|
Adam Price (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr) (PC): I am tempted to debate the merits of impeachment with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), but I am sure, Mr. Griffiths, that you would say now is neither the time nor the place, although I am hopeful that somebody will soon tell me what is the time and the place for that necessary debate.
Lembit Öpik: It seems to the Liberal Democrats that there is a case for holding a debate about what legislation might be required in order to ensure that this country will never again be taken to war on what looks like false premises on the judgment of one man.
Adam Price: Indeed. Certainly, the impeachment motion that has been tabled would allow us to have that debate, and I urge the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire to sign up to it. The impeachment of the Prime Minister was left out of the Queen's Speech; I am sure that that was an administrative oversight, but it was not there, so we must move on to what was in the speech.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) referred to proposals for a single equality and human rights commission. According to advocacy of equality groups in Wales, a key issue is, as she suggested, how that will be implemented. A human rights commission was created for Northern Ireland in 1999 by international treaty, so presumably that will continue. The Scottish Executive have said that they want to create a Scottish human rights commissioner. There will be a gap, because we will have separate human rights commissioners for Northern Ireland and Scotland, but a joint commission for England and Wales.
We saw this pattern with the Children's Commissioner. We have commissioner confusion. It would be far better for there to be separate commissioners in these important areas for each of the constituent nations of the UK. A UK body can be created as well if there is a need for one. That is the danger with the very welcome proposal for an older
Column Number: 63
person's commissioner for Wales. Will there be subsequent legislation to create an England and Wales commission in addition to that? We may need a commission on commissioners, but we need a solution to what is becoming a very confusing picture. There are particular human rights issues in Wales, as there are in Northern Ireland, which deserve a separate and distinct commissioner for Wales. I make that plea notwithstanding the fact that creating a human rights commission is a very important step forward.
The hon. Member for Conwy mentioned transport. Many of the proposals in the Transport (Wales) Bill are very welcome. One would hope that the Government would consider in discussion of the Bill many of the positive suggestions made by the Welsh Affairs Committee, notwithstanding the Government's rejection of some of those ideas in their response.
The hon. Member for Monmouth referred to school transport, which obviously affects rural areas in particular, but not only rural areas. There is the separate issue of Welsh-medium schools, which lends a particular dimension to the problem. Interestingly, approximately 250 schoolchildren use the Cambrian coast line, and we need to be careful that changes to school transport provision do not have a negative impact on the public transport infrastructure. The Cambrian coast line receives more than £100,000 a year because of the current situation with school transport, and we should be mindful of that.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn referred to the positive proposals in the Consumer Credit Bill. I would like the Bill to go further and include an interest rate cap, and I understand that the Minister has not closed the door on that, but the proposals are positive, particularly the one to change from an extortionate interest rate test to an unfairness test, which will allow more people to bring successful cases than were brought under the old Consumer Credit Act. My one plea is for the Bill to be on the statute book before the general election. Quite a queue is developing, particularly from the Home Office, but this is one provision that will make a real difference to many people, particularly in disadvantaged communities.
Let us have an injection of honesty into the debate about the pre-Budget report. At the macroeconomic level, the Chancellor has had a very successful period in dealing with unemployment and inflation in the UK. He is right to point that out, and it would be invidious of me or anyone else to suggest that that is not the case. I therefore make not a party political point, but an observation: I do not detect a real feel-good factor out there, despite the economic record, but I do detect a degree of economic insecurity. People feel a little insecure about the future. I am trying to work out in my own mind why that is so. There are several sources for that insecurity. One is what has happened to pensions—the wrecked pension funds in the private sector such as the cases of Allied Steel and Wire and of Abingdon Carpets, and today's very worrying news about Turner and Newell, which will affect former Friction Dynamics employees. Apparently the deal that was
Column Number: 65
on the table may no longer be available. People are worried about their long-term pension positions.
This week, we have read of the proposal to end final salary schemes in much of the public sector. That will obviously cause concern to people who thought that their final salary schemes were safe. That feeds a sense of insecurity. People also have mounting personal debt, which worries them. Notwithstanding the fact that there are some positives on the macroeconomic front at UK level, although regional economic disparities have unfortunately not narrowed under the present Government, there is still an underlying sense of insecurity. The Government need to deal with the sources of that.
