House of Commons Hansard Debates for 12 Nov 1990

Column 394

My local example also shows that this year's bed closures could take waiting lists in England to more than 1 million for the first time in the national health service. That is a disgraceful statistic for a Government who pretend to spend a lot of money on health care. I do not believe that the extra £2.4 billion--the pre-election bribe announced by the Chancellor--will do much to alleviate the crisis. The Government calculations assume an inflation rate of 6 per cent. If wage increases are 10.9 per cent., which is what they should be if staff are not to take a cut in pay, the calculation of any growth is worthless. I do not see why low-paid health authority staff should have to bail out a Government who will not fund them properly. Health authorities are expected to find an additional £210 million from efficiency savings--a Government euphemism for cuts.

The Government's privatisation programme in the health service has been a complete disaster and led to dirtier hospitals, poorer food and, in many cases, a lousy laundry service, which any nurse will say is disgraceful. The forthcoming Labour Government will end the system of compulsory competitive tendering in such services as catering, laundry and domestic services.

As time is short, I shall refer to the second headline in the Morning Star. It states :

"London hospitals have cancelled leave for key staff and reserved emergency beds for possible war casualties from the Gulf crisis." The Ministry of Defence initially denied that contingency plans for an emergency had been put into operation. However, today's edition of The Guardian carries a report that

"Britain's naval hospitals have more than doubled the amount of space set aside for mortuary preparations The hospitals at Plymouth and in Portsmouth, have each turned a medical ward into a mortuary to allow them together to deal with up to 100 bodies each day."

We have been told that, if war breaks out in the Gulf, a worst case scenario would be as many as 400 dead a day. Yesterday, the Secretary of State rejected any such suggestion. He said : "Our determination would be to see casualty figures nothing like that figure at all."

If the Secretary of State for Defence believes that, before he plunges this country into war, he has a duty to tell us his estimate of the number of casualties. How many body bags does he anticipate will occupy the new mortuaries in Portsmouth and Plymouth? Where will the victims of a modern war be treated and what will happen to the hundreds of thousands of civilians currently on the growing waiting lists?

The world has no shortage of enemies. If the Prime Minister and the Government want to look for enemies, they can look at poverty, hunger and disease, and find plenty. They could have joined Opposition Members in opposing Saddam Hussein years ago when we said that we should not increase export credits to that man. The Government have used double standards on the Gulf. We did not go to war when the United States invaded Grenada or Panama, the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan, Indonesia annexed East Timor, or Israel claimed Jerusalem as its capital city and continued to occupy Gaza and the west bank.

The hypocrisy of a Prime Minister who can mouth platitudes on the sanctity of international law and the necessity of war trials when she has slavishly followed

Column 395

United States policy in Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador and Cambodia, is frankly sickening. The stench of such hypocrisy brings shame to our country.

If the Prime Minister takes this country into what will be a devastating war, let her at least be honest about the reasons. Those include self- preservation and her hope for the Falklands factor--then, as now, she was in deep trouble at home, as is the President of the United States. Another of her reasons is to protect the oil companies' interests and the west's determination to get its hands on the oil.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) : Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Mahon : No, I shall not--I have only 10 minutes.

Everyone knows that this war is unnecessary and sanctions could be made to work. In The Independent today there is a letter from Staff Sergeant William Ghetti of the United States air force, which states :

"As each day passes, it is becoming more apparent that our primary mission is to protect the Saudi oil fields, with the restoration of Kuwait as a negotiable secondary concern. After all, we have not intervened in areas of less economic importance. The greed that drives our oil-based world economy has put us in the position that we are willing to risk our nation's sons and daughters in the quest for stable prices at the pumps."

I agree with that staff sergeant, who is now in the Gulf. The banging of the war drum is totally irresponsible. Either before or after a war, people with the right credentials will have to sit down and negotiate. It would be much better if we sat down and negotiated before the war, before hundreds of thousands of people get killed. Governments have a responsibility to stop such disastrous events taking place--

Mr. Arnold : What about the Kuwaiti victims of murder, pillage and rape?

