House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Nov 1993

Column 76

ensure that that pit was producing coal at the right price. Neil Clarke and the British Coal management did absolutely nothing to ensure that that coal was sold.

Hatfield, the other colliery in my constituency, was told by British Coal today that it, too, was to close on 3 December. It is all part of the great scheme to slim down the mining industry for privatisation. What about Hatfield's market for coal? For the most part it does not lie in the electricity industry, but in domestic and industrial fuel. Every day, lorries queue and wait for the coal to come out of the pit. Today the miners at Hatfield are told that there is no market for their coal. The Government have got us into a ludicrous situation all in the interests of privatisation. Our country is built on coal, yet we are importing nuclear power from France, importing coal from the continent and burning the premium fuel gas to generate electricity.

The most nauseating feature of the two meetings that occurred this week to inform the miners in my constituency that after 3 December they will not have jobs is the sheer, outrageous bribery that British Coal have practised on those men. British Coal clearly told the miners that they could have £7,000 each on top of their redundancy payments provided that they did not employ the colliery review procedure. British Coal was clearly trying to bribe miners. British Coal officials have told some men who work at those pits that they may employ the modified colliery review procedure, that they may take that nine months, but that it will make no difference because Frickley, Bentley and Hatfield collieries will close even if the review commission agreed that there was a case to keep them open. Coal board officials have told miners at Bentley and Frickley pits this week that the closure will still go ahead. What is the point of having the review procedure? My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) referred to Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box and saying, tongue in cheek, that the review procedure was genuine. We all know that the review procedure was not genuine and that it was all a sham.

Where has Neil Clarke been? Where has his defence of the mining industry been? He has done absolutely nothing to defend the mining industry. Instead, he has acted like a puppet Tory Ministers, wielding the big axe and shutting collieries. What has British Coal done to win new markets? Absolutely nothing. British Coal has pits that produce coal at less than £1 a gigajoule and it should be able to find a market for that coal. The truth is that British Coal has no intention of trying to find a market. The truth is that the colliery closures have been all about privatisation from start to finish. It grieves me to think that in the mining town of Doncaster there will be no pits left after 3 December. That is absolutely devastating for an area that has relied on the coal industry for many years. Other businesses in the area which have been built around the mining industry will go bust as well. Unemployment in the Doncaster area is already at 13 per cent. and the colliery closures and the other closures that will follow will undoubtedly increase that figure substantially. What chance do the people in the communities in and around Doncaster have of finding new employment? Many industries and businesses in and around Doncaster are keyed into supplying and servicing the mining industry.

The Government have run riot through our town and through our villages, destroying people's lives, their communities and our local economy. It is clear from the

Column 77

Gracious Speech that the Government have caused that destruction in the name of their political dogma of privatisation. In so doing, they have destroyed the livelihoods and communities of many of my constituents.

7.52 pm

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). I have a great deal of sympathy with the problems and plight of his constituents, especially those who have been working in the coalfields. The first seat that I fought was the mining constituency of Normanton in Yorkshire. I have the greatest admiration for the people about whom the hon. Gentleman has talked and a great deal of sympathy with his comments. The Government's policy on energy is to secure the cheapest possible reliable, secure, long-term energy supplies, and that is the way in which the Government will be judged. I hope very much that the Government will achieve what they have set out to achieve. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), in an excellent seconding speech, referred to modern fairy tales. Right on cue, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, got up and gave a speech. I am sorry about including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambrideshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) in the same mortar blast. The right hon. Member for Yeovil was very much in favour of nursery education. He probably feels that that would mean more teachers and that more teachers would vote Liberal Democrat.

The right hon. Member for Yeovil made the point, which I think is a fairy tale--it may be right to have more nursery education or it may not be--that people say that there is evidence from all over the world that those who get nursery education commit fewer crimes and do better when they are in education and when they have finished their education. Is it not just possible that the families who send their children to nursery education produce the sort of family background that is more likely to ensure that their children get a better education later and that they are less likely to create crime later in their careers? When one looks at evidence, one must be a little more analytical than the right hon. Member for Yeovil, who tends to think in soundbites.

Sir Anthony Grant : The last thing that I want is for my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to associate me with the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, of all people. My point was not that it had been proved or otherwise that nursery education would stop crime or anything else. My point was that nursery education deserved the Government's close attention and that is why I wanted my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools to consider the matter.

Mr. Marlow : I apologise. I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West that I apologised for associating him with the right hon. Member for Yeovil. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools will look at the issue, as he said. He may come down on my side of the argument or on my hon. Friend's side of the argument.

Browsing through the Gracious Speech, I notice the phrase : "help is concentrated on those most in need".

