| Home Page |
Column 195
Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you noticed that, yet again, the Scottish Office has dodged its responsibility to report directly to the Chamber, and that the Minister with responsibility for Scottish housing has instead notified the publication today of the long-awaited Scottish house condition survey by means of a written answer in yesterday's Official Report?
Will you look into the number of occasions on which Scottish Office Ministers have used that device to avoid criticism, in this case for the shocking extent of dampness in Scottish housing, which is causing widespread illness among our children, and consider how to put a stop to that abuse of our country's democratic proceedings?
Madam Speaker : The hon. Lady raises a point of order with me, but, as she knows, it is for the Minister to determine whether to make a statement orally or by means of a written answer. In either case, the information that is provided is available to the House.
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. I sent you a message this morning about a major matter of constitutional importance, and I should like to know whether it is appropriate and necessary to raise it now because of its urgency, or whether it will be in order for me to come back to it?
Madam Speaker : I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would not raise it until I have had an opportunity to look at his long letter and communicate with him.
Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East) : Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker, by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). I have tried to find in the Library a copy of the house condition survey, only to be told that none is available and none is in the Vote Office. I have been told that it was posted out to Members through the normal post, and we shall be receiving it shortly.
How can we get a debate in the House on the fact that £2.5 billion has been identified as necessary for repairs to Scottish homes that are below tolerable conditions? It would appear that the Minister is not willing to give time. Is there any other device that we can use to create a debate on that matter?
Madam Speaker : We have Adjournment debates, a Consolidated Fund debate and various other debates coming up which might allow the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter.
Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that Prime Minister's Question Time is central to the operation of our week--increasingly so, now that millions of people watch it on television? Is it not time to reaffirm the basic principle that the point of Prime Minister's Question Time is that it allows right hon. and hon. Members an opportunity to ask questions and the Prime Minister to answer them to the best of his abilities?
At least three times today--I am sure that Hansard will show that the number was higher--the Prime Minister's
Column 196
tactic on being asked a question was to respond by asking another question. Can the right hon. Gentleman be informed that, as long as he is Prime Minister, his responsibility is to attempt to answer questions, particularly when they are so fundamental to this country's constitution in reasserting the doctrine that Parliament and the decisions of Parliament are sovereign?Madam Speaker : It is not for me to answer rhetorical questions. I have noticed in recent months that questions to the Prime Minister and to other Ministers are becoming very long. They remind me of Adjournment debates rather than questions. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will take that to heart and will put questions rather than make long comments that lead to debate.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that European Standing Committee A will tomorrow consider European Document No. COM(93)167--a report on the illegal use of hormones and other substances in meat production, which is a matter of public concern. That document was produced following an inquiry by the European Commission into widespread illegal use of such substances throughout the Community.
Last week the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster assured the House that Whitehall would be opened up. Yesterday, an Agriculture Minister assured me that all the documents relating to the Commission's inquiry in the United Kingdom would be made available to me before tomorrow's debate in Committee.
Following repeated telephone calls today to the private office of the Minister of Food, I am informed that the Cabinet Office has intervened to block the necessary documents being provided to me--in particular, a letter dated October 1991, which is critical to proper consideration of the matters in question by European Standing Committee A tomorrow.
Is it acceptable conduct for Ministers to assure Parliament and individual Members of Parliament that documents will be made available but then for the Cabinet Office to intervene to block their distribution? Would you care to rule on that, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman must take up that matter with Ministers again. Of course documents that are required for Committees should be available, and I shall certainly look into that matter.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Successive Speakers have reaffirmed the long tradition of a separation between Parliament and the courts. We all have differing views on Maastricht, and some of them will be expressed on Thursday. However, is it not the case that the final decision on matters such as whether or not the treaty will be ratified by the United Kingdom must be taken by Parliament, not the courts?
