House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 Dec 1991

Mr. McKelvey : I am, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but what I would be saying in speaking to the second motion would be not dissimilar to what I am saying now, because similar matters would be involved.

I could speak for at least half an hour on the deficiencies of the Government's social welfare policy. If we have reached a stage when people who are on benefit but who are subject to deductions are so poor that they cannot afford to pay the previous year's 20 per cent. poll tax, it is clear that there is real, harsh poverty. That has not been mentioned so far by Conservative Members.

In an intervention the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) alleged that local Labour parties had tried by all manner of means to stop people owning their own houses. There might have been a measure of truth in that in the early days, but that resistance has long gone.

Councils are concerned--as the Government should be--about the fact that the money that came into the coffers from the sale of council houses was moribund--trapped--and had not been used for the correct purpose, which was to build new houses for people who needed them.

Column 1254

Homelessness in Scotland has risen and there are now many thousands of people on the waiting list who cannot be adequately housed, not to mention the hapless wretches whom we see on the streets of London. Many of them--26 per cent. at the last count--were Scots who had travelled south in search of the promised land about which we hear so much. However, they end up homeless, unwanted and uncared for. The Government are responsible for the state of those people.

Mr. Norris : Courtesy of the Labour Whip, we now know the truth about Labour's defence policy--the Leader of the Opposition merely allowed his CND card to lapse. Is not that what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting about Labour's opposition to the right to buy--Labour has merely allowed it to lapse? The hon. Gentleman said as much. The truth is that, despite the hon. Gentleman's posturing, Labour is trying to have it both ways--it knows the rightness of Tory politics, but cannot get away from its own rhetoric.

Mr. McKelvey : With regard to the right to buy, there has been an unprecedented number of recoveries. People cannot pay their mortgages and that is another problem not only in Scotland but in the south. I heard on the news only this morning that the Government, in their panic, are trying to push through a measure to protect those with mortgages because a record number of small business men are now unemployed as a result of the Government's policies. We would not be in that state if we had a socialist Government at Westminster and, of course, in Scotland.

How can the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield argue that there has been an improvement in the transport system? British Rail is in an absolute shambles because the Government have restricted and squeezed its funds. The rolling stock to the south is virtually falling off the bogeys. Socialist Administrations--unlike our Government--put money into transport infrastructure and have a much better system than ours. No one can claim that under its present strictures British Rail's management could run a proper integrated system. It is squeezed for cash. British Rail is instructed to make a profit on what should be a service to take people to and from work. I deal now with agriculture in Scotland. If the MacSharry proposals were accepted, between a fifth and a quarter of Scottish farmers could go out of business. All hon. Members will agree that not only in Scotland but in England and Wales there has been a reduction in farmers' income totalling about 26 or 27 per cent. They cannot afford to continue in that way.

As a socialist, I want the land to be used properly for agriculture. I want the farmers to stay on the land because I am an environmentalist and I believe that if farmers are taken off the land--especially in Scotland-- much of it would be laid to waste.

Mr. Robert Hughes : I should like to emphasise the plight of the farmers and the destitution facing the farming communities, especially in the north of Scotland where in the past 12 to 24 months there has been a rise in the number of suicides. The National Farmers Union for Scotland is very concerned that the farming community is returning to what it was between the wars when the only way that farmers could escape their debts and escape absolute penury for their families was to take their own

Column 1255

life. That is a serious matter which should be considered by those who believe that the free market is all that counts in life.

Mr. McKelvey : Such cases are especially sad. Another sad aspect is that farmers realise that their sons are not prepared to take on the onerous task of running farms, especially the hill farms in Scotland which require hard graft and apparently offer no possibility of making a profit for some years.

Let me state how a socialist Administration would deal with forestry. We would redress the imbalance that has been created by the selling of forestry land. We would reverse the process and return to the situation that existed in Scotland in 1979--80 per cent. of the land will be Forestry Commission land and 20 per cent. will be under scrutiny to ensure that it is properly managed.

