House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Nov 1993

Column 11

Alas, East Grinstead--although under the benign influence of the Sackville family who, as Earls de la Warr, have their family estate in my constituency--became what was known as a rotten borough. It was not unusual for a few people who had the vote to accept inducements, and it was not unusual for Members to accept payment for favours rendered. But East Grinstead was unusual in having a Member who was hung, drawn, and quartered for his treasonable relationship with a Spanish Governor of the Netherlands, the Duke of Alva, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.

The best-known and most distinguished of my constituents was the late Harold Macmillan, whom I canvassed during general election campaigns. That was not, I hasten to add, to tell him how things were, but to see them through his prophetic political eye. He treated my calls as compliments. "Dear boy, how nice of you to call," he would say as he opened the door. With a deprecating wave of his hand, he would add, "Of course, I am out of the picture now." I admired him enormously. He was concerned deeply with contemporary issues throughout his long political life. Although he never stopped feeling deeply about the slaughter of his generation in the Great War, as he called it, he also looked forward. Nowhere were his courage and foresight better displayed than on the floor of the South African Parliament, when he beckoned its Members to accept the challenge of the "wind of change". How he would have rejoiced yesterday, had he been with us.

Today, the new Wealden constituency has an outward air of prosperity which conceals the personal difficulties and hardship caused by the recession. People see East Sussex as a rich county, but its income per head is the second lowest of any shire county in the country. Farming, which is no longer our biggest employer, is still an important industry. Whether or not there is a recession, the Wealden clay is not exactly the easiest land to farm.

Over the years, our farmers, who are in mixed or dairy farming--there are also a few vineyards--have seen a steady decline in their incomes, and some have left the land. However, with true Sussex stubbornness, many have stayed. "We will not be druv" is an old Sussex saying. The farmers have diversified their activities : barns now house businesses and add life to the rural community ; our milk producers have accepted the challenge of the milk marketing boards' new competitive marketing system. Golf courses have also emerged, the most outstanding of which is the new 36-hole golf course, the East Sussex National, which recently staged the European open golf championship. I am sure that hon. Members who belong to the Parliamentary Golfing Society will testify that it is regarded as one of the finest golf courses in Europe.

Over the past 25 years, there has been a growth, not only in the number of the enterprising self-employed, but in the quality of small businesses, as shown by the number of those holding BS5750 certificates. We may not be big in manufacturing, but several firms stand out nationally and internationally. They include companies such as Servomex, Feedback and TR Fastenings, which are on the leading edge of industrial technology.

Wealden is not a constituency which accepts an inflexible division between the public and private sectors. It does not take kindly to dogma that persistently ignores

Column 12

injustices or refusownership in the housing sector.

This year alone, the council has received two awards. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presented it with a charter mark, the gold medal of the citizens charter, for pioneering a scheme at one of its leisure centres to provide facilities for national health service patients for whom local doctors have prescribed exercise rather than medication. The people who have taken advantage of the scheme have grown in number and fitness--a fact which, I think, will please my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), our gym master. Personally, I prefer to run up and down the stairs here. Secondly, under the Government's investment in people award, the constituency has met the most exacting standards in the management, training and development of employees.

East Sussex county council was one of the first in the country to introduce local financial management in education. It has developed community colleges, and the commitment by its governors, teachers and the wider public to ever-higher standards is most impressive. In the health sector, there have been outstanding voluntary contributions to our local hospitals in Crowborough and Uckfield. How nice it would be to apply the dynamic and innovative spirit of my constituents to the problem of our unreliable, under-used unelectrified Uckfield line. I look forward to the day when private investors will be brought in to modernise the line. I remind any backers that the line would still receive a commuter subsidy.

There is one omission from the Queen's Speech and, as a member of the all- party Lords and Commons Fly Fishing Club, I know that it will cause disappointment to its members. The speech contained no mention of legislation to abolish drift net fishing in the North sea. We are united in our determination to get such legislation on the statute book. I recall one occasion when we in the club were less united. Two former Opposition Members shamelessly broke ranks as the club was fishing at a charity match. They were the former right hon. Member for Barnsley, who is now in the upper House and president of the club, and the former hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. They observed that I hooked an unbelievably large trout, which was probably about 2 ft long--anyway, it was big. I was extremely worried that the slender leader, which connected the line to the hook, was unequal to the weight of the fish. Observing my concern, they asked what the trouble was. I replied that my leader was weak. [ Hon. Members :-- "Hear hear."] They asked, "What was that you said?" I replied that I had no confidence in my leader. [Interruption.] I think that hon. Members had better wait for it. Turning to the press on the bank, they said, "Did you hear that? There's Tory loyalty for you, and only yesterday he was in the birthday honours list." You will infer from that, Madam Speaker, that it was many years ago. [Interruption.] The references that were made were to another leader.