That worries me a trifle. It has been said by people who are not friendly to the Government that over the past 14 years

Column 78

the Government have picked on their supporters group by group, and have confronted them face on. It is right that the Government have taken on vested interests and they have been courageous to do so. However, I am concerned.

The idea has been part of Government policy for a long period. However, there are people who are supporters of the Government who, through time, feel that they have behaved responsibly. They have looked after themselves and their families. They have secured small pensions and small savings for themselves. Every time there is a problem and every time when, for good reasons, public expenditure has to be looked at, it is the people who have not looked after themselves, who have not looked after their families so effectively, who have not worked so hard, who have not been so enterprising and who are essentially dependent on the state who are looked after. When we put VAT on fuel, for example, their interests are secured. They are compensated, but the others are not. We must be wary of that. When we look further at VAT on fuel, it will go ill for us as a Conservative party if we do not take account of the people who have done what we asked them to do, and who have been good Conservatives and good citizens. They are not high and mighty people, but people from difficult backgrounds who have looked after themselves and have secured that bit extra to make themselves more content and more comfortable in their more difficult elderly years. It will go ill for us if we do not take account of that factor.

The Gracious Speech says seductively that legislation will be introduced

"to give force to the changes in the European Community's system of own resources following the agreement at the Edinburgh European Council."

Does that mean that something will be done about the boondoggling, fraud and waste? I should be all in favour of that. However, the Gracious Speech refers to

"the agreement at the Edinburgh European Council."

In historical terms, that was some time ago. A lot has happened in Europe since then. Sadly, the Maastricht treaty has been ratified. The exchange rate mechanism has been blown to smithereens. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in an article in The Economist, it is Humpty Dumpty and cannot be put back together again.

Why was it agreed at Edinburgh that there should be a change in the own resources system of the European Community? It was to do with monetary union, with cohesion and with convergence. What does "cohesion" mean? It means taking money from the supposedly richer parts of the Community and giving money to the supposedly poorer parts of the Community. It means taking money from my constituents and the constituents of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and making their jobs less economic, and passing that money to Spain, to Portugal, to the Irish Republic and to other parts of Europe that are not doing so well. It means transferring our jobs to other parts of Europe.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : As the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) referred to Bolsover, let me put him right. There has been a redistribution of power and wealth from working-class people to rich people during the past 14 years. I have never noticed the hon. Gentleman walking into the Lobby with me to protect the people of Bolsover and the people of Northampton who are at the bottom of the pile. I hope that he will do that.

Column 79

The truth is that the hon. Gentleman has walked through the Lobbies recently to shut pits in my constituency, throwing thousands of people out of work, so I hope that he will not use my name in vain. He is a member of the Johannesburg tendency. It just happens that he is obsessed with Maastricht and with the Common Market. He was a Member of Parliament when Lady Thatcher introduced the single market, and he did not squeal and shout then. He has twisted and turned on the Common Market. Throughout the past 20 years, I have voted solidly against it. I do not want lectures from this Johnny-come-lately from Northampton.

Mr. Marlow : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was not lecturing him ; I was just pointing out an area where we have some agreement. The hon. Gentleman seems to have been following my career, although he has not been following it closely. I have on many occasions taken a view different from that of a Conservative Government, as he knows.

Mr. Skinner : Not on that issue.

Mr. Marlow : The hon. Gentleman may say that. If he looks at the Division List--I am afraid that we are taking up the time of the House--he will discover that on every occasion that it was available to me to do so, I voted and spoke against the Single European Act. I have a record of consistently opposing-- [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : Order. May we have one person at a time?

Mr. Marlow : I was talking about the idea that we were to have a Bill before the House effectively to increase the amount of resources that will be available to the European Community. We shall be transferring resources from our constituents to constituents in other parts of the EC. The argument for that was that we were to have European monetary union. Therefore, we required convergence and we required to lift the prosperity of those areas of the EC which are not as prosperous as Germany, France or Britain. However, that monetary union will not happen. If we are not to have monetary union, why do we need convergence and cohesion? Why must we pass an Act that will take money from this country and from the Chancellor of the Exchequer? We know that there is a major problem with the Budget deficit. Are we to add to that Budget deficit by sending money from this country to far-flung parts of Europe?

There is another vital point. We are concerned about fraud in the EC. One of the Government's objectives is to tighten the controls on how European money is spent. Can we put our hands on our hearts and say that we are ready to send more money to, for example, Greece? Has not there been an election in Greece recently? We should ask the Greeks how they feel about the regime that they have at the moment. Is not the feeling in Greece that the present Prime Minister of that country is a little less than squeaky clean? Was not he almost convicted before a court? Are we really to ask our constituents to forgo various things that could be bought from public expenditure or to pay increased takes so that we can send money to Mr. Papandreou in Greece? Is that what the House is for? I believe not.

