| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Debate on the Address
[First Day]
Madam Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House to know that the subjects for debate on the Queen's Speech will be as follows:
Thursday 18 November--environment, transport and the countryside; Friday 19 November--trade and industry and social security; Monday 22 November--foreign affairs and defence; Tuesday 23 November--homeaffairs and education and employment; Wednesday 24 November--the economy.
Dr. Jack Cunningham (Copeland):
I beg to move,
Whatever my merits, this occasion is certainly a well-deserved and great honour for my constituency and the people of Copeland, whom I have had the privilege to represent in this House for more than 29 years. Although it is the most remote English constituency from Westminster, it is certainly the most beautiful in the whole of the United Kingdom.
Copeland is a rural borough with a population of 72,000, set in 300 square miles of west and south Cumbria. It stretches from just north of the magnificent Georgian port and town of Whitehaven, south to the town of Millom on the majestic Duddon estuary. Copeland is bounded to the west by many miles of beautiful Cumbrian Irish sea coastline and, to the east, by the highest mountain range in England.
Copeland includes the ancient and lovely market town of Egremont, as well as former coal and iron ore mining towns and villages such as Distington, Lowca, Frizington and Cleator Moor. There are dozens of rural villages and hamlets in the dales, on the hills and on the coast. There are 29 parish councils in my constituency. Hundreds of farmsteads cover the hills and dales, as well as the rural parts of the coastal plain. I therefore often permitted myself a wry smile when, as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I was frequently told that I had no knowledge or experience of the countryside.
My constituency--as those hon. Members who know it realise--is dominated by one massive, magnificent, unique, and sometimes brooding and dangerous presence. [Laughter.] I refer, of course, to the Lake district national
park. Copeland contains the highest mountain in England, Scafell Pike; the deepest lake, Wastwater; the smallest church in England, St. Olaf's at Wasdale Head; and the largest yen earner in the UK economy.
No election ever takes place in Copeland without several people saying to me that they cannot vote for me because I give too much support to the nuclear industry. Happily, at least 20,000 usually say that they will vote for me, even though I do not give enough support to the nuclear industry. British Nuclear Fuels makes a huge contribution to the west Cumbrian economy, and a very positive contribution to the UK as a whole. Nuclear power will assist us in meeting our Kyoto commitments. We have no hope of meeting them without it.
For many years, Copeland has elected the biggest liar in the world--but not at general elections. The election is tomorrow night in the Bridge inn at Santon Bridge. Members of Parliament are banned--probably on the grounds of too much skill and practice. However, members of the Press Gallery could enter. We all know one or two who would make outstanding candidates.
Copeland contains the most numinous dale in all lakeland--and I do not mean my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), awe-inspiring though he can often be. I mean Ennerdale. As well as the grandeur of Wasdale, Eskdale, Dunnerdale and the Whicham valley, it features many miles of magnificent coastline, sites of special scientific interest, Roman antiquities, Hard Knott fort on the famous mountain pass, the Ravenglass estuary--used as a port by the Romans--and the magnificent castle and grounds at Muncaster. Not surprisingly, tourism is of growing importance to the local economy.
Copeland is famous not just for beautiful scenery, but for ugly people. I mean, of course, the gurners. The world gurning champion is elected in Copeland every year during the Egremont crab fair. Gurning is the art of pulling grotesque faces; as they demonstrate each week during Prime Minister's Question Time, some Opposition Members are rather good at that.
The coast-to-coast walk begins in Copeland in the lovely seaside village of St Bees. Some local people follow the Eskdale and Ennerdale foxhounds, but many, many more follow the hound trails where the dogs race across the fells following a scented drag.
I have long been closely associated with many voluntary associations that do excellent work in Copeland. I am the honorary vice-president of the Wasdale mountain rescue team. Fortunately, during more than 30 years of walking and climbing in lakeland, I have never needed to call on the excellent skills and experience of that team, but, during my 29 years in the House, there have been one or two occasions on which I would have been glad to see its members abseiling down from the Public Gallery to rescue me from the Chamber.
Whitehaven, a gem of a Georgian town, was built by Sir John Lowther in the 17th century, and still contains some 240 listed buildings. The harbour is an ancient monument, now being dramatically rejuvenated by the Whitehaven Development Company--with grants from the Government--and the Millennium Commission. At its height, in the 18th century, the port of Whitehaven was second only to London in terms of tonnage shipped. Its fleet exceeded 200 vessels, and trade flourished with Ireland and America.
In 1699, the Whitehaven merchant George Gale met and married, in Virginia, a widow, Mildred Washington. When she died in Whitehaven in 1700, her sons John and Augustine Washington returned to America. Augustine's son George Washington became the first President of the United States of America. Had his grandmother lived in Whitehaven, history might well have been very different.
On 22 April 1778, during the American war of independence, the American naval captain John Paul Jones, born at Kirkbean on the Solway, entered Whitehaven harbour at night, spiked the guns and set fire to some vessels that he caught escaping to sea. A hero in America, he is regarded to this day as a pirate in Whitehaven. This summer, Whitehaven held its first successful maritime festival; I hope that there will be many more.
No one will be surprised to learn that I strongly support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his Government. I have spent 30 years or more working to see such an Administration in office. During long years in opposition, it sometimes seemed that Labour was determined to stay out of power. Under my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, however, we are now firmly established, once more, on political ground that it was a terrible mistake ever to abandon.
In the face of all reason, logic and experience, I have supported both the Labour party and Newcastle United football club all my life. As an inexperienced Government Back Bencher, I am pleased that fell walking and climbing have taught me always to choose my foothold carefully. I know that it will be difficult to walk the narrow political path between whingeing and sycophancy. I shall probably need some tutorials from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) before I get it right. [Hon. Members: "Where is he?"] I wish him well because I understand that he has been ill recently.
As a loyal Back Bencher, as hon. Members would expect, I asked Alastair Campbell for suitable guidance and humorous anecdotes about the Prime Minister. He replied, "You don't think I'm paid all this money to make jokes about my boss, do you?"
I recall that, during difficult negotiations with the French, the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food advised me in a meeting, "Minister, dealing with the French is all down to tone." I told him not to be so familiar about the Prime Minister.
During one of his many interviews in the French language, the Prime Minister, slightly in error, said that he desired Lionel Jospin in many different ways. I am not sure quite how he has been desiring, or admiring him, as he should have said, lately, but, in the recent dispute with the French, I congratulate him and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on keeping their heads when the Leader of the Opposition and all around him were losing theirs.