Like many other parts of Britain, my constituency suffers from an increase in robbery. The proposals in the Queen's Speech on law and order will be warmly welcomed by my constituents. The proposals should make it clear that the "back to basics" theme and other areas of Government policy are not just a reassertion of traditional

Column 13

values or an exercise in nostalgia, but a recognition that good citizenship rests on a willingness to assume individual responsibility. I hope that the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will reinforce the accountability that will lead to a better balance between the citizen and the state, not just in law and order but in other areas.

Our expectations have soared over the past two decades, but we live within limited means as individuals, and as a nation we must temper our utopian aspirations.

Finally, I refer to my membership of the North Atlantic Assembly over the past 12 years, which has brought me into close contact with European and American parliamentarians. Naturally, I welcome the Government's continued support for NATO. I am especially glad to note that the Queen's Speech accepts the need to adapt NATO to modern security in the changing security environment. It is imperative that NATO adapts as a matter of urgency, or its existence will increasingly be seen as irrelevant.

I see that adaptation taking two courses. The first is to develop an out-of -area capability in co-operation with the United States, and the second is to create a western and European defence structure through the Western European Union linked to NATO on a

Government-to-Government basis, which will establish a closer relationship with the eastern European neighbours. One day, those nations will become Members of the European Community. If we do not take on that responsibility, the willingness of the Americans to be associated with us will, I fear, fade away.

The great success of NATO has been not that it has just kept the peace or won a war without firing a shot, but that it has controlled the more dangerous and undesirable aspects of nationalism, which is one of the most important objectives of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's vision of a wider European Community.

I am grateful to hon. Members for courteously and patiently giving their attention without too much interruption. That contrasts strangely with my first election to the House in 1959 for the constituency of Holborn and St. Pancras, South. I never had a meeting there without being subjected to a barrage of interventions. The Prime Minister had a similar experience when he stood as a candidate for St. Pancras, North in 1974. "Tonight," said my chairman optimistically at the beginning of one of the meetings, "we are going to listen to the candidate make his speech, and we are going to listen in silence, give him a fair hearing and then you can put your questions and interruptions to him afterwards." "Why should we wait?", said an outraged voice from the back, "We will only have forgotten what the bleeder said." I fear, Madam Speaker, that that is the fate of more of our speeches than we may care to acknowledge.

3.3 pm

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East) : In seconding the motion, I pay tribute to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) who, in 33 years in the House, has gained the most widespread respect and affection. For my part, the honour is very much due to my constituents and supporters in Bolton, North-East who first chose me to represent them 10 years ago. Constituency engagements have kept me from two previous state openings, but this year I am grateful both to Her Majesty and to Mr. Jack Morris of the Bolton and

Column 14

District Butchers' Association for ensuring that the state opening did not clash with the arrival in Bolton of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), the Minister for food, who so amply performed the opening ceremony of the national black pudding competition in my constituency. I should warn the House to treat Bolton's black puddings with respect. Within hours of my hon. Friend the Minister sampling that delicacy, he announced his engagement to be married!

My right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary kindly suggested that I should look up some previous speeches and he also wisely advised me to stay away from the Octagon theatre in my constituency where the current production is "Billy Liar" or, as we would say in the House, "Billy, Economical with the Truth."

In his speech last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) described the choice of speakers as a

"genial old codger on the way out and an oily young man on the make."--[ Official Report, 6 May 1992 ; Vol. 207, c. 56.] I am immensely proud to be a fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and to have earned my living as a service engineer, but I am clearly now in danger of being classed as an "oily old codger on the mend."

An engineer by profession, I never expected to experience the great exhilaration which I felt 10 years ago on entering the House and which I still feel today. Meeting my future wife while at Cambridge, I held out prospects based on a career in industry. With basic rate income tax at 8s 6d in the pound and MPs' salaries at £1,000 a year, I did not give Parliament a thought.

