Mr.
Murphy: Indeed it does. Over the past couple of years, in
my local authority in Torfaen, there has been an extremely successful
experiment in diagnosing older people’s health problems not in
the hospital, but in their homes. Consultants go to the homes of my
constituents so that they do not have to make traumatic visits to local
hospitals. The same concept would apply to a national care service.
Were we to have a referendum among older people in Wales, I am sure
that 90 per cent. would say, “We would prefer to stay in our
homes if we have support.” However, funding and co-ordination
are needed. The problem that we face, which I know my right hon. and
hon. Friends will take up, is how the scheme will actually happen in a
Welsh context.
Lembit
Öpik: On that point, while celebrating the
outstanding work of care homes such as Llys Hafren in Welshpool, which
has just celebrated 30 years of service to the community, does the
right hon. Gentleman agree that the biggest single challenge is in
co-ordination, to which he referred? As a society, we have not been
good at identifying the best and most appropriate service for
particular individuals, some of whom will benefit from a care home
environment but most of whom, as he said, would not. The approach has
been a bit piecemeal. If he is saying that we need a cohesive strategy,
I very much agree with that.
Mr.
Murphy: Yes, we do need a cohesive strategy. Such
strategies are more possible and more likely and could be more
successful in Wales than they could be outside of it, because of our
size. With only 20-odd local authorities, a relatively small population
and our own devolved Government, the chances of such a strategy working
are greater than they might be elsewhere. However, there needs to be
some thought given to how we achieve it. I am sure that every member of
the Committee will join me in wanting our Secretary of State to look
into the matter and deal with
it. I
know that other Members want to speak, so I will conclude. My right
hon. Friend the Secretary of State was absolutely right to make clear
in his speech what the choices are likely to be in the five or six
months ahead, because it is a question of choice. Before the Committee
next meets to deal with the Budget or a legislative programme, people
will have made their choices about what they want the Government of our
country to be, and it is absolutely right for my right hon. Friend to
put those choices and challenges to the
Committee.
Albert
Owen: The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham refused to
take an intervention. I would have asked her whether the stark choice
on health in Wales—the matter is properly devolved, as was
rightly said—would be on the policy of free prescriptions. Many
groups, including diabetics and people suffering from asthma, rely on
free prescriptions, as their household incomes are relatively low.
[Interruption.] It is absolutely true—they were paying
for their prescriptions before the policy was introduced. If the policy
were reversed, low-paid families would suffer from further financial
burdens.
Mr.
Murphy: But since the Conservatives are unlikely to form a
Government in Wales, that is presumably unlikely to happen. With the
policy of free prescriptions, the fine policy of free bus transport in
Wales and all the great benefits that the Assembly has given us in
recent years, together with the benefits of a Labour Government for the
past decade or more, I am sure that people will make their minds up in
the coming months and will reject a Tory Government for
Wales. 11.8
am Mr.
Llwyd: It is always a pleasure to follow the right
hon. Member for Torfaen, for whom I have a great deal of admiration,
although I disagree root and branch with his analysis of the devolution
situation, and also with regard to the referendum, but we will leave
that there. May I preface my remarks by wishing every member of the
Committee a very happy and peaceful Christmas? I am not saying that to
fend off any attacks, because we will get stuck into the rough and
tumble any minute now.
Mr.
Murphy: I too wish the hon. Gentleman and all our
colleagues well. My comments on the referendum have nothing to do with
a view of devolution; it was an issue of whether we should have one now
or in the near
future.
Mr.
Llwyd: I accept that from the right hon. Gentleman and I
am pleased that we have engaged on that particular issue. I will leave
it there quite
happily. Before
I preface my remarks, I will say one thing again—I want to
concentrate on the Queen’s Speech. The strange thing about this
morning’s opening speech by the Secretary of State is that he
made an oblique reference to the Queen’s Speech on one occasion,
which leads me to think that not a great deal was meant to be in the
Queen’s Speech. We have to think about how many of these Bills
will actually make it on to the statute book by 25 March, or whenever
the election is called. I am a bit long in the tooth, and I considered
the Queen’s Speech to be a political opportunity. I do not
believe that much will come of it; it might have been simply a wish
list.
Mr.
Llwyd: Before I allow the right hon. Gentleman to
intervene, I want to say that there are several parts of the
Queen’s Speech—wish list or not—that I would like
to see enacted. However, I do not believe that will happen this side of
an
election.
Mr.
Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In anticipation
of that question, I looked up what was achieved when I was Leader of
the House in 2004-05. There were 34 Bills introduced, 20 of which
received Royal Assent. This time, 15 Bills will be introduced. It may
not be that every one of them is passed, but with Conservative
co-operation, there is every prospect that that could be achieved.
Before the previous general election in 2000-01, 26 Bills were
introduced and 21 received Royal Assent. In other words,
more Bills received Royal Assent in those two pre-election
parliamentary Sessions than have been introduced this
time.
Mr.
Llwyd: If that is the case, I am very pleased about it. As
I said, several parts of the legislative agenda are more than
acceptable and we fully support
them.
Mr.
David Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman glean—as I
do—from what the Secretary of State has said that the election
is more likely to be in May than
March?
Mr.
Llwyd: Well, I am not sure what to believe about that. It
is all up in the air because we do not know the answer to that, and we
will not know for a considerable time. There has been speculation that
the election will be held at an earlier time—it might be May,
but I do not know. The right hon. Gentleman comforts me in a way,
because it will be a very good thing if we can get some of this
legislation through—there is no doubt about that. I will refer
briefly to one or two other points on that in a moment.
I make this
point as a parliamentarian: the report stage of, for example, the
Equality Bill was nothing short of a disgrace in terms of programming.
Some
200 amendments and 40 new clauses were untouched and went through. That
is not the way to make law. We can sit back at leisure and ponder the
way in which we have made mistakes, but it seems that we are
increasingly abrogating our responsibilities to the other place, which
is getting stuck in with legislation because it is not necessarily
timetabled. There is room for considerable change to be made in
relation to
that. Briefly,
I wish to commend the report of the Select Committee on Reform of the
House of Commons, to which I referred earlier, to hon. Members. That
Committee is very ably chaired by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase,
and its recommendations, which were made in an entirely measured way,
go part of the way towards redressing the imbalance between the
Executive and the legislature. For example, the establishment of a
Back-Bench business committee, which can initiate important debates and
so on, is long overdue. The election of Chairs and members of the
Select Committees is also mentioned in that report.
In addition,
it is right that the power of the Whips should be curtailed. I am not
being unrealistic. The Government must have their time to get their
business through—that is quite obvious—but we also need
to reform how Parliament works, because more and more people throughout
the political spectrum think that the role of Parliament is being
undermined. If that carries on, it will be a very bad thing. I am sure
that hon. Members will in due course reflect on the contents of that
report. I urge them to have a look at it, because some important
measures are referred to
therein. In
discussing the Queen’s Speech, I would like to begin with the
Bill that received its Second Reading yesterday—the Flood and
Water Management Bill. That will provide for the Welsh Assembly to take
over the protection of our coastal areas and to prevent flood damage in
Wales. We welcome the parallel development of that area in Wales, as in
England. I am sure that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will
clamour to be on the Committee for that Bill, having recently gained a
name for himself on water-based issues—although he would be
unable to enjoy Queen Victoria’s frozen cocktail demonstration
in the lido pool area at lunchtime if he were to do
so. I
shall move on swiftly, in the spirit of Christmas, to the Children,
Schools and Families Bill. In the present circumstances, this is
something that would normally be associated with England only, but I
understand that part 1 of the Bill includes the creation of local
safeguarding children boards in Wales, and youth justice. Obviously,
those are important issues. The Bill recognises that youth justice
comes under children, schools and families. That is an important
distinction to make, rather than placing it under the crude banner of
law and
order. Plaid
Cymru supports that conception of youth justice, as well as the
devolution of youth justice to Wales. It is more appropriate to discuss
it, as I said, alongside education and skills—that is
welcome—and that was recently supported by the much-respected
Howard League for Penal Reform, which believes that Welsh solutions to
youth justice issues would be more appropriate and more successful than
UK solutions have proved to be in the past. My party would like youth
justice in Wales to take on a form similar to that applied in Nordic
countries such as Finland, and I hope that this discussion will be held
more fully when the Bill comes before the
House.
Lembit
Öpik: I very much agree with what the hon.
Gentleman is saying. In my opinion, we have handled youth justice badly
in this country. Is he interested in a potential scheme that I have
been exploring with Shrewsbury prison? Instead of young people simply
being banged up for indefinite periods, they do restorative projects
such as helping to restore the canal between Montgomery and the rest of
the network. They get a skill, they get pride, and they add value to
society. Surely that is a much more constructive approach for a 21st
century, first-world country than what we are doing at
present.
Mr.
