| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.47 pm
Mr. Giles Radice (North Durham): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on his characteristically brilliant and witty speech. He and I worked closely together in the dark days of the early 1980s in the Labour party. I salute him for his courage and determination over many years, and for his contribution to the House of Commons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is a valued colleague in the northern region, and I and all hon. Members respect him for his campaigns against miscarriages of justice. I congratulate him on his witty speech.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his brilliant performance during the general election, on his smashing electoral success and on the start made by his Government.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) on his successful election campaign. I agree that it was the same sort of voters and for possibly the same motives who voted in his Members of Parliament as voted in ours. I look forward to the Liberal Democrats making a positive and constructive contribution to this Parliament. If they think that what we are doing is sensible, I hope that they will back it in the Division Lobby. I hope that that is what they will do on the Queen's Speech.
It is extremely moving for me, after 18 years on the Opposition Benches, to be on the Government Benches, among so many hon. Friends and so many women Members.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley):
Hear, hear.
Mr. Radice:
Quite right. Perhaps Conservative Members, judging by their performance today, have not yet become accustomed to being in opposition. They will, although it takes some getting used to. Perhaps they should not spend 18 years, as we did, on the Opposition Benches, but their start has not been very encouraging.
At last week's historic meeting at Church house, the Prime Minister rightly told us not to be triumphant. He said that we are the servants, not the masters, and that we will have to justify the trust that the British people have placed in us. By winning 13.5 million votes--44.5 per cent. of the total British electorate--however, Labour had an electoral triumph. The most important aspect is that, with Labour Members elected from every part of Britain, we justified our claim to be the one-nation party.
As a northern Member, I am particularly delighted that there are so many Labour Members from southern Britain. As hon. Members are boasting about what they have written, I think that I should be able to get in on the act.
In 1992, shortly after our defeat, I wrote a Fabian pamphlet entitled "Southern Discomfort", in which I argued that Labour had to win more seats in the south if we were ever again to form a Government. My pamphlet was based on a survey of the attitudes of swing voters--which we now call switchers--in southern marginal constituencies.
I discovered that, in 1992, although those voters disliked the Conservatives, they distrusted the Labour party even more. I therefore concluded:
I congratulate the Government on their tremendous start, and should tell them that the Queen's Speech is very impressive. During the election, smart broadsheet
newspaper columnists wrote that electing the Labour party would make no difference, but the Queen's Speech has answered that sentiment. It contains comprehensive and radical measures that will make a real difference to my constituents in North Durham.
I am thinking particularly of the welfare-to-work programme and of the education measures, especially those to cut class sizes--[Interruption.] I tell the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) not to knock the measures, because they are extremely important for my constituents.
Mr. Ashdown:
The measures have to be paid for.
Mr. Radice:
We have shown how we can pay for them, and we will see what happens.
Mr. Fabricant:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Radice:
Yes. What is the hon. Gentleman's constituency--I wonder if he can tell me?
Mr. Fabricant:
The hon. Gentleman mentioned reduction in class sizes. Has he analysed the cost of forcing the 38,000 pupils who are currently educated in the private education system into the state education system? They will be forced into the state system if the assisted places scheme is abolished.
Mr. Radice:
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being re-elected by the skin of his teeth.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife):
By a hair's breadth.
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is not up to speed on the details of Labour's policy, which will be phased in. Those who are already in the private system will be able to complete their education.
Improvements to the national health service also will help my constituents, as will the anti-crime proposals, which are so needed.
I should like to mention three other matters, the first of which is the Bank of England. I strongly support a Bill to give the Bank of England operational independence. The action is a bold move--which was certainly foreshadowed for anyone who read our manifesto--and will do much to reinforce economic stability. It will also align the United Kingdom with other western democracies. Moreover, the action is supported by two former Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer, and is based on the report of the previous Parliament's Treasury Select Committee--of which I was a member, although Conservative Members formed the majority.
I think that allowing the Bank of England operational independence will improve control of inflation, because countries with independent central banks tend to do better on inflation. It will provide long-term protection and perspective to the Government, and it will give them to time to develop and implement their policies. I also believe that the proposals will enhance rather than lessen accountability. The Chancellor will continue to set an inflation target; a monetary committee will be established
which will work within the Government's guidelines; the Committee's minutes will be published; and the Committee will report to the Treasury Select Committee.
I remember a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, who appeared before the Treasury Select Committee. When we asked him about interest rates, he said that, when he wanted to raise interest rates, he raised them, and when he wanted to lower them, he lowered them. That was all he had to say about the matter. I therefore believe that accountability will be increased by the Government's measures.
I welcome the aspects of the Queen's Speech dealing with relations with the European Union. The general election campaign was fought in a nauseating atmosphere of Europhobia--which was not helped by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). The language about Britain's relations with the EU became more hysterical the longer the campaign went on. The Daily Mail wrote about fighting "the Battle of Britain", and The Times--the old thunderer--advised its readers to vote for Euro-sceptics and against Euro-enthusiasts, although it did not have much success in that recommendation.
The Conservative party produced a widely condemned poster of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sitting on the knee of Chancellor Kohl. The Prime Minister is well able to take care of himself, as he proved during the general election campaign, when he was subjected to consistent, mostly personal, attacks by Conservative Members. That poster was a disgraceful way in which to treat an ally and partner, and we should wholeheartedly condemn it. Now that the general election is over, however, we have a real opportunity to establish a more positive relationship with the European Union.
The general election has established that Euro- scepticism was a far weaker force than its advocates claimed. The Labour and Liberal tide was no respecter of Euro-sceptics. The figures show that, of the more than 20 swings above 15 per cent. against Tory candidates, only three went against Euro-enthusiasts; the remainder went against Euro-sceptics. So much for the protective power of a commitment against a single currency. Almost all the Referendum party candidates lost their deposits, and pro-European views did not make any appreciable difference to the number of votes received by winning candidates.
I was targeted by the Referendum party under the slogan, which it published in the local newspaper:
Above all, the election result has produced a Parliament with a massive pro-European majority. At least two thirds of Members can be counted as pro-European, so the new Government, unlike their predecessor, are able to conduct their European policy without constantly needing to look over their shoulder. They need not bother about the Conservative Euro-sceptics who held the previous Parliament to ransom.
"If we are to achieve a Labour victory at the next election we have to be prepared to adopt a new identity which is in tune with the times. In short, we have to become a new Labour party."
As everyone knows, under the Prime Minister's leadership, we became new Labour, and, on 1 May, we won a famous victory. We made gains in every part of Britain, although none were so striking as those in the south-east. In 1992, Labour held only three seats in the south-east outside London. Today, we hold 31 seats, including eight in Kent, six in Essex, five in Hertfordshire and four in East Sussex. Once again, the Labour party can say that it is a national party.
"a vote for Giles Radice is a vote for Brussels".
Two days before polling day, The Times urged people in my constituency to vote against me. What was the result? I had a majority of more than 26,000, with a swing of more than 10 per cent. to the Labour party. That was a very good result in a safe Labour seat, and most other pro-European candidates had similar swings.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |