House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 May 1992

Column 56

--not a federal vision, but a vision of a Europe that draws its strength and vitality from the different nation states. I hope that this Parliament will not see an irreversible shift of power to any Brussels-dominated Government.

Let me say to my right hon. Friend that, when we come back to the House for the next Queen's Speech after the next general election, we shall not find that the powers of the House have been reduced, that its influence has been diminished, and that we are nothing more than a regional assembly. That is not the way forward for the House or for our country, and none of us was elected to bring it about. 2.53 pm

Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Gedling) : It is a great honour for me to second the motion proposed so wittily, ably and brilliantly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). The honour belongs, however, not to me but to my constituents, who have so generously sent me back to this place to represent their views ; and who, with such good sense, have been electing Conservative Members of Parliament for my constituency since the first world war--with one minor lapse of taste in 1945.

I am well aware that, over the past five years, my constituency of Gedling has not been as well known in this place as I should like it to be. I therefore intend it to become, over the next five years, as famous and as celebrated even--perhaps--as Basildon, although maybe not for quite the same reason.

As you will understand, Madam Speaker, I do not usually have the pleasure of being joined by so many of my colleagues on both sides when I address the House. Faced with this task today I took myself to the Smoking Room to seek the advice of a distinguished and senior member of my party. He said, "Don't worry, you will be fine. The motion is nearly always proposed by some genial old codger on the way out and seconded by an oily young man on the make."

I decided to take some further advice and I went to another distinguished member of my party--an ex-Minister. I asked him what I should do. He said, "You will be fine. You come from a political family and follow in immensely distinguished parental footsteps." I said, "Thank you for your advice-- father."

I decided not to take any further advice because as I walked down the Library Corridor I met another immensely senior and distinguished grandee of our party. He put out his hand to me and welcomed me to the House of Commons. He said that if I needed any advice in my first few days he hoped that I would come to him. Such is the mark that I have made in the House during the past five years.

But it is at least a contrast to the occasion when Nigel Lawson came to speak in my constituency in 1987 when I was first seeking election to this place as a new boy. He told my astonished constituents that they should re- elect me because I had done such a good job in the House of Commons during the previous five years. I do not think that my constituents have believed a Cabinet Minister since.

My constituency of Gedling may be better known to some of my colleagues as Carlton which was previously represented by my predecessor, Sir Philip Holland, and before him by Sir Kenneth Pickthorn. It lies to the eastern

Column 57

side of the boundaries of Nottingham city and takes in the predominantly urban areas of Carlton and Arnold. I am deeply proud to represent it in this place.

My constituency gets its name from the village of Gedling that traces its origins from Saxon times. It is reputed to have been settled by a Germanic tribe led by an extremely fierce and war-like lady of strong opinions and firm convictions. She ruled over the tribe for many years before being deposed and replaced by a man of milder countenance but of steely resolve. Legend has it that he ruled over the tribe for nearly twice as long as she did.

My constituents welcome the words in the Gracious Speech about the Government's commitment to beating crime and continuing the battle against drugs. However, they feel strongly that more can be done by Parliament, by Government, in schools, within the home and family as well as by the police. My constituents are particularly mindful that many reports, including those produced by the Audit Commission, have demonstrated clearly that police efficiency is mixed and varied across the country. I hope that we can continue to make important progress on crime and I welcome the commitment to doing so in the Queen's Speech.

It is now extremely important that we should have another look at reforming the procedures in the House. The Select Committee has produced an interesting report on the sittings of the House. I do not say that it is the answer and I do not agree with everything in it, but I hope that the nettle that has so often failed to be grasped by Government and Parliament will be dealt with on this occasion. I speak as the father of two young children and, previously, the child of a young father and I hope that this issue will now be addressed. Finally, whatever the problems and strains in the world around us may be, I believe in the thread of national pride which has run through this United Kingdom. In all humility, I beg to suggest that many of my generation who sit on these Benches are passionate supporters of the United Kingdom. We believe that the people of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are justifiably proud of the differences between them, yet are integral parts of a unified nation fashioned by history over almost 300 years.