Mrs. Mahon : Conservative members who are heckling also have a responsibility, because they will not be returning in body bags or occupying mortuary wards in Plymouth or anywhere else, or adding to the queues in the national health service. I hope to God that the Government are not so desperate to be re-elected that they put their political survival before the lives of people in this country. 7.59 pm

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent) : I have a warm welcome for the paragraph in the Queen's Speech which stresses the Government's determination to

"continue to work with our Community partners and contribute constructively to the inter-governmental conferences on Economic and Monetary Union and Community institutions",

because this country always has been and always will be part of Europe. More often than we should care to think about our involvement in Europe has been with arms and instruments of death. Now, thanks to the vision of a great Conservative Prime Minister of 50 years ago and to the political skills of some great European politicians, we have the finest chance ever to ensure that never again will our involvement in Europe be as an enemy of one European country or another.

That was part of the vision which swept us to power in 1979 and which gave us not only a majority of British Members of the European Parliament but a right-of-centre

Column 396

majority in that Parliament. It was that vision which impelled us into the Single European Act so that progress towards a more effective European Community could be accelerated. And it is that vision that we should be idiotic to renounce.

Yet suddenly we seem to falter. We fought a campaign in the last European elections which for the first time suggested that the Conservative party was in doubt about our future in Europe--and we paid the price. We lost our majority in Europe and we now have to live with the socialist consequences of that defeat.

It is worse than that, however. In the early years of this Government we had close relations with the Christian Democrat majority ; now we do not. Then we could count most of the time on the support of many other countries ; now we cannot. I believe that that is because of an uncharacteristic attack of pessimism at the highest levels.

I hate the continual repetition of the idea that we cannot compete with the Germans or the French. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister paid tribute to the Nissan factory the other day, she said :

"It is a combination of British workmanship and Japanese management which is producing excellent cars".--[ Official Report, 30 October 1990 ; Vol. 178, c. 866.]

That struck a chill in my heart, for it is a recipe for a Third world economy if ever I heard one. We know that British management with British workers can take on and beat the world, and that is what we need to ensure in future.

I share the Government's determination to mould the European Community to a shape with which we can be comfortable, but we need to examine carefully how we do that. I do not believe that we can do it by putting forward excellent policies in a tone of voice that leaves us with no one else in our lobby. We cannot do it by attacking the European Commission either. It is the Council of Ministers which takes decisions, serviced by committees that meet in secret and are effectively accountable to no one.

I welcome the belated moves being made in this House to give us a better chance to advise Ministers before they go to a Council meeting and to scrutinise more easily the European Community's proposals, but I deeply regret the continuing failure to make effective the links between us and our Members of the European Parliament. We are the only EC member which treats our Members of the European Parliament as aliens from another planet. That is why I welcomed the calling of the assizes under my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).

The Council of Ministers should be able to be called to account, and that must be by the European Parliament ; and its committees should be open to scrutiny and called to account both by the European Parliament and by this House. Above all, we need the optimism to believe that Britain can compete and succeed in a wider Europe. We should have more British candidates coming forward for the European civil service, not fewer as is happening now. We should recognise the costs of being lukewarm about Europe and we should embrace with enthusiasm the opportunities that it can provide. We need to change our tactics to secure our objectives and we need to do so soon. One of the problems about the European debate is the confusion about what is meant by sovereignty and citizenship. Lately, a report was published by a commission under the patronage of Mr. Speaker. Its topic was citizenship. It was a large commission--with hindsight, probably too large- -and it set itself a difficult

Column 397

task : to see how citizenship might be redefined and encouraged. The commission discovered much that was vital to the country and to this debate.

We found that young people want to know much more about what it means to be a citizen. We found that judges, Members of Parliament, civil servants, teachers and many others often have little or no idea about the effects on citizenship of the many international agreements that we have signed since the war. The international charter on human rights, the United Nations charter on the rights of the child and many other charters have made significant changes to the status of British citizens. The report urges action to ensure that those changes are widely understood. That would reduce enormously the number of occasions on which we are taken to European courts, because we would know what we were talking about.