Does not yesterday's High Court decision reflect on the authority and importance--particularly the authority--of this House? What authority do the courts have to decide matters that have always been decided by a majority vote of the House of Commons? We should have your ruling as soon as possible, Madam Speaker, so that we may clearly know that the authority that we have always believed this
Column 197
House possesses, be it on major or minor issues, has not been changed and cannot be changed by the courts--unless the House decides otherwise.Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman raises matters that are far too wide-ranging for me to make a ruling without having received any notice that he intended to raise them--and the hon. Gentleman gave me no such notice. As to Thursday's debate, the present situation is that no motion, and therefore no amendment, has yet been tabled. Later, I shall be aware of all the circumstances that affect the position. I will reserve my rulings until then.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : When my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) asked you, Madam Speaker, about the Prime Minister refusing to answer questions at Question Time, because my hon. Friend wants the Prime Minister to get back to answering questions precisely, you proceeded to answer my hon. Friend's question, not in the manner that he wanted it to be answered but by answering a question that he had not asked. I have come to the conclusion that you have caught the disease that Major has got.
Madam Speaker : I hardly think that that is a point of order for me, but if hon. Members give me the opportunity to express an opinion, I am very willing to do so. I repeat that questions and answers in this House are far too long, and that questions that appear on the Order Paper are not reached because of the long questions and answers that precede them.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the way that corrections are made to untrue parliamentary answers. An untrue answer was given to me on 23 June, when I was told that our troops had been informed of the dangers of depleted uranium. That answer was corrected on 13 July in a private letter.
At Question Time today the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said that I was informed the next day. Could untrue answers be corrected in Hansard ? Could we urge Ministers not to double the offence by further untruths--by saying that an answer to an hon. Member was corrected the following day, when the correction was made three weeks later?
Madam Speaker : I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was anxious to put a question during Defence Questions. I think that he is now attempting to extend questions and answers on defence matters. Perhaps he will try at a later stage to table another question, so that the matter can be cleared up quickly.
BILL PRESENTED
National Health Service Trusts (Public Service)
Ms Glenda Jackson presented a Bill to clarify the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that National Health Service trusts provide health services for health service patients ; to make provision relating to services and accommodation provided by National Health Service trusts ; to amend the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, the National Health Service Act 1977 and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First Time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 23 July, and to be printed. [Bill 241.]
Column 198
Young Offenders(Increase of Maximum Sentence)
3.41 pm
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the maximum sentence of detention in a young offenders' institution for 15, 16 and 17 year olds from 12 months to two years ; and for connected purposes.
I believe that this is a necessary Bill, which would bring about substantial improvements in the sentencing powers of the courts. Let me make it clear at the outset that I do not intend, by means of this Bill, to undermine the value of non-custodial sentences, or of short periods in custody. The Government have brought about substantial improvements in non- custodial sentences by means of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I believe, however, that for the most serious types of offence--those which qualify for custody under the Criminal Justice Act--a higher maximum sentence should be made available.
Let me outline the present position. Since 1982, for 15 and 16-year-old young offenders, the sentence of dentention in a young offenders institution has been restricted to 12 months. Since the passing of the Criminal Justice Act, the restriction to 12 months' detention has been extended to 17-year-olds, too.
There is one exception, however : the powers of the court under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Under that section, the courts can impose a longer sentence of detention for the offence of murder or, under section 53(2), for very grave offences that carry a sentence of 14 years imprisonment or more on conviction--on indictment in the case of an adult.
The framework for sentencing young offenders in the 15, 16 and 17-year-old age group is not adequate. May I illustrate its inadequacy by referring to one aspect of criminal activity which, all too often these days, involves young offenders. I refer to offences involving motor vehicles, which can often cause great hardship and misery to our constituents, and which certainly need to be dealt with firmly by the courts.
The present levels of sentencing available to the courts are inadequate for those offences. It is impossible for the courts to impose a sentence of more than 12 months' detention for offences involving motor vehicles. In response to this serious problem, the Government rightly introduced the offence of aggravated vehicle-taking. That was a very desirable measure. It increased the sentence for that offence to a maximum of two years. But for 15, 16 and 17-year-olds, who are also often involved in that type of offence, the maximum sentence remains stuck at 12 months.
