| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3.28 pm
Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): I shall be fairly brief and raise what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) might describe as a parochial issue: the Richard commission to examine the powers of, and electoral arrangements for, the National Assembly for Wales. In case some hon. Members are not aware of the fact, I should point out that the Richard commission was not elected. It was not accountable and, indeed, could not be removed.
I gave evidence to the commission, and it was fairly obvious that it was not only undemocratic, but incompetent. I provided it with a written submission, which I read out to it. Lord Richard then informed me that the commission would be unable to cross-examine me because it did not have prior information about what I was going to say. I found that amazing, because Members of this House cross-examine Ministers daily; Assembly Members in Cardiff cross-examine Ministers daily; and, indeed, members of my local authority cross-examine executive members of the council daily. It seems as if Lord Richard did not have the ability to carry out the act that each of us does just about every day of the year.
It was obvious from the day that the Richard commission was set up that its conclusions would merely reflect "his master's voice"—"his master" being Rhodri Morgan. I raised that matter when I addressed the commission. When I said that I could anticipate its conclusions, Lord Richard was not too happy. I said, "Well, you were appointed by Rhodri Morgan, so you reflect the views of Rhodri Morgan." He intervened quickly to say that Rhodri Morgan did not appoint the commission's members. I posed the question, "Who appointed you?" He replied, "Rhodri Morgan", to which I replied, "End of the argument." Lord Richard did not appoint all the members of the commission, because Rhodri Morgan was also involved.
When I read the Richard commission's recommendations yesterday, I was not at all surprised. As I had anticipated, its proposals reflected "his master's voice". Although I was not surprised, I thought, "What a cheek these people have got." Some of us remember, and were involved in, the campaign on whether we should have a National Assembly for Wales. I argued that we should not; I said that having such an Assembly would eventually lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, but I was told that I was talking nonsense and scaremongering. We were told that the creation of the National Assembly for Wales—or Welsh Assembly, as it is more popularly known—was necessary because Wales had become a quango state and that, increasingly, all the most important decisions were taken by quangos. We were told that the way to rectify that wrong was to create the National Assembly for Wales and to give it the power to prompt a bonfire of all those quangos.
I have studied that matter in detail, and I published a pamphlet on it a short time ago. We find that there are now more quangos than when the Assembly was established; that there are more than when the referendum took place; and that they are more powerful and have even greater influence on the politics of Wales today than when they were criticised several years ago. The bonfire of the quangos has not happened; the process has been a damp squib, because there are more quangos than before. The Assembly was supposed not only to get rid of the quangos, but to democratise Wales. The powers in the hands of the quangos were to be transferred either to a democratically elected Welsh Assembly or to local authorities. As yet, we have seen neither a bonfire of the quangos nor the democratisation of Wales. If the Assembly has not used its powers to make a bonfire of the quangos, which the electorate marginally gave it some years ago, why should we agree—this demonstrates the cheek of the Richard commission—to the demand for even more powers?
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made the point that some people in Wales say, "We've got to have powers identical to those of the Scottish Parliament", but I have never understood that argument. I have always been in favour of devolution, but opposed to the creation of the Welsh Assembly. I often heard the argument that we are different in Wales and that that explained why we needed an institution that was different from that in Scotland. At least that was a good argument, but we have reverted to merely copying Scotland.
Decisions should be made at the most appropriate level. For example, some decisions might best be made by local authorities or the Welsh Assembly, but decision making about health in Wales is not a classic example of a subject that requires more devolution from Westminster to Cardiff—the opposite. National health service powers should revert to Westminster, because the way in which they have been used in Wales since the establishment of the Welsh Assembly is unacceptable.
I have great regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and I agreed with 90 per cent. of his speech, but I do not agree with his point that unemployment rates now, compared with those in 1997, are an example of the Welsh Assembly's success. I do not believe that a decrease in unemployment in Wales is a result of the Welsh Assembly's contribution. If that were so, one would not expect a similar decrease in other parts of the United Kingdom, yet dramatic decreases have occurred elsewhere. Not too many years ago, I participated in demonstrations and campaigns against the fact that 3 million people were on the dole.