While my Cambridge contemporaries debated in the union, I was perfectly content to reach the dizzy heights of president of the Peterhouse Wine Society. No wonder that my contemporaries now occupy great offices of state while I am chairman of the marginals club and no wonder that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, my exact contemporary at Peterhouse, so appropriately marked my year as his Parliamentary Private Secretary by generously giving me a book entitled "Modern Fairy Tales".

It was not until 1981 that I resolved to enter politics. My experiences in starting and building my own business convinced me that Margaret Thatcher's enterprise policies were right for the country. Resistance to those policies stirred me to act. My letters to Conservative Central Office did not receive an immediate response. I offered to help in the Crosby by- election and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) may remember that my enthusiasm was mistaken for that of an SDP mole until Shirley Williams branded me "the grubby end of the Tory party".

No constituency association would give me an interview until the opportunity arose in the new seat of Bolton, North-East. Told that I was most unlikely to be selected, I decided, as a father of four, to base my appeal on being a family man--not knowing that the local favourite was a father of seven.

Delighted to be selected, I set about working on local issues. My constituency is a microcosm of the country as a whole, with a strong emphasis on manufacturing industry. It suffered in the 1981 recession, so I concentrated my energies on creating new jobs, welcoming the then Prime Minister to launch the new enterprise agency, Bolton Business Ventures.

Column 15

Apart from its history as a cotton town, Bolton is known for its football team. It was remarked to me that my opponent in my first election, the present hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), was a keen supporter of Bolton Wanderers, but, sadly for her and the Wanderers, neither gained any promotion at the time.

When I arrived in the House of Commons, I was amazed at the lack of facilities. Finding it a little too breezy to work on the Terrace, I settled at an empty desk nearby, only to be accosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes). "Are you trying to prove a point?" she demanded. The former hon. Member for Cheltenham told me to stay where I was, but I beat a retreat, as I realised that I was in the Lady Members' Room.

I booked an early lunch with my wife in the Strangers' Dining Room. We chose a table by the window, but, starting our meal, we noticed growing consternation. Eventually, the head waiter came over to ask my wife whether she was a Member, pointing out that we were sitting at the Labour Chief Whip's table in the Members' Dining Room. It is private Members' Bills which best bring together hon. Members on both sides of the House. My first modest success in the House was working with the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on issues to do with handicapped children. I am delighted at the cross-party welcome now given to the Government's adoption White Paper, which puts family values first and foremost.

Back in Bolton, all parties agree that Bolton belongs to Lancashire, but we have a little local difficulty in convincing the Parliamentary Boundary Commissioner of that. Bolton's coat of arms carries an elephant, historically linked with Coventry. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) all success with his campaign to restore the historic county boundaries. Samuel Crompton's spinning mules have all gone now, but Bolton is more prosperous than ever. The key to Bolton's success lies in its enterprising family businesses. Best known is Warburton's, Britain's largest independent bakery, now employing 5,000 people and selling here and abroad with great success. Another excellent employer is W. and J. Leigh and Co., Britain's most successful unlimited company, selling specialist paints all over the world.

One of Bolton's most famous characters is steeplejack Fred Dibnah. Worried that he would soon run out of mill chimneys to demolish. Fred is diversifying into making weathercocks, sold under the slogan "Fred's Cocks- -guaranteed to twirl."

Fred's book of his life as a steeplejack starts with the words "When I was a little lad, I went to school, like all little lads do."

If only they did today. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is absolutely right--back to basics. Surely the most important basic is to bring up our children to know the difference between right and wrong.

For my constituents in Bolton, the centrepiece of the Gracious Speech is the new Criminal Justice Bill. Thank goodness that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues in the Home Office are challenging the misguided thinking that put the criminal

Column 16

first and the victim last. We are building new courts in Bolton ; now give us new powers for our magistrates as well.

The speech that we heard today in the other place represents action to fulfil the hopes and aspirations of our people. It is the speech of a Government determined to change Britain for the better. The Government do best for Britain when they are true to their convictions. The Gracious Speech reasserts the convictions that common sense and continuity matter ; criminals need punishment, not simply reform ; self-reliance is better than state dependence ; and the Government must be prudent with other people's money. So let us go forward with this programme--forward under strong leadership, Conservative leadership and leadership that is working.

3.15 pm

Mr. John Smith (Monklands, East) : It is a pleasant convention of the House that the first duty of the Leader of the Opposition today is to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Loyal Address. For me, it is an easy duty because of the quality of the contributions from both hon. Members.

The hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) has a long record of service in the House--33 years as a Member of Parliament and, as he reminded us, most of it representing Sussex. Of course, he was also a London Member. He had a celebrated tussle with Lady Jeger for the Holborn and St. Pancras seat. He won the seat from Lady Jeger in 1959 and then lost it to her in 1964. The hon. Gentleman made a wise decision to move to Sussex in 1965 because Holborn and St. Pancras has been Labour ever since.

Before the hon. Gentleman entered the House, he had a distinguished career as a broadcaster. He was a founding member of the famous "Tonight" team. Of course, those were the days when interviewers were a much more courteous bunch than they are today. "Tonight" has developed to become "Newsnight", but I am glad to say that the hon. Gentleman is much too stylish and urbane a performer ever to be compared with the likes of Jeremy Paxman-- [Interruption.] That is probably the most courageous remark that has been made for some time and it is made in the cause of being generous to a Conservative Member.

It was in a television studio that the hon. Gentleman had perhaps his greatest moment. He was the first British interviewer to question Brigitte Bardot on television. I have been told that he got straight to the point and that his opening question was, "Apart from men, what are your other interests?"

From such great heights, the hon. Gentleman has declined to senior membership of the 1922 Committee. I understand that an election to the executive of that Committee is presently in hand. It is widely expected that it will provide yet another opportunity for the Conservative party to display its spirit of unity and comradely affection. I wish the hon. Gentleman well. He wears his grey suit with style. He sounds and looks the part of a member of the executive of the 1922 Committee, which is a lot more than can be said for some others who occupy that position these days.

The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) seconded the address with fluency, flair and, if I may say so, disarming wit. His description of the

Column 17

adventures of the new Member will strike a chord with many Members of the House. He has not been with us as long as the mover of the address, but he has managed to get elected twice since he first came here in 1983, with majorities of less than 1,000 on both occasions--813 in 1987 and 185 last year. He is on record as saying that concern about unemployment made him decide to go into politics. Given the size of his majority and its downward trend, that is a wholly understandable concern.

The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East was bold enough--perhaps even rash enough--to tell us of the present that he received from the Home Secretary for service as his Parliamentary Private Secretary. He told us that the book was called "Modern Fairy Tales". He did not tell us that it was a collection of speeches to the Conservative party conference.

The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East was reported in a diary column in the press the other day as having said that the speech that he had prepared to deliver on this occasion had been stolen from his car. He appealed for it to be returned because, it is said, it was of no use to anyone else. The hint was taken and it was found in a wheelie-bin.

The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East for his witty speech and we also recognise the contribution that he has made to many of our debates. He has not hesitated to be deeply embroiled in controversies as wide-ranging as abortion and social security, and his genuine devotion to the cause of the disabled is widely admired on both sides of the House.

The mover and the seconder referred to some parts of the Gracious Speech. I shall start, on the lines of the mover, by referring to foreign policy. There are some important developments which I am sure all hon. Members will welcome. In September this year the momentous agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation signalled a new start in the middle east. It is vital that those who have taken risks for peace receive the whole-hearted support of the international community as they grapple with the formidable tasks which they have set themselves.

Yesterday, as the mover noted, Mr. Mandela and President de Klerk made a historic agreement about a new democratic constitution for South Africa. On 27 April next year, the first--and crucial--non-racial elections in the history of South Africa will be held. It is vital that Her Majesty's Government give all possible assistance to ensure that those elections are both free and fair.

We welcome the commitment in the Gracious Speech to strengthening the United Nations' capacity for peacekeeping and preventive action. That cannot be achieved without greater support by the international community in terms of financial and military resources, if the United Nations is to make a more effective contribution to the solution of acute and deeply distressing situations such as those that are occurring in Bosnia, Somalia and elsewhere.

Opposition Members warmly welcome the signing of the chemical weapons convention and we agree with the Government about the importance of an indefinite and unconditional extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The cause of non-proliferation will be immeasurably assisted by early agreement on a nuclear test ban. The continued moratorium on tests, led by the current United States administration, is encouraging and the time is overdue for Her Majesty's Government to give the initiative their full support.

Column 18

We welcome enthusiastically the early accession of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden to the European Union. In making their applications they have not sought to opt out of the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty, which they all strongly support. Once they are members, Conservative Britain will be isolated, not just as one among 12, but as one among 16.

