examine the question of the proscription of the IRA, which we must take one step at a time. We have examined paramilitary and criminal activity, and we have set out Government policy on those issues.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who spoke for the Liberals, mentioned David Ford's 10-point plan. I intend to meet Mr. Ford very shortly, and I have no doubt that we will discuss the 10 points in detail.
In addition to his remarks about paramilitary and criminal activity, which I fully understand, I share the view of the hon. Member for North Antrim about the bravery of the McCartney sisters, who have had the courage to stand up for their beliefs in difficult circumstances over the past few months. As I have said, all hon. Members await with interest an IRA statement on those matters.
The hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) have indicated their concern about the penalty for the Provisional IRA. Hon. Members know that a £120,000 penalty will be imposed in this financial year as a result of the IMC report should this House approve the motion tonight. Under current legislation, 12 months is the maximum period for which the Government can impose the directive, but we will examine that issue, and if criminal and paramilitary activity continues further orders cannot be ruled out, if the IMC recommends them. A penalty of £120,000 is severe and it will hinder Sinn Fein's operations in the Assembly.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) said that he is pleased to be back in the House. May I say that we are all pleased to be back in the House? I also welcome the hon. Members for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) to the House—I know that the hon. Member for South Antrim has returned to the House after an absence of some years, and I know what a pleasure it is.
We hope to make progress on some of the issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley. I cannot comment on the cases that he has mentioned this evening involving Sean Kelly and Ken Barrett, but I recognise the points that he has made. However, it is not for me to comment on those cases this evening because they fall outside the scope of the directive.
I want to emphasise to hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Government are committed to taking the peace process forward, and we are committed to ending paramilitary and criminal activity in Northern Ireland. That is the basis under which this House is considering the order this evening, and that is the reason why we have accepted the IMC recommendation. The Provisional IRA has been identified as having a responsibility and an involvement in serious incidents of a criminal and paramilitary nature in Northern Ireland, which I say more in sorrow than in anger.
That is acceptable to neither hon. Members on both sides of the House or the Government, which is why we have introduced the order tonight. I want to see the order passed this evening as it has been in another place. We want to see a complete end to paramilitary and criminal activity in order to achieve the objective of the hon. Members for Belfast, North, for Lagan Valley and for Belfast, East—the restoration of the Assembly so that people in Northern Ireland can make decisions in their own communities on behalf of their own communities. As a direct rule Minister, dealing with two Departments in Northern Ireland, I am acutely aware of that need.
I give hon. Members the assurance that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, the Government team and I are committed to trying to restore the Assembly at an early date, subject to a peaceful conclusion and an end to paramilitary and criminal activities in Northern Ireland. We all share that objective and that is the reason for tabling the motion today.The IMC has recognised that paramilitary and criminal activity continues and we cannot therefore support Sinn Fein in the Assembly.
I hope that I have answered some of points that were made in the short time that I had. Time is pressing. I commend the motion and I hope that we can agree to it this evening to achieve the objectives that we all share.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the direction given by the Secretary of State under section 51B(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 on 1st April 2005, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)),
That—
(1) the draft Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 29th June at half past Two o'clock; and
(3) at that sitting—
(a) the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and shall then consider the instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
(b) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee(sittings)).—[Mr. Coaker.]
Helen Wilkinson
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coaker.]
I am extremely grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate, in which I want to tell the story to date of my constituent, Helen Wilkinson, and her medical records.
The story raises profound issues in relation to civil liberties, especially privacy and confidentiality. Before I tell it, I want to set out for hon. Members' benefit only one of the possibilities that it raises. I want hon. Members or anyone who reads the debate to imagine that they have a medical problem, such as a sexual dysfunction problem. The person concerned goes to see a doctor, who enters notes about the problem on his or her computer. The problem is successfully treated. Years later, a senior receptionist at another practice meets the recovered patient socially. The receptionist thinks, "I wouldn't mind finding out a bit more about this person." The next day, the receptionist—unethically and illegally—accesses the recovered patient's doctor's notes, which are held on a national NHS computer database and ferrets out private and confidential details, to whatever end, without, of course, the recovered patient knowing anything about the breach of privacy.
I could suggest myriad other disturbing possibilities that the story of Helen Wilkinson raises. I sketched out one simply to give a flavour of them. Without further ado, I shall tell Helen's story so far.
Helen works as a national health service practice manager. Indeed, she has worked in the NHS for some 20 years. So when it comes to the NHS, NHS offices, staff, patients and records, it can fairly be said that she knows what she is talking about.
Some time ago, Helen discovered that the University College London Hospitals trust had sent computer records of every hospital medical treatment that she had ever received to a private company, McKesson, which holds a mass of NHS records. Those records are then passed on, as Helen's were, to computer systems used by the NHS. Helen's records thus became available to several NHS bodies, such as the Thames Valley strategic health authority, Wycombe primary care trust and so on.