We are going down the slippery slope. When we held the referendum, I said, "Take it from me, before Assembly Members have the opportunity to put their bums on their seats, they will be demanding a Parliament." I was told that that was scaremongering. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and before their bums hit the seats in the Assembly building in Cardiff bay, they demanded a Parliament. If we agreed to a Parliament, they would demand even more powers. One day, we would wake up and find that Wales was separate from the rest of the United Kingdom—the nationalist dream become reality.
We were told that a Welsh Assembly would revolutionise Wales, but no reasons for that were given. It was said that the mere existence of an Assembly would be enough to bring about a revolution. In the months ahead, different parts of the Labour movement—and, I am sure, Parliament—will debate the Richard report. I was one of those whom a then Cabinet member threatened to kick out of the Labour party if I campaigned against a Welsh Assembly. I say in advance, in case history repeats itself, that if the creation of a Parliament is in our manifesto for the next general election, I shall campaign against it.
The Richard commission recommends that we should increase the number of Assembly Members from 60 to 80. Before the Assembly was set up, Parliament was responsible for all primary and secondary legislation and there were 40 Members of Parliament in Wales. The Welsh Assembly was created with 60 Members, simply to examine secondary legislation, but it is not satisfied. Should it have primary legislative powers, it wants 80 Members, even though it would not have the work load or responsibility of this Parliament.
An additional 20 Assembly Members might not go down too well with the taxpayers, but we are told not to worry because they would cost only another £10 million. Before the referendum, we were told by the yes campaign that a Welsh assembly would cost £20 million, which would be more than enough to run it, and that it would be funded through a bonfire of the quangos. Following the appointment of hundreds of additional civil servants, the cost of running the Assembly is in fact hundreds of millions of pounds.
Another recommendation arising from the Richard commission involves the possibility of a referendum. I am totally opposed to the proposals, as I have said, but if they should go through this House and become a reality, I would participate in the referendum campaign. The question asked should concentrate not only on whether we should give the Welsh Assembly more powers, but on whether we wish to scrap that institution. That would be a far more balanced referendum. I hope that I shall not have to participate in any such referendum, because I hope that my party will have the good sense not to go down the separatist road. If it does, I shall participate in the referendum campaign, as I did in the previous one.
3.41 pm
Virginia Bottomley (South-West Surrey) (Con): I very much appreciate having the opportunity to draw to the House's attention five important issues for my constituents.
The first, following the comments of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith), relates not to legislation but to the implications and delivery that follow on from legislation. Yesterday, Michael Varah, who had been the chief probation officer for Surrey, left the probation service before time, and I hope that the Home Secretary will look into the reasons for his departure. Surrey is an area where it is difficult to find public servants, yet it has exceeded others in its delivery of probation services. It is the third highest performer out of the 42 probation services, and has achieved the highest score on the European excellence model, and the highest level of sentencer satisfaction in the south-east.
Its Investors in People award has been renewed, and it is the top-performing area out of 42 in terms of efficient use of space and its accredited programme completions. It also has the highest staff job satisfaction in the south-east, which is a remarkable outcome, and it was the first to achieve the citizens charter award. Michael Varah is leaving his post early, and all that I ask of the Home Secretary is to ensure that Mr. Varah's views on the National Offender Management Service are properly considered. The legislation has gone through, and it will be two months before the new service begins its work. The comments of a public servant such as Michael Varah, who is dedicated to the general good, would be very useful indeed.My second subject is Farnham castle, of which I am president. It is a wonderful 12th century castle dedicated to intercultural briefing. For years, it was dedicated to training British expats going overseas to work in different parts of the world. It has reinvented its mission and is now involved in briefing people coming to this country. My connection is with Sir Bernard Crick's work, "The New and the Old", the report of the Life in the United Kingdom advisory group. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 required that residents seeking British citizenship be tested to show that they had a sufficient knowledge of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic, and a sufficient knowledge of life in the United Kingdom. I have been interested in race relations for many decades—perhaps since I was chairman of the juvenile court in Brixton at the time of the Brixton riots—and I believe that the provision of sensitive training and preparation for people coming to live in this country is enormously important. Farnham castle has run four excellent pilot programmes for teachers of English as a second language. However, work on the highly skilled migrant programme and in other areas seems to have come to a grinding halt. There were high expectations for those initiatives, which I believe could make a profound difference. Will the Minister ensure that I receive a reply from the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office, to tell me what the next steps are to be? The programmes that Farnham castle has run, which Sir Bernard Crick visited, were funded generously by the Esmée Fairburn foundation. There appears to be no funding and no progress, but surely at this time, when race relations are perhaps more important than at any previous time, some practical examples of good practice could be developed.