Mr. Bermingham : Does my hon. Friend agree that growing fir trees is not necessarily the best way to afforestate land and that the sooner we return to a proper environmental approach to forestry--for example, the growing of oak, beech and ash--the better for the whole of our country? Mr. McKelvey : I was just about to say that we must put an end to the massive tax dodge in which even television personalities have been indulging : planting firs in Scotland entitled them to a tax back-hander. That process will be abolished, if that has not already been done.

Mr. Patnick : Cannot the hon. Gentleman read his speech?

Mr. McKelvey : Yes, I can, but I am considering which matters I could perhaps best leave to other hon. Members who wish to participate and which matters I shall use in the next debate. I have merely touched on the attitudes of the people of Scotland. Hon. Members wonder how I am able to argue so vociferously and with such sure footedness about what people in Scotland think about the Government and what they would like to see under a socialist Government.

On 30 November this year the Glasgow Herald carried out a series of polls in Scotland to discover what type of government or self-government the Scots wanted. More than three out of every four Scots questioned wanted some form of self-government. Support in Scotland for the current parliamentary system under Conservative control was less than 20 per cent. The Scottish National party and the Labour party both claim considerable comfort from the figures and graphs shown in the newspaper, but the figures in the System 3 poll put support for a devolved Scottish Parliament at 43 per cent.--that is for a Parliament in Scotland with maximalist powers. Support for complete independence was 35 per cent. and only 18 per cent. were in favour of no change to the present system. That means that 78 per cent. of the people of Scotland want a different kind of government. They do not want the Westminster parliamentary system and they certainly do not want that system run by Conservatives. The polls have remained fairly static in the past 10 years. The only alteration is an increase in the majority of the people seeking a change. Therefore, the wishes of the people of Scotland should not be treated lightly or disregarded by Conservative Members.

Column 1256

Some Conservative Members think that we are a bunch of whingers in Scotland and that we ought to shut up or put up. They are arguing that a referendum should be held and that the Scottish people should be given the stark option, "Either stay as you are or go fully independent." That is a dangerous road to travel. If that were the only option given to them today, the Scots would opt for independence. Those polls clearly show that they are prepared to stay as part of the union, but only as an equal partner, not as some far-flung, forgotten colony which is mentioned here once a month during Scottish Question Time, or when the Scottish Grand Committee meets in a Committee Room here. The Government are putting the brakes on those matters ever being discussed by a Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland.

The Government must begin to realise the difficulties which exist in Scotland--the problems that we are trying to tackle, which Scottish people feel strongly about. They have been voting consistently for socialist policies rather than for Conservative policies and they feel that their demise is due to the Conservative, non-socialist policies that are being applied.

I believe, as do all the men and women I talk to, that we should be working towards a Scottish Parliament. The lives of all Scots will be enriched if we take democratic responsibility for our government. I have watched with sadness the demise in the powers of local authorities. The Government have throttled them because they are holding the purse strings.

Under a socialist Government we shall achieve a directly elected assembly-- or Parliament, as I prefer to call it--in Scotland, but that will be of no value if we leave Westminster the power to throttle it by holding back the necessary cash to run it. It would be a big mistake if Westminster thought that it could hold on to those powers.

The most useful explanation of the application of democracy for Scotland and for European structures that I have read recently was written by a man in Scotland for whom I have a high regard, the chairman of the executive of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, Canon Kenyon Wright. He said :

"There is a realisation that the Scottish issue and the current European issue are very close to one another. They are both about sovereignty. Both Scotland and the vision of a more integrated Europe, fundamentally question the strange view of sovereignty held in the English parliamentary tradition --namely that power is concentrated in one place and that any proposal to share that power with other levels is somehow a threat"--

to democracy--

"The opposition to real power for Scotland and the totally irrational fears of a European super state are based on the same fundamental misunderstanding of what sovereignty is all about." To enlighten Conservative Members, the crux of the matter is that "we live in a time when democracy itself, as well as the demands of the age in which we live, means that power must be shared at different levels for different purposes. So long as each level is fully democratic and therefore preserves the true sovereignty of the people"--

that is what is important--not the sovereignty of Parliament but the sovereignty of the people--

"this is the only way towards a just participatory and sustainable society."

I support those sentiments 100 per cent.

Column 1257

If I get the opportunity I shall return to expand those powerful concepts, but I do not want to take up time on that matter during this debate.

The assembly will take over key responsibilities for the government of Scotland. Much of the power over Scottish matters would be wrested from Westminister. That has to happen. It will be vital that local government powers and responsibilities are restored and extended to take the workload and to strengthen local democracy. We have to reverse at a stroke the present Government's 13 years of corrosive, dogmatic obsession with stripping the people of Scotland, England and Wales of their democratic rights, through the ballot box, to elect district and regional councils of their choice, without the threat of the withdrawal of cash by Westminister. With the Conservatives in power, consideration would never be given to electing a representative body by any other system than that of first past the post.

Parliament in Scotland will be elected by a form of proportional representation. The work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, for about two years, especially in those areas which the executive members have been considering, has involved a great deal of work and heart searching. It is a credit to the Labour party that it has been able to sit down with other political parties and has been able to accept some form of proportional representation as a method for electing that Parliament.

The test of time will determine whether that socialist initiative will be acceptable, whether it will be a success or a failure. In the pursuit of some form of proportional representation it is interesting that women, who make up more than half of our community, will have fair and equal representation in a Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Jacques Arnold : The direct consequences of proportional representation will be fewer Members of Parliament from Scotland in this place and, proportionately, fewer Labour Members in any Scottish convention.

Mr. McKelvey : That is another matter. I am arguing about a democratic situation and I am not insisting that my party must have the majority of seats, irrespective of whether there is a democratic form of election. If the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) is saying that I should discard any form of democracy, because it will move against the party that I represent, let me tell him that I am a democrat. If that is a consequence of some form of proportional representation, I am prepared to bear it.

Mr. Jacques Arnold : I think that we are all democrats. The difficulty is, what is one's priority? Is it representative democracy, in which one Member of Parliament is solely responsible for his constituency-- the smallest electoral area possible--or is it an alternative, arithmetic representation of political parties? One cannot have both. I know which I would go for--representing the people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I hope that we shall not lose sight of the motion before the House.

Mr. McKelvey : We are discussing socialist alternatives and Conservative dogma. We have not tried proportional representation. We are not slow to try experiments in Scotland. After all the Government stuck the poll tax in Scotland a year before it came here, despite the fact that we are supposed to be a union. I think that that was unconstitutional, but apparently the courts were not able

Column 1258

to decide. In Scotland we were forced to accept a different taxation system from that in England and Wales and that should not have been allowed. Conservative Members representing English and Welsh seats showed no democracy when they marched through the Lobby triumphantly to impose a series of taxation measures in Scotland, measures which they know nothing of, and could not care less about. There was nothing democratic about that. If proportional representation results in fairer representation in any form of Parliament, it is a step forward for democracy, but time will tell.

Mr. Gerald Bowden : Did the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues from Scotland go into the Lobby for the Division on the abolition or retention of the Inner London education authority or the Greater London council?

Mr. McKelvey : I honestly do not recall. Hon. Members know our system in Parliament. Very often I do what the Whip tells me to do--[ Hon. Members :-- "Often?"]--I always do what the Whip tells me. We all know the position. It is one of the weaknesses of this place that one is not free to argue as an individual. I stood as a member of the Labour party. I am duty bound, therefore, broadly to follow its manifesto.

Mr. Bermingham : Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Members for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) are shedding crocodile tears about electoral size? The Boundary Commission's redistribution in England in 1983 meant that seats in, for example, London ranged in size from 48,000 to 103,000. Are the 103,000 people less worthy than the 48,000? Both constituencies have only one Member. Surely the electoral system, as gerrymandered by the Boundary Commission, is a disgrace?

Mr. McKelvey : Of course it is. One of the difficulties with having more than one Member of Parliament for each constituency is the division of their tasks, but that could easily be overcome. I would rather have two Members of Parliament who applied themselves to a constituency than one Member of Parliament who had several outside jobs that prevented him from giving 100 per cent. attention and accountability to it. All hon. Members sometimes shed crocodile tears on that issue.

Four-year fixed terms for the Scottish assembly would free Scottish people from doubts about elections. Economic forecasts would not be a major factor in calling elections to the Scottish Parliament. An executive would be drawn from its elected Members.

Unlike Conservative ideas, the prominence of socialist membership--

Mr. Soames : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is quite plain that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) is speaking to the second debate, calling

"attention to the future Government of Scotland ; and to move, That this House acknowledges the sovereign rights of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs." His speech has nothing to do with the implications of socialism.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) was in the Chamber when I made that point to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), who is linking

Column 1259

his remarks to a wide motion. I am sure that he will continue to do so and will not go into detail more appropriate to the second motion.

Mr. McKelvey : I do not wish to incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker ; nor do I wish to impinge on my speech for the next debate, if I get the opportunity to make it. But these matters are dear to us in Scotland.

The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) misses the point : the nation is divided, not only between rich and poor and north and south, but, in effect, a socialist Scotland and a Conservative England. Therefore, the frailties of socialism, if there are any, should have been highlighted by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield. I am seeking to argue against the motion and to promote what is good in Scotland and what will be better under a Socialist Administration. I am prepared to argue for proportional representation. It is not my fault that the Conservative party in Scotland refuses to participate in the constitutional convention. It is not my fault that the Secretary of State for Scotland denies the right of a Scottish convention to exist and refuses to discuss the matter with it. Only recently, the Secretary of State has done a U-turn and is now prepared to hold a debate in the House on the future government of Scotland. At least we shall then hear the Conservative view and Labour Members will be able to express their views on the frailties, or otherwise, of a socialist-led Scotland.

Nobody can deny that Scotland is socialist. Of the 72 Scottish seats 48 are Labour. The Scottish National party claims to be socialist. It has five Members, including one of ours who went over to it. In total, we carry the wishes of two thirds of the Scottish people. The socialist Administration in Scotland, particularly on the regional and district councils, are being prevented from carrying out socialist policies by Government dogma.

Mr. Jacques Arnold : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The word "Scotland" does not appear in the motion. The speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) is highly irrelevant and has taken up nearly an hour of the House's time. Many hon. Members wish to speak about socialism.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman should leave this to the Chair.

Mr. McKelvey : The fact that the word "Scotland" does not appear in the motion condemns the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, not me. If I had not had so many interruptions, I would have finished, because I wish to make only a couple of further points.

The polls show that Scotland does not accept the Conservative style of administration. It would be a sad day indeed, if, because of their dogmatic opposition to a socialist Administration, Conservative Members were prepared to leave us almost as a colony.

I have dealt with some of the difficulties that we have in socialist Scotland, which we shall try to overcome. I hope that the election is held as soon as possible so that the people of this country--particularly the poor, the down-trodden and the business men who have suffered from a record number of business failures--can decide

Column 1260

whether they have had enough of this Government. The sooner the election is held, the sooner we shall be able to discuss the question of socialism.

Mr. Chris Smith : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just received the inflation figures, which were published 20 minutes ago by the Central Statistical Office. They show that the headline rate of inflation has risen from 3.7 per cent. last month to 4.3 per cent. this month. Does not that give the lie to the motion, which refers to "reducing inflation"? It would appear that the Government are presiding over rising inflation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman can legitimately make that point, if he so wishes, when he catches my eye. I call Mr. Gerald Bowden.

Mr. Maclennan : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must express my surprise that you have thought fit to call three Conservative Members and one Opposition Member in a debate that has lasted for two hours and twenty minutes when other hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have sought to catch your eye. If there is some reason for that, it would be extremely interesting to hear it as it is a departure from convention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : This is a matter for the Chair, but I did note that the hon. Gentleman did not rise earlier in the debate.

Mr. Maclennan : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to contradict you flatly, but I regret that you did not see me rise earlier in the debate. I have been here seeking to catch your eye from the beginning of the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I can assure the hon. Gentleman that what I said was correct.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)--

Mr. Jacques Arnold : Is this a point of order?

Mrs. Mahon : Yes. The Prime Minister promised the country that he had licked inflation. Has he contacted you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make it known that he will come to the House to explain why, yet again, something he said has not proved to be true?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : There has been no request for a statement of which I am aware.

11.50 am

Mr. Gerald Bowden (Dulwich) : I am sure that it will be a disappointment to those on the thronged Opposition Benches that I intend to return to a discussion of the motion on the Order Paper. After the agreeable digression about the highlands and islands and the bogus points of order, I can understand why the Opposition do not want to discuss the issue of socialism.

I had great sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) said. He made no attribution of bad faith to the Opposition. I agree with my hon. Friend that we, from whatever party we are elected, come to the House by and large with the belief that we are

Column 1261

here to try to improve the lot of those whom we represent. I do not believe that the way in which we discuss issues in the House reveals any bad faith or deliberate corruptness.

At this moment we are witnessing the collapse of socialism throughout eastern Europe. That collapse is also manifest in this country. Those of us who have taken an interest in the way in which the flagship of socialism, the Daily Mirror, has represented its cause are concerned about the way in which voices are heard in the House.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you are all right. Do you need the protection of the House ?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Mr. Bowden.

Mr. Bowden : The two current political theories on government suggest that it results either from a cock-up or a conspiracy. It is clear that socialism has collapsed because of both those factors. Those of us who have lived under a socialist regime in local government recognise that, although the highest ideals may have prompted people to accept socialism as the modus operandi for the provision of local government services, it is subject to corruption and inefficiency. That means that the way in which those services are provided serves as a disadvantage rather than as a benefit to those who receive them.

At my advice surgery tonight, as on every other Friday night, there will be about 30 people who have come with a grievance or complaint. The vast majority of those complaints will be about Southwark's services, particularly relating to housing performance. The failure of that socialist -run local authority to provide services to meet the needs of the people is one demonstrable example of the failure of socialism at a practical level.

I recall the words in scripture which suggest that "By their lights you shall know them". One knows that the lights of socialism burn dimly in those authorities where socialism is put into practice. If one wants a practical judgment of socialism, one need only study the London boroughs, especially the London borough of Southwark which I know best, to see the failure of that theory when put into practice. Reference has been made to the failure of some authorities to collect rents. It is scandalous that about £35 million of outstanding rent is due from Southwark tenants. Those arrears do not result simply because of a failure to pay or an inability to pay through poverty. Properly organised provisions exist to ensure that those who do not have the necessary financial resources to pay are supported. The failure to collect the rents and to guarantee good management within the housing department means that a heavier burden falls, unjustly, upon those who are called upon to make up the deficit. The failure to collect the £35 million means that a heavier burden falls on all the other right-thinking and responsible people of Southwark who have made their payments.

To allow such staggering rent arrears to accrue is one aspect of the overall failure of local authority housing provision. Another is the inability of local government to bring empty properties back into use swiftly. Practices within local authority direct labour departments--they may or may not be corrupt--have often led to an empty property, habitable or not, being boarded up immediately or being subjected to a maintenance provision. Many people on the housing waiting list would willingly take an

Column 1262

undecorated property. They could work on that property and decorate it according to their style. Instead, those properties are unnecessarily refurbished by the local authority. Empty properties should be brought back into use immediately, but the restrictive practices that direct labour departments of local authorities enforce are equivalent to socialism in action. They limit the opportunities to reduce housing waiting lists.

Today, we have heard mention of the right to buy. That provision has given people the opportunity to obtain independence from a local authority landlord who puts many heavy restrictions upon them. One notices immediately the sense of independence that is apparent among those who have purchased their homes. They are no longer subject to those restrictions and can make the improvements that they want. The right-to-buy policy has been grudgingly adopted by the Opposition because they know that it touches a nerve of popular appeal. However, although the Labour party has accepted it in theory, it has done all that it can in practice--certainly in Southwark- -to inhibit those who wish to purchase. However, new provisions have been enacted to ensure that local authorities act promptly to deal with right-to -buy applications ; they are penalised if they fail to do so. That has forced the Labour party to find other tactics to frustrate those who want to purchase.

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will speak in the debate. He should be aware of the way in which local authorities project high maintenance charges with a view to frightening off those who might think of purchasing a property. We know that the work envisaged in the estimate of charges would never be done, but those astronomical figures frighten off potential purchasers.

Housing is just one aspect of the failure of socialism in local government. That failure is also apparent in the provision of social services. My borough of Southwark has a scandalous history of failure in the provision of such services. That has happened in many homes for the elderly. In one or two cases, a calculated and systematic regime of cruelty has been inflicted on those who have been incarcerated--I use that word advisedly-- in such homes in the care of Southwark council. Those incidents have been subject of a ministerial inquiry at the homes involved have been closed.

Mr. Bermingham : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that there was a convention that we do not attack people who cannot reply. The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) has used the word "corrupt" several times with regard to Southwark council. He is now using the word "incarcerated". Of course, incarceration is the criminal offence of false imprisonment. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to attack people personally, let him have the courage to make his remarks publicly outside, were he can be sued.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is a matter for the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). He did not say anything that was out of order.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the issue of corruption in local government, some of us are prepared to talk about corrupt Tory councils outside this place. As the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) is talking about corrupt councils, I wish to refer to the corrupt Westminster

Column 1263

city council, which sold off three cemeteries for 5p a piece. Its successor, another Tory council, now has to buy them back for several millions of pounds. The result is that people in Westminster and taxpayers generally have to foot the bill for the corrupt activities of the Tory-controlled Westminster city council, and I shall say that outside this place.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. These are not points of order but matters for debate. If the hon. Member wishes to raise a point of order, I shall hear it.

Mrs. Gorman : Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a member of Westminster city council when that deal was done, I want the House to know that it was done for the perfectly legitimate reason of reducing the cost of running a very expensive loss-making operation for the council. There was no suggestion of corruption and there has been no question of prosecution. To say that there has been is an absolute and outright untruth.

Mr. Skinner : That is very revealing. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was involved as well--a Tory Member of Parliament. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We must not forget the hon. Member for Dulwich, who has the floor.

Mr. Bowden : I shall check the record, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that I did not personalise my remarks at all. In a debate such as this, with such an enticing motion on the Order Paper, I expected to see the Opposition Benches thronged with hon. Members wishing to defend the ideology that brought them here and justifying the basis on which they sought election, but those Benches are denuded. Southwark is one of the most interesting councils in as much as the area includes three parliamentary constituencies--one held by a Conservative, one by a Liberal Democrat and one by a Labour Member. If Southwark's socialism needs defending, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman)--who represents the socialist interest in the House--might attend to make that point.

Mrs. Mahon rose--

Mr. Bowden : The Opposition Benches may not be strong in numbers, but the sanctimonious tendency is here in strength.

Mrs. Mahon : The hon. Gentleman talked about ideology. I wonder whether he would like to comment on the ideologies that prevail in countries such as Brazil, where millions of street children are shot because the capitalists send out gangs to murder them because they make the place look untidy, or the Philippines, where in Manila alone there are 25,000 child prostitutes and millions of people live below the poverty line.

If we are having a discussion about ideology, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give a more balanced view and point out that capitalism is failing millions of people, not least in this country. Yesterday, in my constituency, a 79-year-old lady collapsed and died as she queued for free food from the EC. Hundreds of people queued in the

Column 1264

freezing cold. I raised that matter last night on the Adjournment. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that his party's ideology has been a success for people over the past 12 years?

Mr. Bowden : I understand why the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) wished to divert our attention to Scotland and why the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) wishes to divert it to Brazil. What one sees near home is far too embarrassing for them to debate.

During a quiet evening when I was in the Chamber, I found myself thumbing through the debates in the other place. I was particularly struck by a debate on 31 January 1991, when the deputy leader of the socialist Opposition raised the matter of corporate governments. I should like to direct the attention of the hon. Member for Halifax to that debate, which dealt with what the duties of non-executive directors of companies should be-- [Interruption.]

Mrs. Gorman : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I know what the hon. Member is about to say. We would be well advised to take notice of what is happening in the Chamber.

Next Section

Home Page