Much in the Gracious Speech will be welcomed by my constituents. Surrounded by outstanding natural beauty and unparalleled scenery as they are, they are not all protected, or immune, from unemployment, poor housing, low pay, ill health or poverty in old age. They need jobs with good earnings. Too many do not have that advantage. Unemployment in Copeland is 50 per cent. higher than the national and north-west regional average. In some wards, it is four times the national average. In Millom
new town, Egremont, St. Bees and Mire House east wards, there are difficult problems. They would benefit from being given objective 2 status.
That is why the extension of the new deal and the maintenance of a strong economy are welcome in Copeland. Talk of the economy "overheating" brings wry smiles, or even anger to many of my constituents. Blunt instruments such as the fuel cap escalator, which we inherited from the previous Administration, cause serious harm in remote rural areas, especially to small businesses. The Government are right to review its impact. In particular, improvements in public transport, especially to the west coast main line, will be welcomed, as would be much needed road improvements on the A595 in Copeland.
The new deal has halved youth unemployment in Cumbria; its extension is excellent news. The commitment to greater economic growth and to a dynamic knowledge-based economy will be widely supported in my constituency.
The Bill to establish the new Learning and Skills Council to improve standards for post-16 education and training is welcome. The reform of the Child Support Agency is overdue. As honorary president of a disability group in Copeland, I know that the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission will be warmly applauded.
People with disabilities, elderly people, people with young families and those who live in remote rural areas will all welcome a Bill to reform our electoral procedures to make it much easier to participate in elections.
West Cumbria has long historical links and family connections with Ireland. People there and those in the House should welcome progress in Northern Ireland and wish all the parties well in their efforts to implement the Good Friday agreement.
In Copeland, people already have considerable access to Forestry Commission and National Trust land. Those organisations do an excellent job in Copeland, where the trust manages sensitive conservation and public access with great co-operation from farmers. As a member of the trust and of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, I know that the Bill to improve access and to bring greater protection to wildlife will be supported strongly.
The new Labour Government have already made a big difference in Copeland through improvements to health, education, youth employment and job creation through the new deal, sure start and single regeneration budget funding. Of course, much more needs to be done.
Mr. Ivan Lewis (Bury, South):
It is with a great sense of humility and honour that I second this motion. This is an important parliamentary occasion, but it is made even
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on his magnificent speech. I pay tribute to his tremendous record of public service over many years, which I know will continue for a long time to come. When I was researching this speech, I discovered that my right hon. Friend once wrote a PhD thesis entitled--those who remember his time at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may sympathise with this--"Penta fluoro phenyl derivatives of metal". My right hon. Friend might want to know that I have read the first line of that paper and still do not understand a word of it.
I am sure that hon. Members want to join me today in sending good wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) who is lying in a hospital bed recovering from a serious road traffic accident. We all hope that she will be back with us in the near future.
I want to take this opportunity, on behalf of the 1997 intake of Members of Parliament, to thank the more experienced hon. Members and parliamentary staff for the many kindnesses they have shown to us during this difficult and challenging settling-in period.
After learning that I had been asked to second this motion my hon. Friends the Members for Halton (Mr. Twigg), for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) and for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) all asked me, independently, to mention them in my speech. Hansard will record that I did so.
Since 1 May 1997, I have been conscious of the tremendous level of trust and confidence that has been placed in me by my constituents. Bury, South is the place where I was born, raised and have lived all my life. We are proud of our community, proud of our towns of Prestwich, Radcliffe and Whitefield and proud of our village of Simister. We are proud of our teachers, pupils, governors and parents and our local education authority who have worked together to achieve some of the best education results in Britain. We are proud of our partnerships between statutory bodies, voluntary agencies and the private sector.
In Bury, South, we are also proud of the multi-faith nature of our community--composed of Christians, Jews, Muslims, those of other minority faiths, and those of no faith at all--living and working together, in an atmosphere of mutual trust, respect and friendship.
We are proud also of achieving all that despite having one of Britain's lowest funding levels. However, I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions will address our SSA, RSG and ACA in exactly the same way as she has tackled CCT. Is it any wonder that people do not relate very well to local government?
My constituents will warmly welcome the contents of the Queen's Speech. I am proud that, after 18 years in the wilderness, we have the first Government this century who do not ask people to choose between fairness and
prosperity, but who understand that fairness and prosperity are interdependent attributes of any successful and truly united nation. I believe that if those charged with rebuilding Britain in 1945 were here today, they would be impressed--perhaps even surprised--by a Labour Government who combine competence with radicalism.
I know all about wilderness years. I joined the Labour party in the 1980s and survived, just about. I also left school at 16, with all of three O-levels, and I am a lifelong supporter of Manchester City football club. I also know, more than most, that wilderness years can, do--and will--come to an end.
In a political context, I hope that this reassurance will give some comfort to Conservative Members--although the fact is that there are wilderness years, and wilderness years. In a football context, I hope that it will give some comfort to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Government Chief Whip. On this one occasion, I also tell my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, tonight, there will truly be a case of boom or bust for his beloved Scotland.
On the whole, politics is a serious businesses. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House enter politics because they want to make a difference for the better. However, it is also important that we should not fall into the trap of taking ourselves as individuals too seriously. I should therefore like to share with the House some examples of the clangers that I--although it might be hard to believe--have dropped in my first 30 months as a Member of Parliament.
After six months as an hon. Member, I sent out to my Labour party members a list of the Government's achievements, which began:
I also recall, a couple of years ago, arriving late at a Remembrance Sunday service at one of my cenotaphs. It was an inter-faith service, involving the local Christian and Jewish community. The rabbi was in full flow, in Hebrew, and I thought that I should let the mayor know that I had arrived, a few minutes late. I therefore promptly tapped him on the shoulder, at which point--as the rabbi continued speaking--he marched forward, saluted and laid his wreath. Only later did I realise that mayor and vicar had done a deal, by which the vicar would tap the mayor on the shoulder when he had finished. Perhaps this has been the only occasion on which an hon. Member has been able to tell a joke about a Member of Parliament, a vicar, a rabbi and a mayor, and get away with it.
Then there was the time, shortly after my appointment as Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when my mobile phone went off and a voice at the other end said, "It's Steve here." I pondered for a minute, desperately trying to make sure that I did not give the wrong response, and said, "Steve who?" I thought that it was going to be the shortest appointment in political history. I want to take this opportunity to say how genuinely delighted I am to have been appointed PPS to the Secretary of State. I believe that he is one of the greatest Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry since the last general election.