I can do no better than refer to the words of the Lord Chief Justice in considering this position when hearing the appeal of a 17-year-old against a sentence of 15 months' detention imposed under the law prior to the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The Lord Chief Justice's view--I pray in aid his words--was this :
"The appellant's driving was appallingly dangerous ; it was a bad case. As the law stood when the appellant was sentenced, the sentence of 15 months' detention in a young offender institution could not be regarded as excessive. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 had since changed the law, so that the maximum sentence of detention in a young offender institution for a youth aged 17 was now 12 months. It was a remarkable situation that within one year Parliament had
Column 199
passed an Act seemingly directed at punishing young offenders who commit this kind of offence, and then in another Act cut down the powers of the Court to administer the sort of punishment that that Act envisaged. Although Criminal Justice Act 1991 did not apply to the case before the court, since the court was laying down guidance for the future, the Court felt constrained by the fact that under the 1991 Act, the maximum sentence would have been 12 months' detention in a young offender institution. In those circumstances, the sentence would be reduced to 12 months' detention."The situation is even worse than that in connection with other serious offences involving motor vehicles. A 12-month restriction applies to offences of dangerous driving and, even in the case of causing death by dangerous driving, the maximum sentence that the courts can impose on 15 to 17-year-olds is 12 months.
That is always a terrible type of offence, and the Government were absolutely right to raise the maximum sentence for adults from five to 10 years in the Criminal Justice Bill at present passing through Parliament. But for 15 to 17-year-olds, that sentence remains stuck at 12 months maximum. Furthermore, that sentence may often be reduced for a plea of guilty, and in any case an offender actually serves only half the sentence in custody. So six months maximum is spent in custody for that type of offence.
That is simply not adequate. I would not go to any one of my constituents, let alone the family of a victim, and seek to justify such a sentence--nor, I think, would any other hon. Member. That is one illustration of the point that I seek to make, but I believe that there are others, and that the overall effect of this 12-month restriction is to leave the courts with an inadequate sentence framework for 15, 16 and
Column 200
17-year-olds. It is time that, for the most serious offences and persistent offenders in that age group, a longer sentence was available.I believe that the public will support this measure. They believe that, for serious and experienced young criminals--unhappily, there are some--the kid gloves need to come off, longer sentences than those at present available need to be passed by the courts, and the courts must be given those powers.
I strongly support all the other measures that the Government have suggested to improve the sentencing framework : the increases in maximum sentences for particular offences, the improvements to the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and the proposals for a sentence of secure training for 12 to 15- year-olds. I note that the maximum sentence under that proposal is two years.
There needs to be a longer sentence of two years for 15, 16 and 17-year- olds who commit serious offences, in order that the courts may have the appropriate powers to give punishments that fit the crime and have the necessary deterrent effect.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Clappison, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. David Lidington, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Barry Legg, Mr. Richard Page and Mr. Andrew Robathan.
Young Offenders (Increase of Maximum Sentence)
Mr. James Clappison accordingly presented a Bill to increase the maximum sentence of detention in a young offenders' institution for 15, 16 and 17-year-olds from 12 months to two years ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23 July, and to be printed. [Bill 242.]
Column 201
Orders of the Day
OPPOSITION DAY
[18th Allotted Day]
Social Security and the Welfare State
Madam Speaker : I have to inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
3.50 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden) : I beg to move, That this House condemns the social policies of this Government which have resulted in an ever widening gap between the rich and poor, and the destruction of opportunity, and which threaten the security and prosperity of countless individuals and whole communities ; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to abandon plans designed to dismantle the welfare state and to force the vulnerable to pay a high price for the Government's economic failure.
The House will be aware that the Government recently produced a survey, covering the period 1979 to 1990-91, of households on below-average incomes. It is a document of some interest. It shows, among other things, that the 10 per cent. of households with the lowest incomes, after housing costs, have seen their incomes fall by 14 per cent. in real terms during that period. That is a decline, not relatively but absolutely, into poverty.
It is interesting to note that that group's share of national income fell from 4 to 2.1 per cent. The numbers dependent on income support in Britain have risen dramatically--from 4.4 million in 1979 to an estimated 10.3 million in the current year, over one in six of the population.
I mention those facts not as a form of special pleading for the detached and deprived, or as representative of any unrepresentative interest, because there is a wider problem that affects a large section of the population. It is that households in the bottom 50 per cent. of the distribution have seen their share of total income drop from 32 to 25 per cent. under the Conservatives, while the share of the top 10 per cent. has risen from 21 to 27 per cent., by almost a third.