Helen asked to see her records under the Data Protection Act 1998, as she is fully entitled to do, and she discovered when she examined them that there was a serious mistake in them. She was effectively and, I repeat, mistakenly, registered as an alcoholic. Helen resolved, given her anger about the mistake, her concern about the many people who have access to even the correct parts of her record, and her anxiety about the even larger number who might well have access to it as the NHS computerisation programme proceeds, that she wanted her records removed from NHS systems altogether.
It is important to explain that, as matters stand, NHS patients have the right to object to data about them being held in a form that identifies them, but only when that causes or is likely to cause substantial or unwarranted damage or distress. It is not clear, if those data are held by a number of NHS bodies, as Helen's are, who decides whether damage or distress is caused or is likely to be caused.
I wrote to the then Minister responsible, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), last autumn.
It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cawsey.]
I asked the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness to grant Helen's request. I received a reply from him dated 5 November that explained:
"The removal of patients from the systems that Ms Wilkinson has identified is neither simple nor straightforward".
It added that the ethics advisory group of the Care Records Development Board was considering the matter.
Helen then took a drastic decision, but the only proper decision that she believed was open to her. She decided to withdraw from the NHS as a patient altogether so that her records—including, of course, the mistaken registration of her as an alcoholic—could be removed from NHS computer systems. So, in summary, my constituent argues that she has had to withdraw from the NHS to protect her privacy.
I want to ask the Minister some questions that relate specifically to my constituent. On the "Today" programme earlier this year, her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, said in relation to my constituent:
"It must be possible to correct this"—
namely, the mistake in Helen's records. That Minister went on to say:
"There is not a problem here."
So, may I ask this Minister whether it would have been possible to correct the mistake, considering the large number of NHS bodies to which the mistaken information was distributed, as so many different bodies held it?
The then Minister also said on the same programme:
"Mrs. Wilkinson does not have to have a national care record if she does not want one."
May I ask this Minister whether that is correct? How can it be correct when a patient has the right to have such records removed only when they are judged to be causing, or to be likely to cause, that patient substantial and unwarranted damage or distress?
In a further letter to me dated 5 May, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said:
"I have directed officials to ensure that her data"—
that is, Helen's data—
"is removed from those systems for which the Department of Health is legally responsible as data controller".
May I ask the Minister whether that has happened yet? If not, by what date will it happen?
The former Minister wrote to me in a letter dated 30 November:
"While your constituent may have opted not to seek NHS care, NHS services have not been withheld".
On that point, can this Minister clarify what would happen were my constituent to be, for example, taken suddenly into hospital? Would any notes made go into NHS computer systems? If so, would my constituent have to leave the NHS, so to speak, all over again to get any new records removed from those systems—not that she would have taken any decision to re-enter the NHS in the first place?
I want to discuss some wider issues raised by Helen's story, which I tried to illustrate at the start of my speech. I said that Helen's story raises profound issues in relation to civil liberties—in particular, privacy and confidentiality. It does so partly because her evolving story is bound up with the evolving story of the NHS computerisation programme.
Helen's records, like those of others, are held partly on paper and partly on computer. Obviously, not all NHS staff throughout Britain have access to the paper records and not all NHS bodies nationwide have access by means of their computer systems to the computer systems of other NHS bodies.
That situation will gradually change. As I understand it, the last seven years-worth of records held on the NHS-wide clearing service, or NWCS, which is a hospital computer system, and records held on GP computer systems will eventually end up on the NHS care record service, or NCRS, into which information from NHS Direct will also flow. At this point, it is important to grasp that the Care Records Development Board, to which I referred earlier, is recommending that patients should, in future, as the fully functioning NCRS comes on-stream, not be able to opt out of having a national care record. That is indeed a potential challenge to privacy and confidentiality, with serious civil liberties implications.
Other NHS patients will be as concerned as Helen—some media discussion on the matter has already occurred—about the confidentiality of their records, if those records end up on a national system that a large number of NHS bodies and individuals, including social workers for example, can access. After all, those records will hold data set down by nurses, health visitors, midwives, physiotherapists, psychologists, laboratory staff, sexually transmitted disease and addiction workers, ambulance crews and so forth. It is a long list. Those records will contain information about such sensitive matters as sexuality, ethnicity, genetics, mental health, intellectual impairment, illicit drug use, imprisonment, abortion, contraception, impotence, paternity, infertility, HIV, personal relationships, domestic violence, rape and abuse in childhood—again, a long list.