I want to articulate what being a Member of Parliament means to me through the prism of my own personal and political experiences. Remembrance Sunday made me think about my grandfather. He was a proud Scot who died fighting for this country in the second world war and who, as a young man of 19, went to Spain to fight for the international brigade against Franco's fascists. This April, I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp in Poland with a group of 150 teachers at the behest of the Holocaust Education Trust. I saw for myself an entity that was designed to deliver a significant part of Adolf Hitler's final solution. Like millions of others, at the same time I watched on my television screen as ethnic cleansing was being perpetrated in Europe in 1999. I pondered how little we sometimes learn from history. I also pondered--yes, people may accuse me of being sycophantic--the fact that we have a Prime Minister who did not cross to the other side of the street, but, out of a sense of moral purpose, not economic imperative, demanded that the world take action so that we do not tolerate ethnic cleansing as we approach the new millennium.
As I was preparing this speech, I also thought of the people with learning disabilities who changed the course of my life when I began doing voluntary work at the age of 14. I recalled their daily struggle to be accepted as equal, worthwhile members of society and how they wanted the opportunity to pursue and fulfil their potential. I remembered their families, who too often found that the services that were supposed to be there to help them were not there when they needed them. They also suffered pain, often caused by the fear and ignorance of their fellow human beings.
I also reflected on a personal experience when, at the age of 14, I sat in the headmaster's office in the private school that I attended, waiting for my mother to collect me. I had been separated from my schoolmates because my father was no longer able to pay the school fees.
Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks):
It will be a pleasure in a moment to congratulate the proposer and seconder of the Loyal Address, but I begin, as is customary and right, by paying tribute to the three hon. Members who died during the previous Session.
Derek Fatchett will be missed by all in the House and most especially by Yorkshire Members. He and I used to enjoy very much our annual lunch with Yorkshire Post journalists, where we would swap gossip about our respective parties. He was a very able Foreign Office Minister. I remember the new King of Jordan telling us
earlier this year that his work was greatly valued in the middle east. It is very sad to have to talk about Derek in the past tense.
Roger Stott was also popular throughout the House. It speaks volumes of him that, despite the many prestigious posts that he held, including Parliamentary Private Secretary to the previous Labour Prime Minister, he was always proudest of his achievement as Rochdale's housing chairman, when he completely refurbished the town's entire pre-war housing stock.
When the House lost Alan Clark, it lost one of its great characters: brilliant, irreverent, passionate about many things, a book lover's dream and a Whip's nightmare. He described himself as "Genghis Khan, only richer". I can imagine the entry in his diary for today, from wherever he is writing: "17 November. Another dreary beginning of the Session, and this time I was the subject of the usual sanctimonious tributes, especially from that dreadful man Hague. Mind you, the Speaker looked particularly fetching." The House, politics and public life in general are poorer without Alan.
It is also the duty of the Leader of the Opposition on these occasions to pay tribute to the proposer and seconder of the Loyal Address. The Government always hand out these opportunities as prizes: one to a promising new Back Bencher whose career could be ruined by a bad speech and the other to a seasoned veteran whose career could not be saved by a good one.
After a good speech, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) can relax in the knowledge that his career is safe--at least until I have praised him. It was when he and I appeared together at a Jewish charity event in Manchester recently that I first learned that he admitted to a lifelong, passionate and traumatic relationship with someone other than his wife. Thankfully for all concerned, as he mentioned today, that relationship is with Manchester City football club, which is having a good season in the first division, so perhaps after today there is a chance that they might be promoted together.
The task of praising the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is a little more complex, especially as in our most recent encounter the phrases used included "insufferable arrogance" and "breathtaking hypocrisy"; but I am quite fond of him really. It was bad news all round when he left the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last year--for the current Minister, who had to take on his job; for manufacturers of luxury office furniture, which are now entirely dependent on Lord Irvine; for British Airways, whose share price immediately collapsed; and for him, because he went on to do a job in the Cabinet Office that did not really exist.
That did not seem to worry the right hon. Gentleman, however, and one of the charming things about him is that he is an eternal optimist. I remember him visiting the Ribble Valley by-election campaign in 1991 and confidently telling everyone that Labour would win. The Labour candidate got 4,300 votes out of the 46,100 cast. [Hon. Members: "What about the Liberals?"] I am coming to them in a minute.
It was the right hon. Gentleman's eternal optimism on television on general election night in 1992 that led him confidently to tell everyone that Labour was still going to win even as the results came in. It was his eternal
optimism again that led to a newspaper report two weeks before last month's reshuffle stating that the Cabinet enforcer had
The right hon. Member for Copeland has had a long and distinguished career, stretching back to ministerial office in the last Labour Government. Bernard Ingham describes him in his memoirs as exceptionally able. The right hon. Gentleman's speech today and that of the hon. Member for Bury, South were most able, and I congratulate them both.
As usual, there are some things that we can welcome in today's Queen's Speech, and we will look closely at the detail of Bills dealing with mandatory drug testing, reform of the Child Support Agency, wildlife protection and other measures in the programme. We will also look with great interest at the Government's proposed reform of the system for children in care. Because of my time as Welsh Secretary, when I set up the north Wales child abuse inquiry, I am distressingly familiar with the scandal of the treatment of children in care. We owe these vulnerable children everything, but, too often, we give them worse than nothing despite the dedication and commitment of so many staff. I hope that the Government can tackle this national disgrace.
We also welcome the absence of some things from the Queen's Speech--for instance, any measure to meet the Prime Minister's manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on proportional representation in this Parliament. The poor old Liberal Democrats have behaved themselves all year, not saying boo to a goose, and they look cheerfully expectant on days such as this. What do they get in return? Nothing. What a shame that the Liberal Democrat leader has gone in a few short months from "Have I Got News for You" to "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue".
Of course, the Liberal Democrats are not the only ones having problems with electoral systems at the moment. After the shambles we have seen in London in the past few days, I do not know how the Prime Minister could, with a straight face, write these words into the Queen's Speech:
More seriously, the whole House will welcome the progress made this week in Northern Ireland under the skilful chairmanship of Senator Mitchell, without whom
it could not have happened. That is a great tribute to him and to others--to all involved, particularly the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. It is now the clear responsibility of the terrorists and their political representatives to deliver and to demonstrate once and for all that their commitment to democracy and rejection of violence are for real. Following the statements made this week, we can now look forward to the formation of an inclusive Executive alongside the beginning of a credible and verifiable process of decommissioning, leading to complete decommissioning by May 2000 in accordance with the Belfast Agreement. However, we all look to both Governments to state clearly that if the republicans fail to fulfil their obligations to decommission their arms, it will be Sinn Fein, not the Unionists, that faces the penalties.