Exactly the same pattern emerges on taxation, direct and indirect. The top 10 per cent. paid 32 per cent. of their gross income in taxes of all kinds, while the bottom 10 per cent. paid 43 per cent. The rich get richer, while the majority fall further behind. The truth is that the fiscal traffic is moving in exactly the wrong direction. I concede immediately that we do not get the kind of extremes that are to be found in some of the poorer and third-world
countries--wealth amid squalor--but for all that, life chances, choices, opportunities and confidence for many people in our communities are being destroyed.
It is no good dismissing social evils, as Conservatives sometimes do, because exceptional individuals can escape. For many--I suspect that this applies not just to hon. Members on the Opposition Benches--anger over the statistics that I have quoted is based on the bitterness of constituency experience.
In my city of Glasgow, for example, 78.4 per cent. of local authority tenants are on housing benefit. That reflects
Column 202
not some fecklessness on their part but Government policy that has forced up rents--and then the Conservatives have the cheek to complain about the numbers receiving help.In Strathclyde, which is half of Scotland, 28 per cent. of all primary school children receive free school meals, and 36 per cent. of all primary school children in that region--I stress that I am talking about half of Scotland--qualify for clothing grant. That pattern can be repeated in every part of the country. Many of our communities are horribly scarred by the problems of unemployment.
Mr. Jonathan Evans (Brecon and Radnor) : I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the large number of people on housing benefit. I remind him of some remarks of Patricia Hewitt, who yesterday said that there were some disincentives to people going back to work. Might not the operation of the housing benefit system be one of those disincentives, in the sense that people find that it is not worth their while seeking employment because they are receiving aid by way of housing benefit?
Mr. Dewar : I should be delighted if the hon. Gentleman were worried about the impact of the Government's policy. He might like to read the document on the growth of social security, on which I have no doubt he has been briefed by the Department. He will learn that the growth in the cost of housing benefit is one of three subjects picked out as being of particular concern.
To be fair--I want to be fair--the document also says that it is a direct reflection of the Government's policy of forcing up rents in the private and public sector. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to worry about the disincentive effects of the present system, a subject with which I shall deal later. He should recognise the truth of what I am saying, and should also worry--perhaps he already does but, if not, I certainly hope he will--about the fact not only that are we in this unfortunate postion but that the Government are introducing a raft of policies which will reinforce and worsen it. I do not intend to spend a great deal of time on this issue, because the arguments are familiar, but anyone considering the impact of the introduction of value added tax on domestic fuel on low-wage families and pensioners, anyone considering the 300,000 people on low pay who will be brought into the taxation system by the freezing of personal allowances, and anyone considering the impact of a 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions--a tax designed to discriminate in favour of the wealthy--will know that we are reinforcing with an almost perverse determination the divisions that are already built in to our society.
On 4 March last year, during the election campaign, one of Scotland's leading newspapers, The Herald, which is based in Glasgow, carried an in- depth interview with the Prime Minister. It pointed out, very fairly, that many of the policies being followed by the Government were increasing poverty in our communities. The Prime Minister challenged that and asked for examples.
Homelessness was mentioned, and the Prime Minister said, "But there has always been homelessness." Poverty was suggested as another example, and the Prime Minister asked, "What poverty?" That will be remembered by everyone in my part of Scotland. It is also an explanation of why the trends to which I referred are being reinforced
Column 203
--we have a Prime Minister who, faced with the social realities, thinks it is adequate to answer, "What poverty?" and then give a leaden collection of excuses.Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East ) : The hon. Gentleman was referring to the household survey, but is he not being selective? Is he not forgetting what it was like when the Labour party was in power? The survey shows that only half of the bottom 10 per cent. had a telephone in 1979, whereas now three quarters have a telephone. Half now have a car, and 60 per cent. a video. He is being selective, and the figures do not support his argument.
Mr. Dewar : No, I am not being selective. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman has been briefed by the defensive brigade. I have read the document with considerable care. As he will know, one of the defences offered by the Secretary of State for Social Security of the fact that the bottom 10 per cent. in terms of income distribution have seen their incomes fall by 14 per cent. in real terms after housing costs is that the figures are misleading because many new people in that group are self-employed.