The commission also made a series of recommendations to make it possible for every British citizen, starting with the young, to contribute through voluntary work to the society in which he lives. One of the themes of this debate is alienation--the isolation of one person from another, or one group from another ; the isolation that persuades thousands of young people that it does not matter if they prey on other members of society ; or which encourages groups to dismiss or harass others because of the colour of their skin or their accent or religion. There is also the isolation of parents who seem so turned in on themselves that they can abuse their own children. How can we change all this? It is not a matter of penalties or of prisons. They play a necessary part in the framework of society, but if we are to change things we have to break down the barriers between our citizens which have been erected by ignorance and prejudice. By far the best way to break them down is to give our citizens, especially the young, the chance to serve others so that they can see for themselves what other people are really like. That way they can build up their self-confidence in dealing with other people and we can show them how to work together in a team. Isolation, ignorance and fear breed anti-social behaviour, and becoming involved in what my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor called active citizenship is good for the volunteer, good for the cause in which he or she works and good for society.

I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to take seriously Mr. Speaker's commission's plea that a national debate be begun on citizenship and on active citizenship. I should also like to hope that the other measures to be laid before us will include charity law reform. A satisfactory system of protecting an ever more generous public against the possibility of fraud is long overdue and could be brought forward in a Bill to reform charitable law.

I very much agree with hon. Members who have said that we need a much more open society. We have become increasingly nervous of opening up the documents on which we construct our debates to public scrutiny, and that is demeaning to the public and extremely bad for those who have to make policy. I hope that we can become much less paranoid about documents ; if they were open to the public, there would be fewer leaks, and we could conduct public debates in a better way.

Finally, as the Member for Mid-Kent, I cannot leave the Queen's Speech in which so much money has been given to transport without mentioning the high -speed

Column 398

train. I was greatly encouraged by a distinguished article in The Times on Saturday by Professor Peter Hall in favour of the eastern approach to London. It is becoming increasingly clear that British Rail has totally misunderstood the arguments about freight and that Kent county council is beginning to understand the importance of those arguments. It is manifest that British Rail, even with the Government's present generosity, is highly unlikely to be able to make its existing proposal viable.

I am optimistic that, over the next two or three years, the penny will drop and that we shall find ourselves with a four-track railway capable of carrying continental freight by a method that will preserve not only the roads of Kent but those in the rest of the country from the vast inroads of heavy lorries. I look forward to the successful conclusion of a campaign that has occupied me and many of my colleagues for far too long.

8.10 pm

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Before making the speech that I told the Home Secretary about in an intervention, I should like to refer to the speech by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). The right hon. Gentleman spoke warmly about the election as President of the Irish Republic of Mary Robinson. Mary Robinson has made overtures to Northern Ireland and has said that she is willing to meet people from both communities and to extend the hand of friendship from the Republic to Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman did not reject that hand. That is important for future developments in Ireland and offers the possibility of peace and progress in both parts of the island.

The theme of the debate is rights, freedoms and responsibilities and that, too, is relevant to Ireland. Healthy rights and freedoms and the widespread taking up by society of its collective responsibilities are characteristics of a full democracy. Underpinning a full democracy is a universal franchise. Such a franchise is no guarantee of democracy, because some of the civil liberties that we have been discussing, the attitudes of society and the right to formulate and to express opinion relevant to the discussion that we had on broadcasting are all very important. However, the starting point is that everyone should have a vote. That is why the Chartists fought so strongly for the vote in the 19th century. They achieved it for men and at the beginning of the 20th century the suffragettes achieved it for women.

We came to recognise that full franchise is a birthright and we had to overcome technical difficulties to ensure that everyone was on the electoral register. If we remove that we shall take away one of the major justifying principles for the rule of law. I am not saying that the rule of law should not operate if democracy is imperfect, but that it should be furthered as democracy itself is furthered. Specific sets of circumstances are liable to arise under which the laws passed in societies without a full franchise strongly impinge on minorities which are unable to do anything about it through the exercise of the franchise. In such cases their protests may not always be kept fully within the rule of law but become intemperate and unjust, as are the actions of terrorists in Northern Ireland. In Britain there is a general belief that we have finally guaranteed electoral rights and that the latest full expression of it is codified in the Representation of the