The right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness set out in his letter to me, dated 4 May, apparent safeguards, which will, in future, he claimed, protect patient privacy and confidentiality. He set those out under certain headings such as legitimate relationships, role-based access control, the patient's sealed envelope, opting out of information sharing, stop noting, and so on. I do not have time, and perhaps it is not my function, to explain to the House what those safeguards are in detail, but I would like to ask the Minister some questions about them, and perhaps if she does not have time to answer all of them tonight, she might indicate that she would be willing to write to me in due course.
I see the Minister nodding, which indicates that she will write to me if she has to do so.
Will there be the computer facility to withhold part of an individual's record from NCRS, as I have seen it argued that there will be no such facility? What trials, if any, of the envelope software in clinical settings have taken place, and what did they find? In his letter to me, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said that in certain circumstances, health professionals will be able to break the envelope seal. He wrote that
"this action can only be justified in specific circumstances, is audited and can be notified to the patient".
Who, therefore, will decide whether the patient is notified, and how?
In his letter to me, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said that, in some cases,
"care professionals can themselves create a legitimate relationship".
Under what circumstances precisely can they do so? Is my constituent correct in asserting to me that third parties will be able to access a patient's data without that patient having the right to know whether third parties have accessed their data and whom those third parties were? The story that I sketched out at the beginning was an illustration of the claim that my constituent has made to me.
What assessment will the Department make of the effect on the nation's health of significant numbers of people, potentially, withholding important information from their doctors or from other health professionals because of concerns about confidentiality? What assessment will it make of the possibility of hackers altering data held on the NCRS and falsifying medical or other records? Will the NCRS and the proposed identity cards database be linked and, if so, under what circumstances is it proposed that the police or other agencies will have access to the records held on NCRS? Finally, what assessment of the clinical need for an NCRS has the Department made?
In conclusion, I recognise that serious issues about patient confidentiality and privacy arise under the current part-computer, part-pen-and-ink system, so the concerns that I raise are not entirely new. I acknowledge that a national computer system might, in some circumstances, help treat patients quickly who would otherwise not be treated so quickly. I realise that Governments of any colour have a difficult task in striking the right balance between, say, developing patient treatment on the one hand and protecting patient privacy on the other. Above all, I concede that new technology itself throws up new challenges to confidentiality and privacy.
I remain concerned that there are, in respect of the NCRS and as my hon. Friend the shadow health Secretary said, "serious unresolved issues" on patient confidentiality. I have tried to raise some of those issues in the context of the story, which is still unfolding, of my constituent, Helen Wilkinson.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) on securing the Adjournment debate today. His purpose has been to do what he can, quite properly as a constituency Member, to voice the legitimate concerns of his constituent. I fully understand those concerns. In many areas of life—whether in relation to banking, criminal or health records, for example—there is a requirement on the Government and the agencies with which they work to ensure that they maintain public confidence in the development of new technologies.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that the best intentions lie behind these new developments. We want to ensure that people can get the best possible health care, and it is important to recognise that health care can be offered in a number of different environments, which involve different sorts of health professionals in both primary and secondary care. I hope that he agrees that our intentions are right, but that there is an important task for us all in ensuring that we have the public's confidence in what we are trying to develop.
I want to put on record my sympathy, which I am sure is shared by everyone who has heard about the distress experienced by Ms Wilkinson, for her distress at finding an embarrassing error in the record of her NHS treatment. I am very pleased to be able to confirm that that error has now been expunged and that we have respected Ms Wilkinson's further request that all her patient data be removed from the existing national database, although we have certain reservations about the consequences of doing so.
We recognise that there will be some people—Ms Wilkinson is, I think, the first, but no doubt there will be others—who feel so strongly about what they see as threats to the confidentiality of their personal health information that they will seek to remove any possibility of this information being shared within the NHS. Let me make it clear, however, that we do not envisage any circumstances in which patients who choose to have some or all of their records deleted will be "deregistered" from the NHS or otherwise denied NHS care against their wishes. That is an important point in the light of what the hon. Member for Wycombe said in his speech this evening.
What we cannot do, of course, is provide people who do not wish to be part of the new joined-up care records system with the benefits that an electronic record will provide. I would now like to focus on the new system of electronic records that we are in the process of introducing through the national programme for information technology, and the benefits that it will bring. In doing so, I hope to touch on some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If I cannot respond in full now, I shall certainly write to him in due course.
Some health records are already held on computers, but much—I would suggest too much—is still kept on paper. Records on paper can present challenges in respect of security of information. The shortcomings of the NHS, as it continues to depend in the 21st century on record-keeping and communication systems invented in the 19th century, are all too transparent. Records are not always available to staff providing care; handwritten entries in the record may be difficult to read; and important information may be missing. Patients themselves are often inconvenienced or put in a difficult position by having to tell staff the same information over and over again. Ms Wilkinson's distressing experience and the embarrassment that it caused her highlight the need for improvement.