The Gracious Speech includes a Bill to implement the Patten report on policing in Northern Ireland. Many of the recommendations are non-controversial and will have our support, but there are others that are highly security sensitive and we believe that it would be dangerous to introduce them before there is a lasting peace and decommissioning. All of us owe the Royal Ulster Constabulary a huge debt, so I ask the Prime Minister to give a guarantee that he will not bring forward any proposals that could undermine its effectiveness in combating terrorism and upholding the rule of law.
We cannot be so charitable about much of the rest of the Queen's Speech. Of course we welcome the state visit by the Queen of Denmark, and I understand that future state visitors may soon be able to enjoy London's newest tourist attraction. We read in the newspapers that the Prime Minister now employs so many spin doctors that he is thinking of moving somewhere bigger and turning Downing street into a museum. It could be even more exciting than the dome: followers of the mayoral election can walk through the zone of indecision; take a ride on the gravy train, and see the chamber of broken promises.
Unfortunately, however, the "year of delivery" zone will not be ready for the millennium. Do hon. Members remember the Prime Minister's year of delivery? He promised that he would cut class sizes, and a year later class sizes have risen. Where is the action in the Queen's Speech to improve schools? He promised lower waiting lists, and a year later the waiting lists for the waiting lists are double what they were. Where is the action to speed up treatment for heart bypasses and other serious operations? He promised to be tough on crime, and a year later police numbers have fallen. Where are the measures to reverse the fall in police numbers?
Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney):
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned crime. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to the House and the nation for the fact that crime doubled during the 18 years of the Governments that he supported?
Mr. Hague:
The previous Conservative Government added 16,000 to the number of police officers in this country; it has taken the Home Secretary two years to reduce that number by more than 1,000.
This Queen's Speech will do nothing to reverse the Prime Minister's broken pledges. This is supposed to be the programme that will take Britain into the new century and it is probably the last full programme of this Parliament, but it contains nothing for families, nothing
for savers, nothing for schools, nothing for the NHS and nothing for business. There is nothing in this Queen's Speech to make next year anything other than another year of no delivery.
The Prime Minister has produced a Queen's Speech in which, unbelievably, those Departments that have made the greatest mess of things this year get the most legislation next year. It is as though he had devised a competition to make sure that the most incompetent Cabinet Ministers spend as much time as possible in the one place where he will never clap eyes on them--here in the House. Who--
Mr. James Plaskitt (Warwick and Leamington)
rose--
Mr. Hague:
I think that the hon. Gentleman will want to hear this.
Who has won the competition? Perhaps it is the Deputy Prime Minister. No, even in the league of incompetence he has not quite made it to the top. Step forward theHome Secretary--this year's winner of the league for departmental foul-ups, ineffective legislation, ministerial bungling and misrepresentation of his own policies. He deserves his victory.
Mr. Plaskitt:
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how scrapping the national minimum wage would help families?
Mr. Hague:
There is nothing in this Queen's Speech to help families. The effect of the minimum wage on the level of wages and employment remains to be seen, and every sensible person should consider those effects.
The Home Secretary faces a situation in which crime is set to rise after years of falling; each month shows record numbers of bogus asylum seekers; terrorist suspects have been released because the Government left out key parts of legislation; Soviet spies are uncovered but not charged; injunctions are taken out against newspaper leaks by Ministers who live by leaks; and there was a complete distortion of police numbers in the Home Secretary's conference speech, which was then exposed by a letter from another member of the Cabinet. It is enough to make people want to leave the country, but under this Home Secretary people cannot even get a passport.
With at least 10 Home Office Bills to come, we might think that at least one would be tough on crime or tough on the causes of crime. Now we know that that was part of the great Labour lie. Where is the common-sense legislation to ensure tougher and more honest sentencing? Where is the common-sense legislation that would put victims first? Where is the common-sense legislation to reverse the cut in police numbers and get the police on to the streets? Instead, we have a Bill to abolish trial by jury.
The Government are doing not what they promised to do, but what they promised not to do. They say one thing and do another. They said before the election that they would protect jury trials and increase police numbers. Now jury trials are being abolished, while police numbers have fallen by 1,000.
We see that again with the party funding Bill. It is quite right that the Neill committee's recommendations on party funding are being implemented, and we will support them. However, the Neill committee also made a clear recommendation about the funding of future referendums, saying that there must be a fair opportunity for each side of the argument to be properly put to the voters. The Home Secretary said in July that the Neill Committee had made a number of suggestions for change relating to referendums and that the Government accepted them all.
Why do the Government's proposals ignore the Neill committee's recommendations? Why is the Prime Minister about to entrench in law rules that are blatantly unfair and recommended by no one? The answer is clear. If the new rules were implemented today, and the Prime Minister called a referendum tomorrow on, say, the single currency, the Yes and No campaigns would be unevenly funded. The Bill would mean that those in favour of abolishing the pound would be allowed to spend 50 per cent. more on their campaign than those in favour of keeping it. Faced with a referendum in which giving one third of the vote to the trade unions and handing over the voting list to the former Secretary of State for Health are not options, the Prime Minister has set out to create rules that guarantee an unfair referendum. If he proceeds with such rules, it will be abundantly clear that the only fair chance to choose between his intention to scrap the pound and our intention to keep it will be at the next general election.
Who came second in the league of incompetence? This time no one can deny the Deputy Prime Minister his due, for who could doubt that he has had a vintage year? He started it with his immortal statement about the green belt:
From the way in which the transport Bill will hit middle Britain, it seems that the Deputy Prime Minister, who has been excluded from the Prime Minister's election team, has joined our election team. The Bill proposes congestion taxes, motorway taxes and car parking taxes, on top of more rises in fuel taxes and road taxes. We welcome
effective measures to improve rail safety, but most of the transport Bill is a declaration of war against everyone who drives a car.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston):
I notice that so far the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the economy, and he has been reluctant to defend the previous Government's record. What is his position on the independence of the Bank of England? Is he in favour of it or not?
Mr. Hague:
I will come to the economy if the hon. Lady will let me continue.