Column 399

People Act 1985. But that overlooks the impact of the operation of the poll tax, which in this context can be looked upon not just as a poll tax per head, but as having to do with electoral registration and voting. Because of the operation of the poll tax, more than 600, 000 people in England, Scotland and Wales are currently missing from the electoral register. That becomes evident when we look at the number of 18-year-olds estimated to be in the population. Such a disparity did not occur before the introduction of poll tax. It does not occur in Northern Ireland which does not have the poll tax. In the Finchley constituency over the past two years, 8.5 per cent. of people have disappeared from the electoral register. I shall later argue that the Finchley model is being furthered by the Home Office in circulars that it is sending out to electoral returning officers. In what could still be an election year, the Gracious Speech should have included a promise to restore a full franchise on which the rest of the rights and freedoms depend.

It was evident from the start that the poll tax would undermine electoral registration. The very notion of accountability talked about by the Government showed that there was a link between the poll tax and registering to vote, not merely making use of the right to vote. Electoral registration numbers first started to fall in Scotland when the poll tax was introduced there and they later began to fall in England and Wales. It is likely to be a serious factor when the figures for the current registration are published in the provisional registers which are due at the end of November. The principle of the poll tax and electoral registration being linked is clear. When the poll tax register is short of the people who hide in desperation because they cannot pay, it will be topped up following an examination of the electoral register. The two matters are closely connected and in many cases solidly interlinked. We are beginning to see not just the principle of that operation but some empirical evidence that my argument is correct. In legislation, such things will occasionally pop through, sometimes almost unnoticed by the House. In the previous Session, the House passed the Caldey Island Act 1990. It was discovered that some monks and other inhabitants of Caldey Island were not correctly enfranchised and not paying their poll tax. Section 1 enfranchises the residents of Caldey Island and section 2 makes them pay their poll tax. That seems to be a recognition that there is some similarity between the two problems that have arisen. It came out in that minor legislation which, however, was important for the citizens of Caldey Island.

Home Office circular RPA 347 of 10 August begins to show something of the connection between the electoral register and the poll tax register. The circular contains instructions from the Home Office to electoral returning officers and paragraph 25 states :

"Where a person whose name was on the previous electoral register does not respond to canvass, and his name does not appear on the community charges register, it is recommended that the name should not be carried forward."

In some cases, a person could be entitled to be on the electoral register and be on a poll tax register in a different constituency. An example is students who are resident elsewhere. If they have inadvertently left their names off the electoral register, they will disappear fairly quickly, because their names will not be on the poll tax register either.

Column 400

On 23 October this year, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) asked the Prime Minister :

"Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a case for turning the poll tax into exactly that--for taking the vote away from people who have not paid their community charge, and giving it back to them only when they have done so?"--[ Official Report, 23 October 1990 ; Vol. 178, c. 187.]

That astonishing remark was--even more astonishingly--supported by other hon. Members in an amendment to an early-day motion that I presented. They appear not to have appreciated the significance of what had been said : that people must pay a tax to be able to vote. I am reminded of the recent election in Chile. To register on the electoral roll, people had to pay up to a month's salary on what resembled a British employment scheme. If such a tax were imposed in this country, we could find it obnoxious ; having looked up our constitutional theory, we would argue strongly against it. Yet the poll tax provisions are very similar. Increasingly, those who are not on the poll tax register will not appear on the electoral register either.

Mrs. Mahon : I, too, was in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) made his suggestion to the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend, like me, will have observed in the short time for which we have both been Members of Parliament that Back-Benchers often fly kites for the Prime Minister. Some months later, a Bill is presented that takes up the Back Bencher's suggestion, no matter how outrageous it may be.

Mr. Barnes : The significant feature of the kite flown by the hon. Member for Colne Valley was the fact that the Prime Minister did not promptly reject it, arguing--with a natural adherence to the democratic principles in which she is supposed to believe--that it flew in the face of the libertarian tenets that should lie at the core of a proud defence of the franchise ; especially in a constituency such as Colne Valley, which has a tradition of liberal radicalism and democratic socialism.