If there are better ways of administering that union, and of providing good governance within it, let us seek them out. But in seconding the Loyal Address to Her Majesty I want to stress my emphatic belief that she should remain Queen of the United Kingdom. I hope that our Government will not allow any event to take place which could weaken that objective, or replace the ties which bind us together with policies which could force us apart.

3.1 pm

Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn) : I begin with the traditional congratulations to the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) for their excellent speeches moving and seconding the Loyal Address in reply to the Queen's Speech. Clearly, in making their choice this time, the Government Whips decided upon a mixture for that task. They decided upon a combination of exuberance and experience, of smooth with rough, of loyal Heathite with

Column 58

loyal Thatcherite--and all those qualities are conveniently gathered together in the one person of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley. The right hon. Gentleman is truly a man of many parts. Consequently he has attracted rather more than the usual amount of comment from a variety of newspapers and people who give their views on our parliamentary scene. He has been variously called the Cheshire cat, the vicar of Bray, the "flexible friend", and the "great surfer of British politics". The right hon. Gentleman has absorbed all that--as praise.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : The big fat slug on "Spitting Image".

Mr. Kinnock : My hon. Friend reminds me of one of the most charming interpretations of the right hon. Gentleman. I was here when Martin Flannery--who, sadly, is no longer a Member of the House, but is enjoying a well-earned retirement--said that the right hon. Gentleman was the only man he knew who could strut sitting down.

That remark competes with the saw of Mr. John Cole--an acerbic witness of our parliamentary affairs--that if the right hon. Gentleman represented the future, Mr. Cole had seen the future, "and it smirks". That, too, the right hon. Gentleman took as praise. The right hon. Gentleman has been described as being able to fall from grace without ever hitting the ground. Mr. Anthony Bevins, who has many friends in all parts of the House, wrote that he was "adept at keeping one step ahead of his own debris."

Certainly, there is some evidence of that. The right hon. Gentleman moved from his position as Secretary of State for the Environment before the poll tax, of which he was a proud architect, caused turmoil behind him. He then went on to the Department of Education, where he made many changes, not the least of which was to introduce training days, known as "Baker days"--more colloquially and colourfully described in the teaching profession as "B- days". My information on that, as the right hon. Gentleman will imagine, is entirely respectable.

From education, the right hon. Gentleman was appointed chairman of the Conservative party, thus proving that the Tory party is one of the few organisations in which movement from education to propaganda is regarded as a promotion.

As his final ministerial resting place, the right hon. Gentleman became Home Secretary. That was within the recent memory of the House, so I will not prolong proceedings by going through the variety of escapades into which the right hon. Gentleman got in that position. To his credit, and despite that immensely busy ministerial career, during those years the right hon. Gentleman has also published four excellent anthologies of poetry. Indeed, his achievements do not stop at that. He has been known to turn a verse or two himself. I have had the good fortune to come across one of those verses. He himself sent it to a national newspaper and I have an example of it here which the House should hear. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will take a certain pride in authorship. I quote :

"There was a Sun reader called Ken

Who worked somewhere close to Big Ben.

When he wanted the news,

And some up to date views,

He gave the Sun ten out of ten."

I am pretty certain that, with talent like that, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some of his time to writing

Column 59

a column for The Sun . I am also certain that another Ken, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), will gladly move over and permit the right hon. Gentleman to take his place as a columnist in The Sun.

The hon. Member for Gedling, who seconded the Loyal Address in a very accomplished speech, appears to share some of the attributes of his right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, who proposed the Address. He speaks of himself as "very dry" on the economy and not so dry on social issues. In his own words, he is "more Amontillado than fino". As he is a wine importer, he should know.

If the hon. Gentleman is getting so much good advice and so many spontaneous approaches from other Members of Parliament, he should be careful in the next couple of months. He may be wandering the corridors one day and one of my hon. Friends may ask if he will vote for him in the shadow Cabinet elections. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should check his availability over that period.