The transport Bill will do nothing to ease the chaos on Britain's roads and little to improve public transport alternatives. It is a vicious stealth-tax assault on car drivers. To Mondeo man, once so cherished by new Labour's spin doctors, it is another kick in the teeth. People work hard and save hard to own a car. They do not want to be told that they cannot drive it by a Deputy Prime Minister whose idea of a park-and-ride scheme is to park one Jaguar so that he can ride away in the other.
The transport Bill is not only about cars. To try to fool their own Back Benchers, the Government have stuck the privatisation of air traffic control on the end in the hope that no one will notice. The Deputy Prime Minister will present a Bill that is rambling, over-inflated, illogical and ridiculously cumbersome--funny coincidence, that.
Everyone is asking where the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in the league of incompetence. Indeed, where is he today? The Prime Minister has encouraged him to be like Manchester United, abandoning domestic competition and going international. The Minister is in the superleague for running the worst Department of Government in the whole of Europe. Indeed, we can congratulate him on winning that league. He has totally failed to defend Britain's interests; he has caved in to French demands after launching a boycott of all French food and spending a hectic three weeks trying to avoid camembert; and he has done what no one could have believed possible by turning our T-bone steak into an accessory to a crime.
The Minister has taken lessons in European negotiations from the Prime Minister, the expert in selling this country's interests down the river. The Prime Minister thinks it impossible to stand up for a view in Europe unless a majority already agrees with it. That stance would never have secured our budget rebate or won the single currency opt-out. The Prime Minister threw away our social chapter opt-out without winning a single concession in return. He abandoned our veto in 15 separate areas, but got nothing in return.
At the spring European summit, the Prime Minister began negotiations faced with a bad deal on milk quotas that his own official spokesman had said was not satisfactory--then he happily signed up to a deal that was far worse.
Mr. Derek Twigg (Halton):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hague:
I am not giving way on this point; it is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who gives way.
The Prime Minister accuses us of following an empty-chair policy, but his own small band of Members of the European Parliament have decided this week to boycott Strasbourg, leaving their seats empty as a protest against the French. He accuses us of pursuing an empty-chair policy, but it is never more empty than when the Prime Minister is sitting in it.
The truth behind the Government's policies on Europe and on the economy is that they think that a highly regulated and highly taxed superstate is the future. The rest of us can see that it is the past. That is why they are presenting a needlessly complicated Bill on e-commerce, which will tell business how it should license itself. Only one part of the Bill is necessary or desirable. That is also why they are imposing a heavy new tax on information technology businesses--the IR35--which, the Professional Contractors Group says--
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hague:
Labour Members should listen to what the Professional Contractors Group had to say. It said that IR35
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the tax burden is growing more quickly in Britain than anywhere else in Europe. The Government increase the tax burden and regulation and diminish our competitive advantage when the right way to prepare for the next century is to cut the tax burden and regulation and to increase our competitive advantage. The Chancellor should try to achieve that; instead, he plans to give with one hand and take away with the other. He announces measures for pensioners yet hits married pensioners with a tax rise of £500. He promises tax relief for charities, but cancels it out by taxing their dividends. The Prime Minister goes on about the knowledge economy yet denies all knowledge of his actions.
Let us consider the Freedom of Information Bill, which is the best example of the great Labour lie.
Madam Speaker:
Order. It occurs to me that the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way. Therefore, hon. Members must resume their seats.
Mr. Hague:
I have given way several times and I shall do so again in a moment.
The Government talk about freedom of information yet the list of British taxes that are being harmonised in Europe would have remained secret if no one had looked at the Dutch Government's website. The reduction in the number of police would have remained secret if we had not seen a leaked copy of a Treasury letter. Tax increases of £40 billion would have remained a secret to those who listened only to the Chancellor's Budget speeches. Under
the Government, Select Committee reports mysteriously find their way to Ministers long before the public, and the truth is the first casualty of every difficult situation. The person responsible for creating the climate of disinformation is sitting directly opposite: he is the Prime Minister.
Helen Jones (Warrington, North):
While we are on the subject of freedom of information, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the people of Britain whether he remains committed to abolishing the working families tax credit?
Mr. Hague:
We have always made it clear that we would have retained family credit. The disadvantages of the working families tax credit are that it brings more people into the benefit system and makes looking after other people's children more cost effective than looking after one's own. We will introduce our own proposals. We are not prepared to write budgets in opposition because one cannot do that--they are not my words, but those of the Prime Minister in 1996.
This year, for three consecutive weeks at Question Time, the Prime Minister told us what the CBI, the OECD and every taxpayer knows to be untrue: that taxes are going down. It took 18 questions for him to admit the simple truth that taxes are going up. When Sir Peter Kemp, a senior former Treasury civil servant was asked whether the economic statistics that the Prime Minister uses were less trustworthy than those used by his predecessors, he answered, "Well, yes."
The Prime Minister finds it difficult to tell the truth about many matters, however trivial. Three years ago, he confided to Des O'Connor that when he was 14, he stowed away on a plane from Newcastle to the Bahamas. In Newcastle airport's 61-year history, there has never been a flight to the Bahamas. In 1969, the only exotic destinations served by Newcastle were Jersey and the Isle of Man.
In an interview with a local radio station in 1997, the Prime Minister spoke of his passion for football and reminisced about watching his favourite Newcastle player, centre forward Jackie Milburn, from a seat behind one of the goals at St. James' Park. There are two problems with that statement: seats were not installed behind the goals until the 1990s and Jackie Milburn left the club when the Prime Minister was four years old.
The Prime Minister was at it again last week when he told listeners of the rock station Heart FM that his favourite tune was "Where the Streets Have No Name" by U2; when he appeared on "Desert Island Discs", it was Samuel Barber's "Adagio for Strings" and Francisco Tarrega's "Recuerdos de la Alhambra".
When the Prime Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says that pensioners will not be hit by a new£500 tax, or that waiting lists are coming down, or that there will be 5,000 extra police, we have to bear in mind that nothing that he says about anything can be relied on. That might be funny when he is talking about tunes, food and childhood memories, but when he is talking about taxes, waiting lists, class sizes and police numbers he is seeking to debase and destroy the currency of political discourse in this country. Given the Prime Minister's example, it is no wonder that the Government's whole existence is based on selective leaks, twisted statistics, distorted facts, half truths and a total determination to prevent people from finding out what is really going on.
People across the country know what should have been in the Queen's Speech. Schools should be at its heart. There should be a Bill to guarantee parents real power and to create free schools run by head teachers and governors, not Whitehall bureaucrats. There should be a Bill to give patients in the NHS a guaranteed maximum waiting time, based not on party political targets but on actual medical need.