The most important item of empirical evidence to support my argument is that which I cited earlier--the number of names that are missing from the electoral register. These things are difficult to judge, but one way of judging them is to compare the number of names on the register with the estimated number of people aged over 18. Until 1987, there was at least a rough and ready connection between the two, but after that the names start to disappear. It seems that some 1.5 per cent. of the electorate are missing from the current electoral register--at least 600,000 people.

It may be far worse than that, however. For some time, I have been trying to discover--by means of parliamentary questions--what is happening in Finchley, and whether the loss of 8.5 per cent. of the electorate is the end of the story. Have any more names disappeared? We may find out shortly. I shall signal a punch, so that the Prime Minister will not have a surprise on Thursday ; when I ask my question, the state of the electoral register will not be far from my mind.

There are other blocks to electoral registration. For instance, the selling of the register for commercial purposes is considered as serious as any other factor, as is shown by the number of letters that I have received from people who read my recent letter to The Times. Some people do not want their names to appear on the register, fearing that they will be flooded with junk mail from

Column 401

various organisations. The only way in which they can escape the problem is by withholding their names from the register.

People should not do that, of course, and I urge everyone who writes to me to maintain the basic rights without which it will be impossible for them to change the position. If they want to get rid of the poll tax, they will need the franchise. Some are so desperate, however, that they dispense with those rights, because they know that the time when they can change the position is all too far ahead. We should be digging out the principles established by the Chartists and the suffragettes which justified the militant activities that they undertook--principles that fly in the face of the Home Secretary's suggestion that the rule of law is a neat line, over which no one must ever venture. If the principle of the electoral register is being undermined, surely different possibilities may present themselves.

We spend a miserly amount on encouraging enfranchisement, compared with what is spent on general Government publicity. In 1989, £320, 000-- 0.31 per cent. of expenditure--went on encouraging people to take up their electoral rights, while Abbey National alone spent £6.5 million on encouraging people to vote in a plc election. It could not tell them which way to vote, of course, although what it wanted was obvious ; nevertheless, it spent all that money encouraging them to use their enfranchisement rights within a single company. Similarly, we spend a fortune publicising the electricity privatisation. Where is the equivalent of "Frank N. Stein" and his cuddly monster to encourage people to take up the most basic right in a democratic society?

If it were purely random, the loss of franchise would have no impact on the outcome of elections. It would be serious enough for the right of individuals to have their say to be removed, but if, say, every 10th person happened to be missing from the register, the political consequences might not be too alarming, and matters could probably be put right afterwards. The people whose names are missing, however, are those who cannot pay the poll tax--people who are frightened of it, and who therefore have the strongest objection to its imposition. They would not vote Conservative if they had a vote. There are civil libertarians, bothered about the possibility of commercial organisations having access to their names and addresses. They cannot be seen sitting in solid ranks on the Conservative Benches. It is therefore to the Government's advantage to push through measures that result in a fiddling of the franchise.

Mrs. Wise : Is not the temptation for young people to opt out of the franchise particularly damaging? Is it not likely to lead to a lifetime of hostility, and a sense of alienation from the democratic process?

Mr. Barnes : According to the evidence that I have obtained from the Library, the loss of voting rights is most serious among "attainers"--those coming up to the age of 18. If people are missing from the electoral register, it is theoretically possible to refer to the previous register to find them, but attainers will not be on any previous register. The figures show that in England, Scotland and Wales the loss of names is far greater in that age group. In Northern Ireland, which does not have the poll tax, more attainers than ever are now registered. The Northern

Column 402

Ireland franchise is highly efficient and democratic. Of course, the problem in Northern Ireland is that the population has nothing much on which to vote. They do not have the right major political parties about which to make a choice. They do not have a Bill of Rights and they do not have the right provisions to ensure that a democracy is properly run. But at least they are on the starting block, whereas in England, Scotland and Wales the starting block is being chopped from under the population.

I strongly opposed the extension of the vote to expatriates, some of whom left this country up to 20 years ago. Some of them were only babes in arms- -yet they will have a vote that will give them a say in the running of this country. Those votes will be distributed to different areas under a system that will be wide open to abuse. Instructions have been sent to electoral returning officers by the Home Office. Luckily, despite all the efforts of "Conservatives Abroad" trying to persuade people to register, not many have yet done so. Nevertheless, the position must be closely monitored as potentially some 3 million people could be included on electoral registers under that system.