In Northern Ireland a window of opportunity now exists to achieve a lasting and peaceful settlement. The Government must grasp this opportunity and work with the Irish Government and the constitutional parties in the Province to create the conditions for peace. The speech by the Tanaiste on the principles that should be applied has rightly been recognised as an important step forward, particularly his acknowledgement of the importance of recognising the legitimate concerns of both communities in Northern Ireland.

We agree with the Government that if the IRA genuinely and clearly abandons the use of violence, there should be no objection to the participation of Sinn Fein in constitutional discussions. We believe also that the elected representatives of Northern Ireland have an obligation to respond to calls from all sections of the community to enter into discussions to agree a peaceful settlement. The British Government should not hesitate to call the parties back to the negotiating table. Compromise and concessions will be required from both sides. All the parties involved, including the British Government, must not be afraid to take risks for peace. They must all be prepared to transcend the old dogmas that stand in the way of reconciliation, which is passionately desired by the vast majority of people throughout the whole British Isles.

At the Conservative party conference the Prime Minister launched his big idea--"back to basics". It is true that those magic words do not appear in the Gracious Speech itself. We should perhaps be grateful that Her Majesty was not obliged to repeat the mantra, but there is no doubt that that is the right hon. Gentleman's chosen course. He could not have been clearer about it at Blackpool. The Conservative party, he told us, is now going back to basics. Ever since then political commentators, some bewildered members of the Cabinet and millions of incredulous electors have been trying to work out what the Prime Minister means. The first thought that occurs to them, perhaps not surprisingly, is that the Conservatives have been in government for 14 years. If now we have to go back to basics, what on earth has been happening over 14 years of Conservative Government? Or is this perhaps another coded attack on the glorious achievements of the former Tory leader--another oblique reference to "the golden age that never was",

to quote the Prime Minister's own revealing description of his predecessors's achievements? I hope that there are still some loyal souls on the Tory Benches who will be prepared, as a matter of honour, to rebut such a surreptitious attack on the Thatcher Downing street years.

We know, of course, that the Prime Minister is haunted by those years and even more troubled by the recent flood of memoirs from former Cabinet Ministers all bearing the same title, "How I almost stood up to Mrs. Thatcher". Her memoirs rather stole the show at the Conservative party conference. Even the Prime Minister's speech could not avoid them. At the start of his speech to the conference he said :

Column 19

"Memoirs to the left of me

Memoirs to the right of me,

Memoirs in front of me

Volley'd and thundered".

He borrowed the quote from Tennyson's great poem, "The Charge of the Light Brigade". Perhaps he should have read on. The poem continues :

"Boldly they rode and well,

Into the jaws of Death

Rode the six hundred".

I know why the Prime Minister did not finish the quote--there are only 332 Tory Members facing obliteration at the next election. We all know that, after 14 years of Conservative Government, "back to basics" is no more and no less than an appalling admission of failure. The Conservative party and the Prime Minister have clearly reached the conclusion that they can no longer plausibly defend their record in office, so they are seeking to wipe from our consciousness the fact that they have been in power for the longest single period of any Government since the second world war and that they--and they alone--after all these years, are responsible for the state of Britain today.

Let us look at the record of failure from which the Conservatives seek to shy away. Since 1979, economic growth on average has been only 1.7 per cent. per year--worse than the preceding decades of the 1960s and the 1970s. Now, after all those years, we have an economy weighed down by the burden of two massive deficits in our public finances and overseas trade. Worst of all, the 14 Conservative years have seen the return of mass unemployment, with millions of our fellow citizens denied the opportunity, dignity and responsibility of work.

Let us look at the other dismal record-breaking achievements of the Government. Record levels of crime--up by a massive 120 per cent. since they came to power ; record levels of homelessness ; record numbers of families living in poverty ; and the gap between the rich and the poor wider now than in Victorian times. [Hon. Members :-- "Rubbish."] With a record like that, it is no wonder that they want to divert attention from their own responsibility. Their means of diverting attention is the oldest trick in the book--create a diversion, search out a scapegoat and put the blame on someone else. They know that it is no longer convincing to blame the last Labour Government or the trade unions-- [Hon. Members :-- "Why not?"] Why not? There are still some brave souls prepared to try that one on. Well, let them try. The public will not listen very carefully to that. They cannot use the last Labour Government or the trade unions as an excuse ; it is doubtful that they can any longer blame the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). After 14 years in power, the Government know that those excuses are unconvincing. The Prime Minister in particular knows they are unconvincing.