By some chemistry, or with the magic of a good accountant, those people are able to return negative incomes to the taxman while enjoying a much higher standard of living than the average. That is perhaps one reason for the phenomenon to which the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) refers, but it is a very odd explanation for the damning statistics that I have cited. Of course I concede that the community's overall wealth and prosperity have increased, although not to such an extent that we can be complacent in relation to competitors. Almost uniqely in this age, however, the gap in Britain is widening. The gap between the highest and lowest paid is at its widest since 1886. If that is not a condemnation of what the Government have been doing, what is? The Secretary of State for Social Security constantly tells us that we are engaged in a debate. I welcome that, and do not shirk that challenge. I am glad to question what is happening, but the debate should not be an invitation for the community or the Government to duck out of social commitments and responsibilities.
The Chief Secretary's review is, in a sense, an admission of failure. Whose fault is it that we are in such economic difficulties? It is a cause of endless argument.
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley) : Can the hon. Gentleman name a single advanced country that is not reviewing the problems caused by the remorseless growth of social security spending?
Mr. Dewar : I shall come to that matter in a minute or two. [ Hon. Members :-- "Answer the question."] No. Let us look at our exact position, and we can then deal with that point.
Our present position is the departure point for the argument. We are undoubtedly in a financial crisis, and alibis have been coming forward in droves. The ex-Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), made an interesting personal statement in the House and blamed it all on Lord Lawson. Lord Lawson blamed Lady Thatcher. It took him 900 pages to do it, but he made a good case.
Column 204
We have heard even more eccentric explanations. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is unfortunately not present, said that it was all due to the yuppie revolution--the wheeler dealers in property of the 1980s, and the fast-move view that the best returns were to be found in trading financial assets. He went on to say that he now sadly recognised that all that was built on sand.Everyone has someone to blame, which is particularly true of the Prime Minister, who blames everyone. I presume that, when he was Chancellor, he was merely obeying orders. He is now reduced to the most complete, but also the most desperate, legal defence : the refuge of every child in trouble, of merely saying "It wasn't me." The problem--it is a real problem--is how to control the public sector borrowing requirement, which mysteriously inflated from a manageable, although not modest, election figure of £32 billion to a crisis-laden £50 billion-plus. I accept that the PSBR is too high, and recognise the need for a considered look at the DSS budget, but we must be satisfied that those who need help get it, and that the cash available is spent in the most sensible way. Above all, as a starting point we must ensure that the problem is in perspective. We are helped in that matter--I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, because he has achieved one of his objectives. He published "The Growth of Social Security" at least ostensibly to ensure that the debate was well informed. I find it an extremely helpful document. Although it is helpful, it does not reveal the cataclysmic state of affairs in which the spin doctors and headline writers have invited us to believe.
There is always a featured figure, and in this case it was that the DSS budget would go up by £14 billion in real terms by the year 2000. That figure was prominent in the Department's press release, and I suppose that that is a triumph for the PR team. A PR team with the task of selling the Secretary of State for Social Security has a hard job, because of the product it is handling, but on that occasion it had some effect.
The test is that the percentage of GDP taken up by the social security budget is presently 12.3 per cent. The publication contains projections to the end of the century, the first of which, I freely concede, shows an increase in the percentage of GDP to 13.5 per cent. Naturally, that assumes that we continue to have 3 million unemployed and a low growth rate of some 2 per cent.
The second projection is of 2.25 million unemployed, which most of us would regard as less than a triumph, and a growth rate of 2.5 per cent. The percentage of GDP then remains stable. The third projection may be a little optimistic when we consider the Government's record, but other countries have managed to achieve it. It shows the GDP share dropping to 11.3 per cent.
Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde) : When my hon. Friend sums up, will he point out that none of those other countries had £100 billion from North sea oil? The Government squandered that to keep unemployment at its present high level, when they should have invested it in the country.
Mr. Dewar : My hon. Friend is right. That is a factor. No doubt there are special factors in every country. The Germans, for instance, have the problem of assimilating
Column 205
the former East Germany, and that may be a negative factor. However, the British Government had the windfall of North sea oil, yet they still performed miserably.The point that I am making is simple to those who have read what the document says about the growth of social security : if one makes anything other than the most gloomy assumptions, it is not true to say that social security spending is out of control.