There should be Bills to bring about a revolution in crime fighting to prevent the rise in crime. There should be a Bill to protect the homes and assets of people who have saved for their long-term care. There should be help for working women to take career breaks to look after their children, with family scholarships to help them if they want to get back to work. [Interruption.] Labour Members ask for proposals, and then do not like them when they get them.
There should be moves to reduce the size and cost of government. Those costs have grown by £1 billion a year since this Government took office. There should be a Budget that would put an end to Labour's stealth taxes with an open and honest guarantee to cut the overall burden of tax in the lifetime of a Parliament.
The Queen's Speech should have spelled out to everyone that Britain will not be a pushover in Europe or anywhere else. It should have made it clear that we will be in Europe and not run by Europe and that we can make a success of our own currency, if we so wish.
The Labour Government pursue their own political priorities instead of rising to the challenge of preparing Britain for the new century. Future Queen's Speeches should not duck that challenge. They should turn the common sense of the British people into common-sense policies for the country. That is what the Opposition have to deliver--the common-sense revolution.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair):
The Leader of the Opposition gave us a lot of jokes in what was a great after-dinner speech--and he will be making many more of those if Michael Portillo gets elected.
I remind the Leader of the Opposition of what he said in the Queen's Speech debate last year. He said that unemployment would soar and that the Government's programme would "destroy jobs". I can announce to the House the latest unemployment figures, out today: since last year, unemployment has fallen by 120,000, employment has risen by 329,000, and we have the highest level of employment ever. That is the difference between good jokes and good judgment.
I join the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to those who died in the past year. I pay particular tribute to Derek Fatchett, who was an outstanding Foreign Office Minister. Derek and I came into the House together in 1983. I believe that it was only when he became a Minister that his real talent came through, and I have no
doubt that if he had lived, he would have been an outstanding Cabinet member as well. He will be sorely missed.
I knew Roger Stott very well, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the fact that we both beat Les Huckfield, whom people may remember, at selection conferences. He was a distinguished Parliamentary Private Secretary to Jim Callaghan, and I pay particular tribute to what he did in Northern Ireland. Even after he left the Front Bench, he always worked tirelessly for peace in Northern Ireland, and kept very good contacts with all sides. He was immensely respected and admired throughout the House.
So much has been written about Alan Clark--not surprisingly, the focus has been on his diaries and the odd indiscretion--but he was, of course, also a historian of immense distinction. I shall remember him, in particular, as a thoroughly decent and likeable man. Even if one did not always agree with him--very often I did not--none the less he was liked by Members in all parts of the House. We all thought, in the end, that he brought something special to British politics.
I join the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) in congratulating the mover and seconder of the Address. The speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was a model of the way in which to move the Loyal Address--[Interruption.] I was about to say that if he ever needed any help with steering the right line between sycophancy and whingeing, I would be happy to give advice completely gratis.
I shall mention two things in particular. First, my right hon. Friend's service in public life, both to the Labour party and to the country, has been outstanding. As he said, he has served either in government or on the Opposition Front Bench for nearly a quarter of a century. Also--many of us will never forget this--he has one of the most priceless of political assets: enormous personal courage. He was at the forefront of the battle that the Labour party fought and won against extremism in the early 1980s. That would not have been achieved without the Jack Cunninghams of this world, and I pay tribute to him.
I also know that, as a renowned fell walker, my right hon. Friend will take great pleasure in the countryside Bill, which for the first time will open access to the countryside in a fair and reasonable way. He will also rejoice in the fact that this Session, the House of Lords will be rid of more than 600 hereditary peers--a reform that took 900 years, but which has now been made under a new Labour Government. Because we believe in fairness along with enterprise, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has compensated the older hereditary peers with free television licences, so that they can watch our proceedings from home.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) comes from a different generation, but he has exactly the same values. His speech was tremendous, and I assure him that, no matter what praise was lavished on him by the Leader of the Opposition, he has done himself immense good in the eyes of the House, and in mine, too. His was a great result at the general election--one of the results with which we were particularly pleased--and I am sure that after his contribution today, he will do even better at the next election.
Before dealing with the detail of the Queen's Speech, let me congratulate the parties on the progress towards a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. I say a very special thank you to Senator George Mitchell for all his efforts over the past few weeks. I know that many difficulties remain, but we should be proud that there are politicians of courage and stature in Northern Ireland, prepared to put the past behind them in an effort to give the children of Northern Ireland the decent future that they deserve. Let us hope that those people succeed, and I hope that in trying, they have the support of all parties in the House. I pay tribute to all that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has done. I shall, of course, ensure that no changes will inhibit its proper fight against crime and terrorism of all sorts.
The Queen's Speech has one central theme--to build a Britain of enterprise and fairness for all. For years in British politics, people thought that we had to choose. Either we backed policies that promoted business and sensible finance, but were indifferent to social inequality, or we engaged in old-style tax and spending to help the worst-off at the expense of sound economics.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer showed in his pre-Budget report last week how it was possible to combine enterprise, in measures such as the new capital gains tax regime, with fairness, in tackling social exclusion and unemployment. Moreover, he showed why it is necessary to combine those two things. In the new century, Britain will succeed only as a nation of all the talents, and human capital is our most precious resource. This Government understand that unemployment and poor education waste the country's assets, and that crime, bad housing and rundown inner-city estates hold people back while boom and bust destroys enterprise.
The Queen's Speech promotes sound economics and ushers in a new economy based on knowledge and skill, open to all. It alleviates poverty and social division, tackles crime, further reforms welfare and takes forward the modernisation of essential public services. In other words, it is enterprise and fairness together. At the heart of it all is our unshakeable commitment to economic stability.
I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition was due to come to the economy at some time in his speech. It was there for about two seconds, and then it suddenly went away again. We have the best chance of ending boomand bust in years--the £28 billion Tory borrowing requirement sorted out; public debt falling; interest payments on debt down by £4 billion; and inflation under control. That is no coincidence. We remember the Conservative years of boom and bust--interest rates at 15 per cent; a 7 per cent. fall in manufacturing output; 1 million jobs gone; and the national debt doubled. Let us remember them, and let us vow never to let the Tories back in charge of our economy.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow):
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. He consistently boasts about low interest rates, low inflation rates and record employment levels. Will he now tell the House how that very satisfactory situation would be improved on by joining the single currency?