This summer the Prime Minister gave an interview to the Los Angeles Times. He was asked directly about the unpopularity of his Government so soon after they had won an election, and he replied : "Fiddle-de-dee! I said immediately after the election, sitting up the day after we won the election with a number of people around me : Within the next twelve months the Government will be the most unpopular we have seen for a long time!' Nothing in the interim has changed my judgment about that. It was staggeringly prescient. It perhaps hasn't come about in quite the

Column 20

way I had myself imagined, but it has. We have been here for 14 years. There is no-one else one can blame for anything that has gone wrong."

What a revealing conclusion--

"there is no one else one can blame for anything that has gone wrong."

The Prime Minister's conclusion, hidden until now in the columns of the Los Angeles Times, deserves a wider audience. I suggest that he circulates the remarks in a memorandum to his Cabinet colleagues, in particular to those who, for reasons of delicacy, have now become known as the B team--for they were the ones who were let loose at the Tory party conference to target single mothers as the new enemy within. What a disgraceful exercise that was. It was an exhibition so odious that it drew a stinging rebuke from the right-wing commentator, Mr. Simon Jenkins of The Times, who described it as :

"Mob oratory of the worst sort."

Let me quote his assessment. He wrote :

"Ministers paraded the Tory Party in its least attractive mode : lecturing the working class on personal morality. No single parent, no homeless teenager, no dole recipient, no immigrant refugee was free of a sneer from somebody on the platform."

We all listened to those speeches and watched that conference and we all know how true that assessment is.

What Ministers did at Blackpool, consciously and deliberately, for their own political purposes, was to exaggerate cynically a social problem. In doing so they insulted thousands of conscientious and caring parents, widowed as well as divorced.

Simon Jenkins went on to say :

"Such sanctimoniousness is a measure of the insecurity and desperation of some in the Tory party."

That desperation is nowhere more evident than in the bizarre theories of the Home Secretary that rising crime and what he calls moral decay can be traced back to the second world war when fathers were absent in our fighting forces. Of course that was a time described by a former Conservative leader as "Britain's finest hour". No evidence is produced for the Home Secretary's wild assertion, but with this lot evidence is not required.

Apparently it is not enough to blame it all on Harold Wilson and the 1960s ; now it is all Winston Churchill's fault. Do the Government really believe all this? Do they seriously expect anyone in the country to believe it? Clearly it is not just a few Conservative Back Benchers who are barmy. I do not know to which of the two B teams the Home Secretary has been assigned. For all I know he may have sought to qualify for membership of both.

I mentioned evidence. The Government's view is clearly that not only--[ Hon. Members :-- "Get on with it."] Hon. Members do not like it when "back to basics" is challenged. All I am asking for is some evidence for the assertions that the Government have been making. They do not believe that it is necessary to have evidence when one is making a constant appeal to prejudice. If they get contrary evidence, what do they do with it? They have a simple solution--bin it. Even the evidence of their own advisers at the Home Office, the Department for Education and the Cabinet Office is treated to the same response--"Just bin it". Perhaps they should also shred it, for sometimes it comes out.

In the leaked memorandum from the Cabinet Office-- [Interruption.] Hon. Members do not like reference to be made to that memorandum from the Cabinet Office. I am glad to say that it has now made its way into the public domain despite the fact that every single page has stamped at the top, "Policy in Confidence". [Interruption.] It is

Column 21

wholly in the public interest that what I am about to say has been revealed to the public. Having in mind what I am about to say, it would be disgraceful for it to be prevented from reaching the public because that memorandum dealt with the assertion of the Secretary of State for Social Security that young ladies get pregnant just to jump the housing list.

The facts that the Cabinet Office produced are these : only 5 per cent. of lone mothers are teenagers ; 88 per cent. of pregnancies are unplanned ; most single mothers do not know the benefits to which they are entitled ; and 90 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-old mothers live at home with their parents. That was what was contained in the evidence given to Ministers in the Cabinet. But what have facts to do with Tory prejudice?

Despite the evidence, the Secretary of State for Education ploughed on with his ill-considered plans for tests in schools. Two senior advisers resigned and this week he even lost his permanent secretary. Undeterred by those failures and, once again, with no evidence whatever to back it up, he proposes to begin the deskilling of the teaching profession. He would be much better employed if he had plans to provide nursery education for all children and the Queen's Speech would have been much better if it had contained such plans. As the report of the National Commission on Education shows only too clearly, investment in the education of the under-fives is the right sort of basic investment in education and provides real benefits for children, families and society. Typically, the commission's evidence was not good enough for the Government. It is not just Ministers who ignore evidence. In one of his recent essays on modern Conservative thought, delivered at the Carlton club earlier this year, the Prime Minister--ever eager to scapegoat and to ignore evidence--sought to distinguish between the social problems of suburbs, small towns and villages on the one hand and inner cities and that that was not the fault of 14 years of Conservative Government but was down to socialism. As the Home Secretary knows well, when the evidence is examined, it can be seen that crime in rural areas is, regrettably, rising much faster than in the inner cities. But when did facts ever get in the Government's way ? [Interruption.] The Conservative party does not like discussing "back to basics", but we shall have many such discussions. I fear that the abject failure to tackle the real problems that affect our nation is reflected all too clearly in the legislative programme that has been laid before us. Apparently, we are to have a Bill on deregulation.

Mr. David Howell (Guildford) : I respect the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern for crime and defeating violence. Does that mean that he will now resume support for the prevention of terrorism Act ?

Mr. Smith : The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, when that matter has been debated, we have drawn attention to advice given by Home Office advisers supporting the points that we have made on the prevention of terrorism. Conservative Members should reflect on why the so- called "party of law and order" has seen crime rise by 120 per cent. during its period of office. The right hon. Gentleman would be better employed asking the Home Secretary why that has occurred during a period of Conservative Government.

Column 22

I was about to refer to the Bill on deregulation, which is to be presented to the House as part of the legislative programme. Apparently, after 14 years of Conservative Government, too many regulations have accumulated. How that happened during the years of the so-called enterprise culture, and the M and S and economic miracle, is hard to imagine. Of the 3,500 regulations apparently reviewed by the Government, 71 per cent. have been introduced since 1979.

There can be no objection to weeding out outdated and unnecessary provisions. What is to be objected to is a weakening of the proper protection for both employees and consumers in the name of the same misguided dogma which, last Session, saw the abolition of wages councils. Any weakening of safety standards for people at work will be fiercely resisted by the Opposition. Too many avoidable accidents already happen at the work place and it cannot be right to dismantle protection that would increase their number. Consumers, too, will be rightly concerned at any weakening of protection contained in, for example, fire safety regulations. It is right, is it not, that there are strict provisions controlling the manufacture of furniture and children's nightwear? To avoid horrific dangers, that protection should be not only maintained but enforced with vigour.

It would also be wrong, although I understand that it is being considered, to seek to reduce insulation standards for new houses. Energy costs for millions of people are being increased enough already by the imposition of VAT on fuel without extra costs being caused by a lowering of standards, which inevitably will cause greater energy waste.

Hard though it is to believe, I understand that one of the regulations being reviewed is the obligation on employers to provide toilet paper and soap in workplace lavatories. What kind of uncivilised nonsense are the Government engaged in? [Interruption.] That may not sound important to Conservative Members, but it is extremely important to people who work in factories. The public, listening to Conservative Members' sneering reception of that, will draw their own conclusions.

Surely the basic truth is that this much-trumpeted deregulation programme is marginal to the real problems that confront our industry and our economy. Let me remind the House that Britain is still struggling to recover from recession--the greatest recession since the 1930s--and is still afflicted by mass unemployment. Neither in the Gracious Speech nor in any other manifestation of their policies do the Government show any understanding of the real problems that lie in the way of recovery and prosperity. Our problem is persistent underinvestment in industry, persistent underinvestment in skills development and persistent underinvestment in innovation and in our regions, causing structural defects in our economy, which cause low growth, high unemployment and a deficit in overseas trade which is unprecedented at this stage of the economic cycle.

The external deficit in the first half of this year is equivalent to 2 per cent. of national income. After 14 years of Conservative economic management, the wealth-creating core of our economy is simply too small to sustain our prosperity or to allow us to pay our way in the world.

Sadly, there is no sign that those vital and, if I may say so, basic strategic issues are being tackled by the Government. They are engaged, in contradiction of their election promises, in a series of tax increases which are not

Column 23

only unfair to millions of people but which threaten to undermine the consumer confidence that is necessary to any recovery of demand.

Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley) : Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that the introduction of a minimum wage would cost jobs?

Next Section

Home Page