In relation to Allied Steel and Wire and to Abingdon Carpets, in particular, the financial assistance scheme that applies before the pension protection fund comes into force will not be enough, particularly if the 70,000 former Turner and Newell employees are added. We already know that 65,000 people will draw on the £20 million a year. It will not be enough to provide anything reasonable to those who have lost their pensions. I appeal to the Wales Office to make the case for that £20 million a year to be topped up. Why not use unclaimed assets? The pre-Budget report refers to so-called orphaned funds—insurance policies that have not been claimed. It was announced in the Budget, of course, that the Chancellor was considering that. We understand that constructive discussions have taken place, but we need information now. Why not use those sums—possibly billions of pounds—which are there waiting? My party and, I know, other Opposition parties, would be very supportive of proposals to use them.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) mentioned the carers' revolution, and I pay tribute to his work. I want to mention the pension position for women. The Government will produce a report on pension poverty among women, but I urge them to examine the so-called 25 per cent. rule, which means that unless someone has contributed for about 25 per cent. of their working time, they do not qualify for the full basic state pension. That is a particular problem on which the TUC is campaigning, and it would make a huge difference to pensioner poverty among women, many of whom, because of their caring responsibilities, must at times withdraw from the labour market. That is one change that the Government could make that would make a huge difference.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned the problem of affordable housing. That is a problem not only in rural areas such as Monmouth, but in all areas, both rural and urban, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has said. There have been changes in England on the right to buy, advanced unilaterally by the Deputy Prime Minister and used by him in parts of the south-east of England. Surely those same powers can be given to the Assembly.
The Secretary of State mentioned economic inactivity. To be accurate, economic inactivity as a proportion of the population of working age in Wales is exactly what it was when Labour came to power in 1997. It went up for four years and has come down, so no progress has been made. I believe that I am correct in saying that it has actually increased in comparison with this time last year. More work needs to be done on that agenda. The Chancellor has always emphasised productivity, but it is the one thing on which he has made very little progress.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): The hon. Gentleman always takes a keen interest in the facts, and I pay tribute to him for that. The economic inactivity situation is complex. Our figures in fact show that there has been an average fall of 2 per cent. since 1997. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with that, but those are the official statistics. There seems to have been a reversal in past year or so, but it is not easy to determine why that is so. Is it because there are more and more older people of working age retiring in Wales—certainly a lot of retirees from England have come in—or are there more people of working age in full-time education? I am not being defensive, but the phenomenon is curious and we do not know exactly why there has been a blip in the past year or so. However, I am not sure that the construction that hon. Gentleman puts on the facts is correct.
Adam Price: I shall go back and check my figures, then we can compare them, but I think I am right to say that the latest figures show an increase, a large component of which is comprised of women. I do not know why there has been such a large hike in the number of economically inactive women in the past year. We need some research on that interesting question, but, more generally, we certainly have not come up with a solution to the problem.
Net public investment, which fell rapidly in the first two years of this Government has been increasing, but the Government have not reached their own targets. They admitted in the pre-Budget report that they were meant to achieve a 63 per cent. increase this financial year in net public investment. At the moment, we are looking at a 13 to 16 per cent. increase, which is well down on the Chancellor's figures. In fact, in the seven months of this financial year, central Government investment has fallen. A number of constraints prevent investment in capital infrastructure from going forward, which is a concern.
The pre-Budget report refers to the thorny issue of local pay in the public sector. That is of concern to public sector workers in Wales, who make up one third of the work force. There is no evidence that there will be any benefit from the proposals. It is not me who says that, but the Labour-leaning Bevan Foundation, which suggests that proposals for local and regional pay in the public sector could push average wages downward, precisely because of the importance of the public sector to the Welsh economy. The pre-Budget report says that the different public sector review boards will make recommendations early in the new year. That is something that all Welsh Members should be concerned about, because it will affect many of our constituents.
The Royal Mint is shifting to a Government-owned company, as announced in the pre-Budget report, so its workers will essentially lose their civil service status.
Column Number: 66
That is what I understand to be the position, but if the Minister can confirm that those workers will retain their civil service status and pensions, they can be reassured.
The personalisation of public services was one of the Chancellor's key themes. We seem to be entering a period of one party, two systems—the phrase coined by Deng Xiaoping when negotiating the future of Hong Kong with Mrs. Thatcher. The political situation in Wales seems to be the same, and the description is even relevant to the Royal Mint. An organisation is being moved out to an arm's-length agency at the same time as the Welsh Development Agency and various other bodies are brought into the civil service. There is one party, but two systems and two philosophies. All I ask for is clarity. The same is true of the public services issue, which is not only a Blairite, but a Brownite issue, as the Chancellor supports the idea of personalisation and providing flexible public services that are responsive and personalised to individuals, which can ensure fairer outcomes.
Personalisation and choice is the agenda for public services with the Government here at Westminster, yet the First Minister has said in several speeches that the competitive model, as he describes it, is not the road that we in Wales want to go down. We face a general election. What will the manifesto say to the people of Wales: will they be offered the personalisation agenda of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, and the target of a maximum wait of 18 weeks from GP to hospital treatment, or will they be offered a different model with far worse results?
3.46 pm
|