The Prime Minister:
Until that intervention I had not realised how skilled my Chief Whip is--it is the only planted intervention that I have had from the Conservative
The new stability was delivered only by Bank of England independence and by new borrowing and spending rules. Given that the Leader of the Opposition has had two and a half years to work out his policy on Bank of England independence, I presume that it is present Conservative policy. The present shadow Chancellor--[Hon. Members: "Not for long."] No, I believe that he will stay there for a long time. He said:
On the stable foundation of economic stability we have to build a knowledge-based economy, which harnesses the potential of new technology. That is why the Queen's Speech proposes Bills on learning and skills--post-16; electronic commerce; Post Office reform; competition and consumer rights in utilities; financial services; and regulatory reform.
At the same time, we want to ensure that work pays and to move off benefit and into work those who can work. The new deal has been a tremendous success: 350,000 people have joined it; 125,000 young people who were long-term unemployed are now in unsubsidised jobs with employers; 20,000 single parents have been able to get work, some of whom had never worked before; youth and long-term unemployment has been halved; and 700,000 new jobs have been created. None of that would have happened under a Tory Government.
New Labour is working and the Conservatives would reverse the work that we have done. The working families tax credit is lifting the incomes of 1.4 million families, some by as much as £24 per week. The minimum wage has meant a pay rise for 2 million low-paid workers. None of those measures would have been introduced by a Tory Government.
The Queen's Speech takes those measures further. The new further education and training proposals will open up new skills and technology courses to give people the skills that they need for the knowledge economy. Because many families do not earn enough to provide for a decent pension in old age and so are put off work, the new welfare Bill will make that provision possible for the first time through the state second pension. More than 6 million people will benefit. Three million disabled people with broken work records will get help for the first time and 2 million carers, who cannot provide for themselves because they are providing and caring for others, will be eligible to be credited with second pension contributions.
So, there is another round of welfare reform. We cannot do the good things--the things that get help to those people in need--unless we take the tough decisions to
reform the system. When we came to power, social security spending had risen under the Conservatives by more than £40 billion. It rose more in real terms than spending on schools, hospitals or law and order. During the previous Parliament, it rose by 4 per cent. per annum in real terms--one in five families of non-pensionable age had no one working. The Conservatives claim that they would finance all their new tax and spending programmes by cutting social security spending, but they never did it in the 18 years that they were in government.
Spending on social and economic failure is down today from what it was when we came to office. That was line one of our contract with the people at the last election. Social security spending will rise only by an average of 1 per cent. in real terms in this Parliament. That is because child benefit is up 20 per cent., there is more money for pensioners and because of the working families tax credit. So, where we are spending more, we are meaning to.
The Queen's Speech continues with that reform. The Child Support Agency, which is expensive, often unfair and arbitrary and failing to provide for hundreds of thousands of children, will be radically overhauled. Care services for children in care will be regulated and there will be a crack down on paedophiles and unsuitable people working with children. More help will go to the children of the poorest parents. If we provide that opportunity, we believe that we have a better chance of getting responsibility and law-abiding conduct from our citizens.
The Conservative central office brief for this debate stated that there were no measures in the Queen's Speech to cut crime. We are already cutting the time that it takes to bring persistent juvenile offenders to court. From 1 December, we will be introducing "Three strikes and you're out" for burglars, tougher sentences on rape and violence, anti-social neighbour orders, and new investment for closed-circuit television, DNA testing and police recruits. This Queen's Speech takes that further. There will be new action to break the link between drugs and crime. Punishment in the community will be transformed through extensions of electronic tagging. There will be fundamental reform of the probation service and we will prevent court and police time from being wasted on cases in the Crown court that should be tried in the magistrates court.
Some of those measures may be opposed on civil liberty grounds, but the civil liberty that is most prized by British citizens is the freedom to go about their daily lives free from crime and harassment and, when crimes are committed, for the perpetrators to be properly punished.
If we run a stable economy, if we make work pay and get people off benefit, if we reform welfare and tackle crime, then we can afford to spend on improving public services. Why did the Tories undermine our public services? It was because boom and bust economics meant that they had no consistent funding and because large numbers of people were on benefit when they should have been off benefit and into work. Dogma, of course, made them keener to privatise public services for the few than to improve them for the many--and that is what they are up to again, as I shall show in a moment.
Of course, waiting lists are still too long. Of course, we still need more doctors and nurses. Of course, we need better pay for teachers and more modern buildings, better transport systems and better rail and road services.But the one group of people who have no right to complain, who should be apologising rather than attacking us, is the Conservative party which created this mess because it put tax cuts for the few at the expense of public services for the many.
A lot has been done. Waiting lists for in-patients are falling for the first time in years. Yes, out-patients lists have risen; they were rising under the Tories. By the end of next year, they, too, will fall. More nurses are now in training: more doctors. Nineteen hospitals are being built with more to come. Every accident and emergency department is being refurbished. NHS Direct will by next year cover the whole country. Cancer patients who need urgent diagnosis will be seen in two weeks. Yes, we still have a shortage of cancer specialists. That is why we already have, under this Government, 400 cancer specialists in training. They will increase the numbers by 60 per cent. By the end of a five-year term, NHS spending will be more than 6 per cent. of gross domestic product for the first time. That is the spending that the Conservatives condemned as reckless and irresponsible.
On schools, 5,000 school buildings have been modernised with another 10,000 to come through the new deal. Class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds are falling. For the first time in 10 years, in all our schools, the pupil-teacher ratio is on the way down. In two years, we have doubled the number of specialist schools and 200 beacon schools are being set up to spread excellence nationwide.
The literacy and numeracy strategies in primary schools--[Interruption.] I am talking about policy, so the Conservatives lose interest. When we get on to policy, they start talking among themselves. The numeracy and literacy strategies in primary schools, opposed by the Conservatives, have delivered the best reading, writing and maths results ever for 11-year-olds in this country. Every single one of those changes was opposed by the Tories.
Next year, thanks to the Queen's Speech and other measures, there will be a new transport Bill to end fragmentation of the railways and allow us to increase investment through partnership between public and private sectors.
All those reforms that we have introduced, especially in the health service, were opposed by the Tories. Reform, yes; modernisation, certainly. But this Labour Government will never privatise essential services of the national health service. That is not the case with the Tory party.
The Leader of the Opposition was very coy about his policy. Coy is perhaps too kind a description. I will now say what the Tory policy is on the national health service. It was set out by the shadow Health Secretary at a party conference fringe meeting. He began by saying:
Just a couple of weeks ago the Opposition health spokesman let the cat out of the bag in another speech when he said:
Dr. Peter Brand (Isle of Wight):
Does the Prime Minister agree that the reason why people are now considering private insurance for health is the abysmal record of the Government in the past two years, and the lengthening waiting lists?