Another piece of evidence with which the Secretary of State will no doubt be familiar--it was given to me late yesterday afternoon in a parliamentary answer--is the fact that this year, assuming a balanced national insurance fund that meets its outgoings from its income, without the 20 per cent. float from the Treasury, the Department reckons that the combined employee- employer contribution would be 22.6 per cent. On the assumption that present policies will continue, the estimate for the year 1999-2000 is that the figure will drop to 20.5 per cent.
In other words, we can afford present policies at a lower cost in terms of the percentage of incomes paid in contributions. That fact surely puts some of the more excitable statements into perspective. If we are to have a constructive debate, let us not assume a consensus about, or even significant evidence for, some of the more excitable suggestions that have been made.
The key is economic performance and the growth rate. I am not prepared to assume at the start of the debate that we shall continue the undistinguished trudge of economic mediocrity that this country has managed so far, especially under the present Government, but perhaps for even longer. After 14 years of what we are told has been prudent management of our affairs by a party that believes that it is uniquely blessed with financial competence, where are we? The other day, the Department of Trade and Industry offered in evidence to a Select Committee a list of 24 countries graded according to their GDP per head. We came 18th out of 24. Yes, we beat Turkey and Greece, and we managed to edge out Ireland on the tape. But we were beaten by everyone else ; even Italy was showing us a clean pair of heels. And that is after 14 years of successful magic by Conservative Ministers.
In the Secretary of State's Mais lecture--he will not be surprised to hear that I shall say more about that shortly--he said that spending in Sweden on public protection was
"the drag anchor that made it one of the slowest growing economies in Western Europe".
All I can say is that, according to the DTI, Sweden is still comfortably taking us to the cleaners.
Mr. Charles Hendry (High Peak) : The hon. Gentleman said that we came 18th in a list of 24. Will he tell the House whether he thinks that we would be higher or lower in that list if we adopted the social chapter?
Mr. Dewar : I believe that, although it may be comforting in the short term for one or two people with primitive Conservative views, it is a dangerous heresy to assume that it is impossible to have social protection for our work force and decent conditions for our people as well as economic success. I do not believe that, in order to be economically successful, life has to be nasty, brutish and short, although that seems to be the underlying principle on which people such as the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) proceed.
Column 206
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent) : It is perfectly fair for the hon. Gentleman to remind us that we have been in power for 14 years. However, the time scale is interesting. It is not long since the dock labour scheme was finally abolished. The Labour party is struggling quite hard with the legacy of its trade union constitution, and such things take a great deal longer to shift than one might imagine.
Mr. Dewar : If the hon. Gentleman is going to explain the entire record of the Conservative Government by reference to the dock labour scheme, he will soon be in considerable difficulty, even in the fortress that he probably represents.
I want to be helpful to the Government. My case is that surely even they can do better. However, I know that confidence is in short supply. For example, in his Mansion house speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said :
"a degree of cautious optimism is far from foolhardy."
My goodness, that will put a spring in the step and set the pulses racing. Even the stuffed shirts and white ties must have been astonished that, in the Chancellor's 12-page speech, no page was spoiled by reference to anything so unpleasant as the unemployment rate. Having said that, the Chancellor surely would not accept the gloomy message of despair that low growth and high unemployment is to be a semi-permanent state in the country.
Let me move on to the debate itself, which has become somewhat chaotic. The headlines give an odd impression of the extraordinary volley of attack on single parents, which some of us found rather distasteful :
"Single Mothers Out Of Firing Line".
"It's U-Turn No. 6--Crackdown on single mums' benefits halted". "Major Overrules Another Minister".
There have also been all sorts of headlines about pensions : "Tory plan to axe state pensions for better-off".
"Lilley tries to calm pension fears".
"Lilley on defensive on pensions".
There is an enormous amount of misrepresentation and
misunderstanding. I am unashamed that I do not always know what is happening in Government. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell me what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant when he was reported on the front page of the Financial Times on 13 July--
| Next Section
| Home Page |