The hon. Gentleman frankly and publicly admits to ambition. Strange though it may seem, that is a rare admission from a Member of the House even though some of the greatest love affairs I have ever known have involved just one politician, unaccompanied. I have no one special in mind. I am certain that to admit to such ambition stands the hon. Gentleman in good stead. I am also sure that, in selecting him to perform the task that he performed so well today, the Whips were tipping him the wink as well as bringing some pride and some pleasure to his old dad, the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). I congratulate the right hon. Member for Mole Valley and the hon. Member for Gedling on the way in which they moved the Loyal Address.

I naturally welcome several items in the Queen's Speech, among them the commitments on combating terrorism and drug trafficking, the commitments to undertake further work for the peaceful settlement in Yugoslavia--a tragedy that is staining our whole continent and causing awful pain to the people of the republics--and the pledges to support Community agreements with central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and to continue to assist in dismantling nuclear weapons in the Russian Federation and, we hope, elsewhere should the transfer of those weapons not proceed as smoothly as we hope that it will. Those and other similar efforts will have support from the Opposition.

Clearly, it is right too for the Prime Minister to attend the United Nations conference on environment and development in Rio de Janeiro next month, but it is vital that he use that visit to promote effective international efforts to protect the environment, to foster sustainable development and to fight poverty. If countries such as Britain do not use the conference for those directly interrelated purposes, a unique opportunity to safeguard the planet will have been lost, and no responsible Government--let alone any responsible country--could afford or excuse that loss.

In the Queen's Speech, the Government pledge themselves to sustained growth, and there, too, there is room for agreement. As the Prime Minister said last week :

"We need a recovery that is steady and sustainable, not one that recreates the problems from which we are now emerging."

Nobody could--and, surely, nobody would--disagree with that. But, given that we know that the problems from

Column 60

which we are now--it is to be hoped-- emerging, were created by the policies of this Government, we can fairly ask what changes they are now making to ensure that there is no recurrence of the conditions that brought the recession in the first place. What are they going to do differently ? What new policies do they propose to pursue to ensure that this time--unlike the period following their first recession --recovery is steady, recovery is sustainable and recovery does not recreate the problems referred to by the Prime Minister ? From the evidence of this Queen's Speech, the answer to the question, "What is new in their approach to the economic issues ?" is nothing. There are no changes that will bring sustained and sustainable recovery, because there are no policies that will bring sustained and sustainable improvement in productive performance. There is still--as there was last time, and the Government appear not to learn the lessons--a complete dependence on growth of consumption to lead us out of the recession. There are no proposals to help to stimulate the construction industries out of their worst recession for more than 40 years. There are no commitments to increased and more secure funding for the training and enterprise councils, and the cuts in training expenditure have not been reversed. There is no response to the repeated calls from the Confederation of British Industry and the Engineering Employers Federation for investment incentives for industry. There is nothing in the Queen's Speech that will reverse the reductions in Government support for commercially viable research and development in industry.

Where transport and energy industries--vital though they are--are mentioned in the Queen's Speech, it is only in references to privatisation. What help can that be in achieving steady and sustainable recovery? The privatisation of coal will bring a huge increase in import dependence and, in the coalfields, a huge increase in unemployment. Meanwhile, rail privatisation is being proposed in a country where the completion of the channel tunnel has been put back for want of private finance and the construction of the vital high-speed rail link to the channel tunnel has also been postponed for want of public finance. What help will privatisation be in solving those and many other problems in an underinvested, outdated and congested transport system?

Despite the fact that the Government have no policies to build the sound foundations of sustainable recovery, we heard the Prime Minister claim last week in his speech to the Institute of Directors that

"half the world is queuing up for a dose of British medicine." Can the Prime Minister mean the medicine that has put our country at the bottom of the G7 leagues for manufacturing investment, economic growth and job creation for an unprecedented fourth year in succession? [ Hon. Members- - : "Not true."] The trouble is that it is true : it was true before the election, it is true now and, as long as the present Government are in power, that is where it will stick. What a way for our country to face the completion of the single market and more intense competition at the end of this year. When the Prime Minister spoke of the British medicine, did he mean the policy concoction which has pushed Britain down to 18th of the 24 leading economies in the world measured in terms of output per head of population? Are the other European Community countries really looking--

Column 61

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset) : That's right--run Britain down.