One thing that I shall miss when I am no longer a Member of Parliament is the diversity of issues that constituents bring to us. Last Friday, students from the Surrey Institute of Art and Design came to my surgery. I imagined that they were going to protest, as students did yesterday, about the Government's appalling steps to ensure that students live in poverty and are discouraged from applying for courses that provide no immediate remuneration. But that was not the case. James Lee and his team from the Surrey Institute of Art and Design came to see me on a subject on which I have never been contacted previously. They wanted me to know that one of the unforeseen consequences of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 may be the loss of up to 50 per cent. of public toilets. The British Toilet
Association, about whose existence I must admit that I was not altogether well briefed, has done excellent work on this matter. Its strong belief is that in too many cases local authorities will close public toilets because it is too costly to make them disabled-accessible. I ask the Minister whether he can bring this matter to the attention of the Minister for Local and Regional Government, and perhaps discussions can take place with the Local Government Association, so that the excellent students at the Surrey Institute of Art and Design, while disappointed at the Government's progress with regard to student fees, can at least feel encouraged on this matter of fundamental importance.My constituency has an Abbeyfield home at Haslemere, two in Farnham, and a special care Abbeyfield home. There are 800 Abbeyfield homes across the country. Taking over from Dame Gillian Wagner, I have become the national president. Abbeyfield's concern is that lack of progress on the supporting people grant is putting its work in serious jeopardy. I am sure that virtually every Member values the work that Abbeyfield society homes do in their constituencies to provide sheltered accommodation and support to older people, with care, companionship and privacy in a collegiate atmosphere. Volunteers and others are generous with their time and resources. At a time when all too many homes for the elderly are closing because the Government insist on higher standards without being able to make the financial means available, it would be a great shame if such an effective, successful movement were seriously jeopardised. I simply ask that the Deputy Prime Minister's colleague who is most responsible for this issue should meet Brian House, Abbeyfield's chief executive, to discuss why a relatively small modification in the supporting people grant could make all the difference.
I fear that my last and fifth point is of a particularly grave and disappointing nature. The rumour mill in my constituency is turning once again about grave and serious implications from internal NHS decisions, which will force decisions on our local primary care trust that will be entirely unacceptable to local people, and that will entirely breach the growing respect and confidence that they have begun to regain in the NHS. One of the greatest disappointments about Labour when it came to power was that in the first couple of years after 1997, as many as one in 10 of my constituents were waiting more than a year for in-patient treatment, whereas the figure in Durham was only ever one in 100. We had a serious crisis, with more and more people having to go to private sources to ensure that they received adequate health care. I have now received messages again from Milford hospital and Haslemere hospital suggesting that the flexibility that was available will be withdrawn and that several million pounds will be taken out of the budget, or decisions will be taken that will entirely destroy any sense of consensus about the NHS. I hope that the Minister will bring that to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health. Surrey contains many people who pay a high rate of tax. They pay the Chancellor of the Exchequer in good spirit, but they expect a fair return. It is wrong that people on social security in Surrey should receive a much worse standard of health care than people on social security in Bermondsey or Durham. The cost of living and the cost
of wages are so great in Surrey that the delivery of public services is particularly difficult there. We have already lost an excellent health authority chief executive—someone like Michael Varah—who was dedicated to the NHS. Six years ago, she was asked to try to deliver the undeliverable. We now have a new team, dedicated and professional, who fear that mounting pressures may prevent them from delivering what is required. We must present our public servants with challenges that are achievable. I hope that the Minister will be able to convey that to the Secretary of State for Health before the Easter break.I hope that I have spoken within my allotted 10 minutes, which will have pleased my colleagues. I apologise to the Minister for not being able to be present for the winding-up speech. That is a grave discourtesy—but I will read every word with the greatest care as I open my Easter eggs.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |