---

Draft Legislative Programme

That is exactly what I was arguing. The summary of the Government’s draft legislative programme states that the purpose of the planning reform Bill is to"““Streamline and improve planning including introducing a single consents regime for major infrastructure projects, establishing an independent infrastructure planning commission””." That is a quango, not a Minister. I am in favour of big schemes being decided by Ministers. Yesterday, for example, the Secretary of State for Transport gave her approval to Thameslink. I do not like some of the implications for my patch, but I can have a go at her, question her and call her to account. We need to have that sort of system for planning. On local transport, we are concerned that the Government are forcing local councils to run road pricing pilots as a sort of bribe to get the schemes that they want, whereas we believe that a national pricing scheme would be a better way forward. We would also like a national pricing scheme to be introduced for lorries. Other countries operate that system, and it seems to work well. Moreover, greater powers over bus regulation must have the local accountability for which the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) called. That is not as huge an issue in London as it is in rural and suburban Britain. Public services may be contracted out to private tenderers, but they must be subject to democracy. For that to work, we need an accountability that really works, rather than leaving everyone involved to say, ““Nothing to do with me, guv.”” On work and pensions, there is a proposal for an employment simplification Bill. In parenthesis, I welcome simpler text in legislation and I seriously hope that eventually all Bills will be readable and understandable by the public. As Ministers know, in Committee, I regularly make the plea that Bills be written in a logical order, so that definitions are not followed by the substance; the Bill should start with a statement of what it is about and then amplify it. The issue is serious. If what we do is to be understood, Bills should not just be readable by lawyers who are paid to do the job. On employment simplification, there is one grievance that I hope will be addressed. At present, someone with an exemplary record—perhaps for 25 years—can be summarily dismissed after one breach of good conduct, which does not have to be violence or dishonesty. We need to consider restoring a yellow and red card system in employment that does not give such great powers to employers. I could highlight many of the proposals, but my final selection is the measure on health and social care provision. I welcome the general proposals to integrate the various regulatory and supervisory bodies. My constituency experience, like that of other Members, is that in this rich country we do not yet provide an adequate standard of care for our old and our vulnerable. Too often, the local and national press describe how people are abused and exploited. We need well qualified staff, effective regulation and effective action when things go wrong, so that there are not repeated occasions when we say, ““Oh that was terrible, those people were treated so badly””. Today, there were statements about counter-terrorism and emergency powers and I shall not repeat our arguments about them. The draft legislation process is a good one and we shall take part in it constructively, but the test of whether it enhances the credibility of the Government and Parliament is that the Government listen, respond and, to return to my starting point, legislate only when nothing else will do—when the general mood in the House is that legislation is the right way to proceed after showing us the draft, listening to our answers and eventually agreeing the best and shortest text.