Mr. Kinnock : The Government have run Britain down with their policies. I am trying to build Britain up. The people of Britain want Britain to be built up. They do not want us to be bottom of the league. They do not want us to slip down the international league. They want investment, development and sustainable recovery. They want policies that will bring that about.

Are the other countries of the European Community really looking for what the Prime Minister calls the British medicine when, of the 1 million people who last year lost their jobs in the 12 countries of the Community, 850,000 lived in Britain? Eighty-five per cent. of the increase in unemployment in the Community last year occurred in this country. I do not expect the Government to be exercised by those appalling unemployment figures. After all, the word "unemployment" does not appear in the Queen's Speech. That says a lot about the Government. Some 2.7 million of our fellow citizens are unemployed, but they are not mentioned in the Queen's Speech.

Unemployment and the fear of unemployment are hanging over the confidence of countless individuals, families and households, but the Prime Minister and the Government cannot even bring themselves to mention unemployment in the Queen's Speech. Why are they so coy about unemployment? After all, is this not supposed to be the medicine for which half the world--in the Prime Minister's words--is clamouring? Apart from being a lethal medicine, unemployment is a very expensive medicine. Its price is not simply measured in terms of personal tragedies and family crises : its price is measured in the costs of unemployment, which are now a major cause of the increased budget deficit of £28 billion to which the Government have so far admitted. Both unemployment and the deficit are forecast to continue to rise.

In the Queen's Speech, the Government tell us that they will get rid of that deficit in the medium term. Perhaps when the Prime Minister speaks later he will tell us how he intends to do that. Perhaps he will tell us how he proposes to fulfil the pledge in the Queen's Speech to balance the budget in the medium term--in other words, in the next three or four years. Does he promise to do that with higher growth? If so, is he pledging now that he will achieve higher levels of sustained growth and lower balance of payments deficits than any ever achieved by this Government, even at the height of North sea oil output? Alternatively, does the Prime Minister intend to balance the budget over the medium term--over three or four years --with higher taxes? If so, which taxes does he intend to raise? Or will the Prime Minister fulfil his promise in the Queen's Speech to balance the budget in the medium term by cutting public expenditure programmes? If that is what he is going to do, he should tell us which programmes he intends to cut.

When the Government can say with such certainty that they will get rid of the budget deficit in the medium term, they must know how they are going to do that. We should be told the answers in this debate. The country should be told the answers now so that people know what they face in the years ahead as the Government, who through their policies have generated a massive rise in the public sector

Column 62

deficit, go about the business of fulfilling their promise--if that is what they intend to do--of balancing that budget.

Perhaps the answers to those questions are not to be found in growth, tax increases or spending cuts. Perhaps they are to be found in what the Queen's Speech describes as the national lottery "to raise money for good causes."

That would not be a very surprising development from this Government.

Opting-out is being extended in health and education. The dependence on fund-raising efforts to buy basic necessities for hospitals and schools is becoming increasingly intense. There is no strategy for combating widening poverty in our country. The Government refuse to invest extra in housing. Unemployment continues to rise. All those policies--every single one of those policies--are making opportunity and care, and for many people even life itself, more of a gamble.

The Government are making the principle of the lottery into a ruling system for society and for the social institutions which serve this society. They are fragmenting the schooling system by opt-outs and dividing it by selection, so that the quality of education becomes more dependent on the fortune of parentage or background or neighbourhood. They are fracturing the national health service into trusts and making it a creature of contracts, so that the quality of health care becomes more a matter of chance for more people.

Mr. David Shaw (Dover) : That is out of date.

Mr. Kinnock : It is as up to date as the waiting lists. It is as up to date as those doctors who are getting the inside track. It is as up to date as the people who have to wait in pain for the simple reason that they cannot afford to pay for operations--very up to date.

In all those actions, the Government claim that they are somehow "devolving" vital decisions to individuals and to families. In reality, the Government are doing the opposite. In reality, the Government are abdicating their responsibility to individuals and to families. That is the only honest way to describe policies which make no provision for child care or for nursery education, policies which reintroduce the 11-plus and secondary modern schools--something that they always forgo to mention--and policies which mock choice when schools choose pupils and parents instead of pupils and parents choosing schools.

"Abdication" is the only honest word to describe health policies which have no real regard for the health and welfare care of the infirm elderly in our country, policies which perpetually increase prescription and other charges, and policies which make treatment dependent on whether the health authority contract with the hospital stretches far enough to deal with the needs of individual patients. Those policies are wrong. Their malevolence does not arise from the effect that they have on providers--the "producer interests", as they are sometimes called. Primary school children in classes of more than 30--there are 1 million such children--are not "producer interests". Families who have to care for chronically sick and disabled loved ones at home without proper support are not "producer interests". Women on low incomes who need child care for their children in order to be able to get training and work are not "producer interests".

Column 63

Those people and many more are all part of the great majority of the British people--the national community--who need good quality, publicly provided facilities. They will not be well served by opted-out, broken-up, pay-as-you-go health, education and social services. Their freedom of choice means nothing when there is little or no provision to choose from. Their freedom of opportunity is spurious when they have to take second-rate treatment in two-tier services. Many people know that already. Many more will tragically come to know it, and as they do, they will see that the Government's promise of choice and opportunity is fraudulent. They will recognise that the Government's commitment to a classless society is a pretence. They will realise that they are a Government who are not worthy of the country.

3.23 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : I join the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) in congratulating my right hon. and hon. Friends on their excellent speeches this afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) has, of course, starred in this debate before. In 1979, seconding the motion, he called for three things--top priority in the fight against inflation, more openness in Government, and reformed procedures of the House. This afternoon, I hope that my right hon. Friend will hear commitments that will please him on each of those fronts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley served with flair and distinction in several Cabinets from 1985 : first, as Secretary of State for the Environment, then as Education Secretary, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Home Secretary. If I were to single out just one of his achievements, it would be his education reforms. By introducing the national curriculum and asserting the need for national standards, he initiated one of the most significant reforms of the past 13 years, and one that will stand the test of time for many years to come.

My right hon. Friend must be the only Education Secretary to have served in the artillery as an instructor to the Royal Libyan army. [Interruption.] It was in the early 1950s. Perhaps that experience was a good preparation for his later years. It certainly taught him over many years where to direct his political shot and shell, as we saw again this afternoon.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister : Among all his duties, as the right hon. Member for Islwyn said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley has since 1980 found time to publish four anthologies. In view of the publicity given to those volumes this afternoon, I invite hon. Members to buy now while the stocks last. So good are they that I was tempted to make them part of the national curriculum. But my right hon. Friend's modesty in not doing so himself dissuaded me. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) reads my right hon. Friend's books with as much pleasure as I do. There may perhaps be just one poem in them which he does not much care for. In "Unauthorised versions : Poems and their Parodies", my right hon. Friend included Chesterton's "Cider Song". This may well awaken unhappy memories for my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling. I understand that when

Column 64

he was at school he lost a mock election to the SDCP. It was not a forerunner of the party of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)--at least I think not. It was the Somerset Cider Drinkers' party. I believe that it was a particularly devastating defeat for my hon. Friend.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has experience of the armed forces, having served in the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus. No doubt that will be invaluable experience if my hon. Friend ever joins my right hon. Friend's Whips Office. But I suspect that he may well be wary of such a posting after an early experience when he should have been in the House for a vote, was in the House for a vote, but could not be found by the Whips. A phone call from the Whips Office was made to my hon. Friend's home. My hon. Friend's wife was out. The babysitter answered and, as she told my hon. Friend on his return, "This strange man rang for you, but I had to put the phone down when he began to talk about whipping." I share with the right hon. Member for Islwyn congratulations for both my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling on their speeches this afternoon.

For the first time since 1826, Madam Speaker, a Government have been returned to office for a fourth successive term. In the next five years we plan a reforming programme : a programme to return to people more control over their own lives ; a programme to encourage and build up the private sector ; a programme to improve public services. The Gracious Speech is but the first instalment of that programme in this Parliament.

Our programme is about trusting people and encouraging them to rise as fast and as far as they can to create, through their enterprise, the prosperity that enables us to take care of others. And we believe in empowering people : in giving individuals more power over their own lives, and the Government less power over people's lives. The power to choose--and the right to own.

Mr. Simon Hughes : Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister : Later.

So we will widen choice and extend opportunity in education ; in the workplace ; in housing ; in transport. We will continue to reform all our public services, to make them more responsive to the citizen--and to get the best value for taxpayer's money. That way we can improve our services and still leave people more of their own money to spend. Measures to achieve these aims were set out in the Gracious Speech.

Before I turn to the legislative programme, let me mention other matters high on our agenda. I propose to make reforms at the very heart of government. We will sweep away many of the cobwebs of secrecy which needlessly veil too much of Government business. We shall shortly publish for the first time the full list of ministerial Cabinet Committees, with their terms of reference and membership. We shall make available to the House the guidance on procedure and the conduct of business that has long been sought by many right hon. and hon. Members.

I have also asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to identify other areas where there may be excessive secrecy and to carry forward the moves already under way, across Government, towards greater openness.

Column 65

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister : In a moment.

As part of this open government initiative the Government have concluded that the time has come to acknowledge publicly the continuing existence of the secret intelligence service. SIS is a service distinct and separate from the security service. It provides foreign intelligence and overseas support in furtherance of the Government's foreign, defence, security and economic policies. The chief of the SIS is appointed by the Foreign Secretary, in consultation with the Prime Minister, to whom he has direct access upon demand. He is responsible for the effectiveness, efficiency and security of the SIS and, in particular, for ensuring that information is obtained and disseminated only for the purposes that I mentioned earlier. The present chief of the SIS, the man colloquially known as "C", is Sir Colin McColl. We intend to introduce legislation to place the secret intelligence service on a statutory basis.

Successive Governments have not commented on matters relating to security and intelligence. The reason for that is clear to the House : it is difficult to comment without revealing, by what is or is not said, information that can have a bearing on the effectiveness and safety of the staff of these services. Therefore, I have deliberately distinguished today between acknowledging the existence of the SIS and commenting on operational information. That is a distinction which the Government will continue to maintain.

Mr. Simon Hughes : The Prime Minister has talked about the necessary accountability and openness of government--reform at the heart of government itself. I am sure that that will be acceptable to the House. However, he has not yet said anything about the reform of the method of government. Given that, as he has rightly said, he has won a fourth term--I congratulate him--but given that this was the sixth consecutive election at which a third or less of the British people have supported the Government and the 14th consecutive election at which fewer than 50 per cent. of those voting have supported the Government, when will we-- [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. If the House comes to order, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will conclude his sentence.

Mr. Hughes : When will we have not only a classless society, but a properly democratic society as well?

Mr. Skinner : Some 82 per cent. voted against PR and the Liberal Democrats.

The Prime Minister : For once I can share common cause with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It may not happen all that often, which may be a comfort to both of us, but on this occasion I can share common cause with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I will leave it at that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley set out clearly the difficulties that many countries in Europe are experiencing with proportional representation. Although I understand the concerns and feelings of grievance of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), it is not in the interests of this country to have weak government and a Government unable to command a majority in this House.

Column 66

Mr. Winnick : While I welcome what the Prime Minister has just said- -indeed both statements--will he confirm that the security service, unfortunately, will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny? I wish it would be. Can he explain why, if recent articles in The Guardian are correct, some of the documents relating to the Nazi wartime occupation of the Channel islands are classified until 2045? If the Prime Minister is so keen that there should be no secrecy and that people should have confidence in knowing what has happened, should not those documents be released into the public domain as quickly as possible? As for the person who has been named--Kurt Klebeck--

Madam Speaker : Order. Let us begin as we mean to continue. Interventions must be interventions. The hon. Gentleman realises they they must not be long speeches.

Mr. Winnick : I shall conclude my intervention, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to be able to raise this point.

Will the Prime Minister ask the West German authorities whether that person, who was undoubtedly involved in Nazi killings, can be extradited? If not--

Madam Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister : I cannot comment in detail on the hon. Gentleman's point. He knows that that is the position. As I said a moment ago, I have asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to examine areas where we may be able to relax the present levels of secrecy. That examination should precede an announcement, but I thought it right to tell the House at an early stage that we intend to conduct that examination, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to leave the matter there for the moment. I have already put in place reforms to the structure of Government. I have set up two new Departments that will affect the whole fabric of our national life. The citizens charter will be at the centre of the Government's decision-making. Its objectives are to make public services more accountable and to ensure that they truly serve the customers who pay for them with their fares and taxation. I have therefore also asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to be responsible for the citizens charter programme and for the reform of the Civil Service. He will ensure that we set even tougher performance targets and extend further high quality, responsive public services to the individual citizen. I have also established a Department for National Heritage, responsible for the arts, sports, broadcasting, films and our architectural heritage.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : What a nice little earner.

The Prime Minister : If that is a job application from the hon. Gentleman, may I say that he lacks some of the necessary qualifications. However, I shall bear him in mind when we next have the occasion to meet at Stamford Bridge.

In gathering those responsibilities together in one Department under a Cabinet Minister, I wanted to demonstrate the importance which the Government attach to them and to provide a strong voice at the centre of Government to speak for the needs of our national culture and heritage. That heritage is woven from distinctive strands from all four corners of the United Kingdom. Union is not uniformity. So we will ensure that the

Column 67

individuality of all parts of the United Kingdom is respected. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will, for example, be introducing a Welsh Language Bill this Session to strengthen the position of the language in Wales.

As I made clear during the election, the paramount importance of the unity of the United Kingdom and the union between Scotland and England is clear. I make no bones about repeating that. This Government stand firmly and four square for the Union. We want to see the ties between the two countries strengthened, not weakened, throughout this Parliament.

A great strength of our constitution has been its capacity to accommodate change--to evolve. We shall therefore look at ways in which Government could be more responsive to Scotland's needs. But the Union itself is not negotiable.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West) : Just before the recent general election, when questioned in Scotland about the Scottish constitutional question, the Prime Minister said that he would take stock of the Scottish election result. At the general election, the Conservative party was rejected by three quarters of Scottish voters, who voted for parties committed to the setting up of a Scottish Parliament. If the Prime Minister refuses to accept that interpretation of the Scottish election result, will he do the decent, democratic thing and hold a multi-option referendum on Scotland's constitutional future or is he, in the words of his predecessor, too frit?

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman glosses over the fact that 62 per cent. of the electorate voted against the Labour party. We entered the last general election with the hon. Gentleman and many other Opposition Members suggesting that the Conservative party would lose seats in Scotland, would have no seats left in Scotland and would dramatically lose votes in Scotland. It increased votes, it increased seats and it increased influence, which is what it will continue to do in the months and years ahead. I undertook to take stock and see what we could do to make the Government more responsive to the needs of Scotland--that I intend to do, but in a way that will not damage the Union, the interests of Scotland or the interests of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman need be in no doubt about that.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : I am grateful to the Prime Minister. He says that he believes that there should be changes at the heart of Government and that there should be increased accountability. Surely that should be reflected in his enabling and empowering the people of Scotland to express clearly their views on constitutional change. Why does he not envisage in the Gracious Speech and in the Government's programme such a democratic facility?

The Prime Minister : I think that, from every part of this country, the constituents send Members of Parliament here to this place to express their constituents' views on all matters. The voice of Scotland is represented on the Opposition Benches and on the Government Benches. In my experience in the House, the voice of Scotland has always spoken up forcefully in all parts of the House for Scotland's interests, which is the way that it should be. We will take stock of the present position in Scotland and then report back to the House. It is a matter of some

Next Section

Home Page