Parliament should wake up to that fraud. It is a

"grab-what-you-can" attitude, with none of the usual principles of democracy. If Parliament accepts that, we can only appeal beyond the Chamber to the public to take action, be vigilant and put matters right. They must protest and pressurise about the decline in the franchise. When they have the opportunity to vote, even with a shrinking electorate, they must use that vote to change the system and restore the franchise. Conservative Members, whose Government have introduced these measures, have a special responsibility to examine their consciences. They were elected on a full franchise, and they should stand again on a full franchise.

The fact that, currently, only 1.5 to 2.5 per cent. are affected does not alter the position, because in the British electoral system that could have a significant impact on the results. Is it not true that the Prime Minister's main hope for holding on to Finchley is that the franchise has been shifted and fiddled so much that she might just be re-elected? It is disgraceful.

The long march to democracy, which we thought had gone much of the way, has now been halted and, in some ways, put into reverse. When I was elected in 1987, I did not dream that I would have to stand up in this Chamber, time and again, and press for one person, one vote. This is the first time that I have done so in the presence of the Home Secretary, but I have done it many times in the presence of his junior Ministers. There are those who believe in one person, one vote, one value, and they argue for proportional representation. Not many of them are here tonight--indeed, there is no one on the Liberal-Democrat Benches. If they believe in one person, one vote, one value, they should argue for a full return to the franchise. We cannot have one value if everybody does not have the right to exercise his vote.

The loss of 1.5 per cent. of the electorate is much more damaging under a first-past-the-post system than it would be under a proportional representation system. One reason why I am becoming more sympathetic to proportional representation is that the fiddling that could occur under that system would have less significance. However, I remain opposed to certain aspects of

Column 403

proportional representation, such as the single transferable vote in a multi-member constituency. We must stand up for democracy. I hope that the Home Secretary listens carefully to what we say and responds to it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) referred to the Gulf crisis. I did not manage to speak in our previous debates on that matter, even though I have a great interest in what happens in Iraq. Some considerable time ago, between 1954 and 1956, I did my national service in Iraq. I worked with the Iraq state railway. I was stationed in Basra in the south of Iraq, an area which has been prominent in the moves against Kuwait. Certain aspects of Iraq today are similar to those prevalent in 1954 to 1956. I wish to relate two incidents that had a major impact on my political opinions and views on the current position in the Gulf.

Shortly after arriving in Iraq, I was moved by train from my camp at Habbaniyah to Basra. I travelled on the old Berlin to Baghdad railway, which had been extended to Basra. The train travelled slowly, and on the outskirts of Baghdad I saw the mud huts, the mud streets, the open sewers, the flies and the general deprivation. It was quite a shock to an 18-year- old ; the reality is far different from the pictures one sees on television. It appeared to be mediaeval and biblical.

After a bloody coup in Iraq involving the then President Kassem and the death of King Faisal, there was an improvement in the suburbs. Brick houses were built and electricity and proper sewers were installed. Despite all the problems with Kassem's regime, he at least did something about providing housing for the working class and the peasantry of Iraq. I understand that fresh suburbs with mud huts and all that goes with them have now re-emerged around Baghdad because Saddam Hussein has used his financial resources only to extend his military hardware and to develop his empire. The Iraqi people and the people of the middle east generally, with the exception of the favoured few, need decent social provisions and the democracy that should go with it.

I left Iraq in the middle of the Suez crisis. I wondered whether I would be drawn into it. I remember listening to the BBC overseas network on the camp radio. It said that there were no British troops in Iraq, only a handful of military advisers. In fact, there were 3, 000 troops as well as some modern aeroplanes. Obviously, there was a danger that we would be drawn into the Suez conflict. That conflict involved collusion between the United Kingdom, France and Israel and showed me the incorrectness of our imperialist interference in that area. During King Faisal's period, Crown territory at Shaiber, Habbaniyah and Basra was returned to the Iraqi Government. It appeared that we were finally pulling out.