We have committed quite unprecedented sums of taxpayers' money—£6.2 billion over last year and the next nine years—to revolutionise the way health information is accessed and shared. The key reasons are that electronic records and clinical communications will improve the safety and quality of care, underpin choice for patients, and increase the productive capacity of NHS clinicians and staff, potentially saving huge sums in unnecessary treatment and wasteful litigation costs. I think it will also help us to build a patient-led NHS, give us opportunities to consider how we can better safeguard information and give patients rights relating to it, and—this is important—create mechanisms to prevent some of the scenarios described by the hon. Gentleman. It will deal with questions of who will and will not have access to the information, and give patients some choice about who those people should be. It should also allow for electronic identification of people who may gain access to the system when they have no right to do so. That is important in any system involving information, whether it is held on paper or electronically.
The new system will give health care professionals secure access to patient information, and the means to update a patient's care record where and when that is needed. Errors will thus be more easily identified and corrected. From the outset, the system will hold records on an individual's care in a national computer system so that wherever care is sought, health care professionals can have access to the most up-to-date information.
The hon. Gentleman opened his speech with an example of what might happen. A receptionist might meet someone at a party, then go back to the practice and try to gain access to the person's records. I am informed, and I believe, that access rights will not enable those who are not involved in the provision of care to see records. Unauthorised access will be marked on the system, and therefore subject to audit. That is one of the opportunities granted to us by an electronic system.
We have provided the most stringent safeguards for security and confidentiality. We hope that anyone who is concerned about information will be reassured by them. The new system will allow patients to determine whether information recorded in one organisation can be seen elsewhere in the NHS: it will be their choice. Even when patients permit such access, only those involved in their care will have access to their records or to information that identifies them, and they will see only the parts of the record that are needed to inform care. That answers some of the hon. Gentleman's points about the whole health record, and about the possibility that some people might have access to information that was not appropriate. The system is designed to tackle that. Everyone who may have access will be authorised appropriately, and will need a smart card as well as a password. Crucially, the system will register the identity of everyone who looks at the records. That is important as a safeguard and as an audit trail to check that unauthorised access is not being allowed.
The way in which the new system protects patients' interests is explained in the care record guarantee published by my noble Friend Lord Warner on 25 May. Before the NHS care records service becomes operational, it will be made available to every household in the country. The guarantee makes 12 commitments to patients on their records, relating to matters such as access to records for NHS staff and how it will be limited. Patients will be able to block access to parts of their records to prevent them from being shared by anyone in the NHS except in an emergency. They will also be able to prevent their records from being seen by anyone other than the NHS organisations that recorded the information, although they will have to accept that that may sometimes affect the quality of care—which, again, is part of engaging patients in their care in the first place. Identifiable patient information will not be shared with any organisation outside the NHS unless patients give consent, the law requires disclosure, or there is evidence that failure to disclose the information might put others at risk. Child protection cases are an example of that.
The Minister spoke of an audit trail, and the possibility of tracing the details of anyone who has looked at a patient's records. Will patients have an automatic right to know who has been looking at their records?
I understand that they will. The hon. Gentleman referred to a sealed envelope. I understand that the sealed envelope will be opened only when health professionals are convinced that not doing so would put the patient's health at risk. The Caldicott guardian, who is a senior clinician in a trust responsible for confidentiality, will decide in those circumstances if the patient needs to be informed, but patients can ask at any time to know who has looked at their record.
The right to have inaccurate data rectified or erased, or to have any concerns about the processing of data seriously considered, is enshrined in statute. We are currently considering how such concerns can be practically addressed. We recognise that a transparent process needs to be established for people with concerns, and clear and applicable criteria for dealing with requests. It is not a simple matter, as there are significant medico-legal implications in deleting health information, even where it is incorrect, if someone has relied on it to make a decision. Part of the reason for that, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, is to protect the patient from people who might want to change records that could have implications in the future if the patient wanted to complain about their treatment or about how they were treated in the health service.
I also need to make the important point that, should people choose not to be part of the joined-up care records system, that will not only constrain how the NHS can help them but prevent the NHS from learning and improving on how it manages the care of others with similar conditions. That is not in order for people to know who the individual is, but to look at the case management of people with serious illnesses and diseases. We are determined to engage the public in understanding the benefits, both personal and system-wide, of the electronic care record and the way in which it will lead to a more efficient NHS, improve the quality of care and increase choice. That is why we published the care record guarantee.
I hope that my remarks will be of some assistance to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I will reply on any matters that I have been unable to deal with. I also hope that what I have said tonight has been a real opportunity to outline, in a public forum, some of the reasons why we are moving in this direction and how seriously we take the issues of confidentiality in the new system.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Six o'clock.