The Prime Minister:
We are putting more money into the national health service than the Liberal party ever pledged at the election. Of course it will take time to rebuild the national health service, but the difference between the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party is that we want the national health service rebuilt whereas they want it simply as a sink facility for those who cannot afford to go private.
The Tory policy on health is just one of the policies that the Conservatives have made, but they have not made very much policy, as we saw from the speech of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks. So let us see whether we can get a response from the Tories on any policy. Do they still oppose the minimum wage?
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey):
Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister:
In a minute.
The minimum wage was described by the Tory employment spokesman the other week as "a calamity", so I suppose that the Conservatives do still oppose it. We do not know.
Are the Conservatives committed to scrapping the working families tax credit? Definitely. We have definitely got them there--well done, that is a policy.
Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is the Prime Minister responsible for the policy of the Conservative party?
Madam Speaker:
The Prime Minister and any other Member of the House make what speeches they wish to make. The Prime Minister is not spelling out the policy of the Opposition.
The Prime Minister:
I am just trying to find out who is responsible for their policy. Do they still oppose the extra £100 to pensioners? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] Do they still want to opt out of the social chapter? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] Do they? Do they still oppose the literacy and numeracy strategy for schools? They are definitely still in favour of scrapping the new deal, I think. [Hon. Members: "Yes."] Well, it was described by the new employment spokesman as
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
This is my first speech from the Back Benches for almost a quarter of a century. It is very encouraging to be looked upon by my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench as a promising Back Bencher. When I was asked by my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip to move the motion, I noticed that she carefully omitted the words often whispered to Back Benchers on this occasion--"Do this well and you could be in line for a job in the Government."
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
"The Government have banned books in all our schools",
and went on to say:
"The Government has provided £1,000 to all schools with which to purchase handguns."
In some parts of the country, that might well be a credible future manifesto commitment!
"told friends that Tony Blair believed he was performing a valuable 'managerial' role at the heart of government".
That is another blind trust of which the Prime Minister took advantage. At least the right hon. Gentleman has left office--I think that it is him--with that famous photograph of a fellow Cabinet Minister in a compromising position. As you would say, Madam Speaker, for greater convenience I have obtained a copy. I can now reveal what is in the photograph: it features the current Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food eating a baguette.
"My Government . . . will make it easier for people to participate in elections."
That must be the first instance of something being put into the Queen's Speech entirely as a joke. If the Prime Minister is finding the problem so difficult, I have a solution for him. Why does he not split the job of mayor of London? The former Health Secretary can run as his "day-mayor" and the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) can run as his "night-mayor" The Prime Minister is thinking about it, I can tell.
"Surely, cutting down the right to jury trial, making the system less fair, is not only wrong but short-sighted, and likely to prove ineffective."--[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 433.]
That is what the Home Secretary himself said just two years ago.
"The Green Belt is a Labour achievement and now we're going to build on it."
The right hon. Gentleman was standing in at Prime Minister's Question Time so much that Wednesday is now the only day that the Prime Minister spends in this country. As Lady Richard revealed recently, the Deputy Prime Minister has even been chairing Cabinet meetings. She says in her diary for a Cabinet meeting on 19 June:
"Blair said he was in favour of the Millennium Dome and then disappeared, leaving John Prescott in charge. The meeting fell apart."
The Deputy Prime Minister reminds me a little of an ageing Soviet leader in the old days. [Interruption.]I know that Labour Members do not like hearing about the Deputy Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman's power is taken from him, but he is still brought out to wave to the crowds at the party conference. Everyone pretends that he only has a cold, but it is rather worrying that he seems confused by simple questions and has to take a car to go even a couple of hundred yards. All around him his friends are quietly disappearing: Lord Macdonald is taking over his Department and Lord Falconer is taking over his role--purely for his own protection, of course.
"shows an astonishing naivety of the knowledge based entrepreneurial sector . . . that will kill the enterprise culture."
The Government's Financial Services and Markets Bill threatens to load more costs and bureaucracy on the financial services industry and we shall seek further concessions on that Bill during this Session. Only a Government who have lost all sense of self-awareness could possibly celebrate two years of introducing red tape and burdens on business by promising a deregulation Bill.
"We would not have given up control of interest rates in the first place".
The Leader of the Opposition said:
"They have given up control of interest rates when they should have kept hold of them."
More recently, he accused us of "dangerous arrogance" in granting independence for the Bank of England. Is Conservative policy to reverse Bank of England independence? We can see why there were so many jokes in the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
"As one of the, I think, unreconstructed Thatcherite free-marketeers in the shadow cabinet, I'm a great believer generically in markets . . . The biggest problem that we have in the NHS is that it is not a proper market."
He went on to say that, under their proposals,
"Those waiting the shortest time will have to find other ways of getting the treatment required by perhaps having private medical insurance."
17 Nov 1999 : Column 29
Then he went on to say:
The Opposition should pay attention to this part because this is what they are fighting the next general election on. He went on to say:
"I think what we're proposing could revolutionise private insurance in the way we revolutionised pensions in the 1980s."
"We therefore have to come forward with a completely new system. What we're starting is perhaps a Trojan Horse, because with the Patient's Guarantee, most of them haven't thought through the implications of what we're doing."
I will tell the country the implications--what the Trojan horse is. It is to give the patient's guarantee for waiting times for urgent cases and to force all non-urgent cases to go private. That is what the Conservatives' health policy is about.
"Why is it so wrong for people to provide for some of their own health needs? After all, at the Government's insistence, 15.5 million of us do so every year when we go abroad. Why shouldn't we do the same at home? Let me put it bluntly, too few people are willing to invest in private healthcare."
How about this gem from the person who has joined him--the new health spokesperson, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)? In the past two weeks, talking about her own private health insurance, she said:
"I try to use the national health service if I can because it's important to see what it is like for people who do not have the privilege of private health care."
That is what the Conservatives are about. That is why the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks did not talk about policy. If one forces non-urgent cases out of the health service, as the Conservatives will if elected, that means hip replacements, varicose vein operations, tonsillectomies, hernias and cataracts. How do elderly people in the health service afford health insurance to cover that type of operation? The Conservatives have learned nothing from their past except how to repeat their mistakes.
"a colossal and expensive failure"--[Official Report, 14 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 430.]
He has also described it as
"a waste of public money and a fraud".
So I assume that they do favour scrapping it.