Llwyd: I agree entirely, and I also make a point that the
hon. Gentleman has raised in the past about the economic benefits
accruing from the canal project. They are substantial, so I think that
he is right. If we are able to do so, we should avoid criminalising
young people because they carry the stain with them for years to come.
In truth, we all make mistakes, and sometimes they should be redressed
in a way other than the formality of court proceedings and so on. I
certainly agree with
him. We
would have suggested in an alternative Queen’s Speech a justice
Bill to devolve powers to Wales, but not just in respect of youth
justice. We would like to see the formation of a separate Welsh
jurisdiction, devolution of policing powers to Wales, and the
establishment of a women’s prison in
Wales.
Mark
Williams: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from
education, he will be aware of the concerns expressed by many of our
constituents about the implications of the Badman report. The Bill to
which he alluded gives the National Assembly, quite rightly, the power
to undertake an inquiry and to take action as it sees fit. Does he
share the concerns of many of us in Wales about the knock-on effects of
the Badman report on home education throughout
Wales?
Mr.
Llwyd: Like the hon. Gentleman, I have been lobbied
extensively about the Badman report, and I presented a petition on it
to Parliament last week. Currently, it is an England-only matter, and,
to be honest, I have considerable faith that the National Assembly will
be able to deal with things differently, as it did very early on in
abolishing the rather strange tests that popped up all the time. We do
things slightly differently in Wales, and sometimes we do them better.
I believe that this is a case in point, and that we can and will be
able to deal with the matter in a more acceptable
way.
Lembit
Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Mr.
Llwyd: I do not want to take too many interventions, as I
am keeping others from
speaking.
Lembit
Öpik: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s
generosity. A Mrs. McBride came to see me on this very
matter. Is he aware of any serious impact assessment that accompanies
the Badman report? As far as I can see, it is a completely
disproportionate response to a theoretical
concern.
Mr.
Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is right. As I said, I am
confident in our colleagues across the political spectrum in the
National Assembly. I am sure that they will do the right thing. It is a
draconian report, and it is troubling for those who have always home
educated their children, so I am hopeful that we will take a different
view in
Wales.
Mrs.
Gillan: I have taken some interest in the Badman report
because I, too, think that adopting its proposals would amount to undue
interference by the state in the personal lives of all our
constituents. Under the framework powers in the legislation, it is
proposed that home education powers pass down to the Assembly, and as
the hon. Gentleman’s party is in government, I would like his
guarantee that the Badman report will not be implemented in
Wales.
Mr.
Llwyd: When I questioned the hon. Lady earlier, she said,
“It is not for me to decide—it is for my
colleagues”, so I think that the French word is touchÃ(c). I
am not going to guarantee anything at this
stage.
Mrs.
Gillan: But you are in
government.
Mr.
Llwyd: Yes, we are in government, but I thought that the
hon. Lady was hoping to be in government. Perhaps she is not really,
but there we are. Let me put it this way: I sincerely hope that our
colleagues in the National Assembly will take a different view of the
Badman report. I am fairly sure that they will, but for obvious reasons
I can offer no
guarantees. On
youth justice and the devolution of justice powers, devolving such
powers to Wales has become less and less controversial over the past
five to seven years. Very senior members of the judiciary now say that
the time has come to do something about a separate jurisdiction for
Wales, and when the Justice Secretary made a speech in Cardiff last
week, he did not say that in such terms, but he recognised that certain
developments were going in that direction. He very fairly gave me a
copy of that interesting speech before he went to Cardiff to deliver
it, and it contains some interesting
notions. The
police service in Wales now acknowledges the strength of the argument
for a separate jurisdiction. Part of its argument is, why should it
have to deal with one funding department and then another in the
National Assembly, doubling its work every time? It says and I believe
that the most effective policing is policing by consent, and the proper
way to do policing by consent is to keep it as local as possible. That
is a perfectly reasonable
argument. With
a developing corpus juris of Welsh law, it is logical that a separate
jurisdiction for Wales is inevitable. Anyone who practises family law
in Wales has to be aware of the Welsh laws and regulations appertaining
to family law. Furthermore, the National Assembly has legislated and
continues to legislate to create some
summary offences in Wales. The court of criminal appeal and civil appeal
courts regularly sit in Wales. Wales has dedicated chancery judges, and
when I was in full-time practice every chancery case, even relatively
minor ones, had to be issued at the royal courts of justice on the
Strand. That was often hugely inconvenient.
[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Clwyd,
West want to
intervene? | 