However, we are now fully involved. The lessons from those two experiences are that it would be disastrous if American, British and French troops were to move into Kuwait, even if it were a quick strike like the six-day war by the Israelis and there were a quick military victory. The consequences would be horrendous for the middle east. Governments would collapse left, right and centre. The Jordanian Government would fall into the arms of Saddam Hussein, war would break out with Israel and the middle east would be open to more undemocratic forces, as the Muslim brotherhood and others would bound forth.

We must seek to stop that. If action is to be taken in the middle east, it must be with the agreement of the international community and under United Nations

Column 404

control. I recognise that the presence of troops can aid the process of economic sanctions, but they can have the terrible consequence of leading to bloody conflict.

Mrs. Mahon : Like my hon. Friend, I wanted to speak in the two-day debate on the Gulf, but was excluded, it would seem, purely on the basis that I am female. Does my hon. Friend accept that people who are closely connected with the hostages and those who have returned also want negotiations and some settlement without armed conflict? All those who have returned, almost to a person, have said that they very much regretted the Prime Minister's warlike rhetoric.

Mr. Barnes : Public opinion is changing. Minds are being concentrated on the possibility of our troops dying. The hostages have been used outrageously by Saddam Hussein. His regime is evil and many of the other things that are said about it are correct, although if it fell in the circumstances that I have described, a decent, new democratic regime may not blossom forth.

We need more debate and discussion on the issue. I am sorry that hon. Members have not had an opportunity, apart from the two-day debate, to discuss this fully and thoroughly, but instead have had to pinch time out of a debate about freedoms and democracy. As many hon. Members as possible should use the Chamber to express their views on the major issue of the hour, and I hope that we shall get some response.

8.43 pm

Mr. David Amess (Basildon) : I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the robust fashion in which he articulated the rights, freedoms and responsibilities that Conservative Members believe in.

The subject that we are discussing is at the core of the differences between both sides of the Chamber. The Opposition have a different view from Conservative Members on the relationship between the state and the individual. I warmly welcome all the proposals in the Queen's Speech, including the War Crimes Bill.

Several Opposition Members felt that they had to refer to the leader of our party. On Wednesday, the Leader of the Opposition made what I thought would be a major speech. For five minutes he held the House, but for the rest of the time he was absolutely atrocious, resorting to personal abuse of Conservative Members and giving absolutely no detail about policy. This time last year, I said that the Opposition could not get away for another year without articulating their policies. I admit that I was completely wrong. Whatever the issue, the Opposition's answer is to spend more money. How they will create the wealth to sustain the extra spending, we are yet to hear.

Labour Members had the cheek to speak of inflation and interest rates. When they shared Government with the Liberal party, they were not concerned about interest rates or the rate of inflation, but now they have the cheek to lecture us.

Labour has tabled three amendments to the Address. The first deals with education. Where was Labour's support for freedom and choice in education when Shirley Williams was Secretary of State? I certainly do not recall it.

The second amendment deals with Europe. The Labour party has the cheek to lecture Conservative Members

Column 405

about Europe. In 1962, it was in favour of Europe, but in 1964 it opposed it. In 1966, it was in favour of Europe, but in 1971 it opposed it. In 1975, it was in favour of Europe, but in 1983 it opposed it. Surprise, surprise, in 1990 it is in favour of Europe. A cynic would say that it cuts its cloth to suit the way in which it believes people are thinking. I am a cynic, and I believe that it is just talking on Europe because it thinks that there will be short-term political gain in doing so. The Government legislate not according to short-term popularity but according to what we think is in the long-term interests of Britain. I believe that the nation will continue to support us in our endeavours.

This has been a good few weeks for the constituency of Basildon. First, I was delighted that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Housing and Planning announced that the pilot scheme for changing rents into mortgages would be held in Basildon. The scheme will give many constituents the opportunity to fulfil their lifetime ambition of owning their home. Again, we see the duplicity of the Opposition on home ownership. Labour and Liberals voted against every word and line of the legislation on home ownership. When in 1979 and 1983 they realised that it was popular, they changed their mind. As interest rates have increased, they do not think that home ownership is such a good thing. We are consistent because we believe in home ownership.

Secondly, Basildon has the first grant-maintained school in Essex, Chalvedon school. That is giving parents an opportunity to take full advantage of the direct funding of the Government. Thirdly, the local Labour party set up area management committees, which are supposed to listen to the views of the people and act accordingly. On their agenda was the proposed development of a Tesco superstore. More than 200 people turned up at the meeting ; 197 were against the proposal and three were for it. What did the democratic Labour party do? It approved the plan for a Tesco superstore in Basildon. I am delighted that this democratic Government, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, has decided to call in the plan.

Fourthly, we were delighted with the local government finance statement. Last year, Basildon district council was 196 per cent. above the standard spending assessment--twice as much as any other local authority. The council now tells us that it has the finance to pay only the interest charges on the debt that it has accumulated and that it can meet the cost only of administering the community charge. I fully support the community charge. It is reprehensible that any hon. Member should decide not to pay it.

Fifthly, we have the "I love Basildon" campaign, which has not cost the charge payer any money. It is about telling the good residents of Basildon that we have created a fine town and that we wish it to remain litter-free, graffiti-free and vandal-free. I am delighted that, last week, the Princess of Wales came to Basildon to open part of St. Luke's hospice. Within six years, local residents have raised more than £800,000 through jumble sales and tombolas. The Princess of Wales brought joy to many of my constituents. At the end of her visit, she launched the "I Love Basildon" song, which is about our town. We invited local residents to compose the tune and perform it. It is performed by the guides and the profits from the

Column 406

record will go towards St. Luke's hospice. We were delighted that the Princess of Wales launched the song, and I very much hope that it will become a No. 1 hit.

In deference to my three colleagues who are waiting to speak, I shall move on quickly. I warmly welcome all the proposals in the Gracious Speech, but especially that concerning parental responsibility. It is sad that 15 is the peak age of offending. Many of the children have parents who are in difficulty. I fully understand that and recognise why the behaviour of those children is not exactly as we should wish it to be, but I cannot accept that every delinquent child comes from a broken home.

All of us as Members of Parliament have people who attend our surgeries-- often they are elderly people--complaining about disturbances outside their flats or houses caused by young people. All those children have parents. It is not good enough to send one's children out to play outside other people's homes. With no cost to the charge payer or the ratepayer, every Member of Parliament is beholden, on a bipartisan basis, to encourage more parental responsibility.

I welcome the proposals, especially those dealing with children between 10 and 15, in the Criminal Justice Bill. I welcome the proposals that will require courts to order parents to attend court unless it is unreasonable to do so. When young people are convicted of a criminal offence and the courts decide to impose a fine or make an order for compensation of costs, the courts must order the young people's parents to pay, unless it would be unreasonable to do so. I welcome the proposals in the Bill to strengthen the impact of that order. The Bill will make it beyond doubt that, in deciding upon the level of payments to be made, courts must take account of the parents' means and not just the means of their children. It will make it clear that, in assessing the amount of compensation or a fine, the courts will not be bound by the juvenile's means.

I welcome the extension of community service orders to cover 16 and 17-year -olds. I congratulate the Home Office team on deciding that it will no longer be necessary to keep the sentence of detention in a young offenders' institution for girls under 18. That sensible package will be applauded throughout the country.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned a constituent, Terry Marsh. He lives in Basildon and my remarks are certainly not made at his behest. He welcomes the fact that British justice has now seen that he has been cleared. But Terry Marsh was in detention for 10 months, which is a long period, and several people have asked how that case came to court on the basis of the evidence provided. I applaud all the local police in Basildon. When I became a Member eight years ago, there was one police station. There are now three--in Pitsea, Laindon and Basildon-- and they are doing a magnificent job. In three weeks' time, the Lord Chancellor will come to Basildon to open a new magistrates court. If all Members of Parliament, regardless of their political party, supported the work of our police force, crime prevention and detection would be much more effective.

Our rights, freedoms and responsibilities will always be preserved by the Conservative party and the Conservative Government, but from what I have heard in the debate, they will certainly not be preserved by the Labour party. On Europe, the Conservative party is on the side of the

Column 407

angels. Eastern bloc countries, which we would welcome to the EC, have rejected socialism. I believe that the British people will continue to do likewise.

8.56 pm

Next Section

Home Page