I am delighted that the Government are to bring a Bill before the House on law and order. My right hon. and

Column 80

learned Friend the Home Secretary gave an effective speech at the Conservative party conference. Opposition Members said that he has produced 27 points to help to deal with the severe and growing problems which are facing this country. It is true to say that, at each of the previous 14 party conferences to which I have been since we have been in government, Home Secretaries have made rousing speeches and had rousing applause from the floor, and still the problems increase.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) : They have got worse.

Mr. Marlow : I am sure that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will acknowledge that the problem has got worse not just in the United Kingdom, but throughout the western world. If he looks across the Atlantic, he will see that the United States has more severe problems than we have. That is not the issue. We are concerned with what is happening in the United Kingdom. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals are wholly for the good. I think that he is grasping nettles that have not been grasped in the past. However, I believe that we must be more radical.

The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) made an interesting and entertaining, yet serious, speech. He said that what the criminal, and particularly the young criminal, is concerned with is detection. Of course that is true, but even more important than detection is deterrence. Imagine the position of a 14, 15, or 16-year-old hooligan, thug, ramraider, or gang leader. He has a pretty boring existence and does not have a great deal of hope about his life. He gets stimulation, excitement, support, and admiration from his peers--misplaced though it is--the more TWOC-ing he does, or taking a vehicle without the owner's consent.

Sending such a person to prison achieves nothing. I am sorry to a certain extent by the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has concentrated on the aspect of prison. Yes, if people are a threat or danger to society, they should go to prison. I do not believe that prison is right for those young offenders. I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend is to do something about magistrates courts. The essentials of the justice system for that group of people should be : crime on Tuesday, caught on Wednesday, before the courts on Thursday, punished on Friday. It must be swift to be effective and to be a deterrent.

I believe that what those people miss is a deterrent, or any fear or potential threat of humiliation. I know that I will be told that it cannot be done, but we ought to consider the possibility of bringing back some form of corporal punishment. That would be a deterrent. All that is needed is for one young thug, mugger, or hooligan to get a sound thrashing and the rest will slow down, think and change their behaviour pattern. That is needed for one miscreant or one young monster. It is probably not his fault. He may have had a bad background and a bad upbringing.

We must be tough on the causes of crime, but there is no way of saying that we are able to do that overnight. We are all in favour of being tougher on the causes of crime. We should get one of these people and give him some form of humiliation ; some modern version of the stocks. It appears absurd that we cannot do it. What we are doing does not work.

I have made these suggestions before and have been told that they are medieval punishments. In some of our urban

Column 81

areas, the crime situation is just as medieval. We must think the unthinkable and come forward with radical proposals. We cannot do it because we are involved in all sorts of international organisations, institutions and agreements. We are not allowed to govern this country any more. There was a time when one third of the globe was painted red. This country was quite competent and capable of running one third of the world, and now we cannot run our own country. My daughter visited some friends in Newcastle recently. Her car, of which she was proud, was stolen and was found two hours later a burned frazzle. Elderly ladies--elderly men also--do not dare to open their doors at night for fear of being mugged or having their house ransacked. Are we concerned about those problems or about our international commitments? I know what concerns me most. We need solutions, and we are not getting them.

Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will make one more point. There has been a lot of controversy recently about the Child Support Agency. Everyone who comes to hon. Members' advice bureaux and surgeries, including fathers, agree that it is right and proper that some parents--fathers mainly--who are not paying enough towards their children who live elsewhere should pay rather than the state or the taxpayer.

That was the principle and that is what the House debated when the Bill was agreed. The devil of the issue comes in the regulations. They were passed not this year but the year before at the fag-end of a Session when no one was here. The proposals were bounced on an unaware House. Look at the regulations and the detail. I was told when I was 16--it is not true so I am not showing off--that my mathematical ability was approaching genius. I do understand formulae and complex issues of that type as much as most people do, but I found the details and the regulations unintelligible. The House had to pass them at the back-end of the Session when there were probably three Members in the Chamber. They had not been properly scrutinised. People say that Government and Parliament are to blame.

I have sent letters about my constituents to Ministers, as has everyone else. The ex-wife of one of my constituents who had been working decided to stop working and start a course of higher education for which her ex- husband had to pay. His livelihood and income are affected by her decision. She might have had a vendetta against him and has decided that she has found a way to make him smart, but there is nothing he can do about it. Her decision is devastating his life.

There are men with second wives and families who have been targeted because they have, to a certain extent, done what they were supposed to do. They may have made a clean break or supported their children from a previous union. They appear on the rolls, lists and registers. They are chased first because they are an easy target. They have second wives and families. If the second wife is working, the man has to pay more to his first wife, who might be sitting at home doing nothing. It is such details of which the House is unaware. I have letters that hon. Friends and Ministers have signed at the bottom. They are bromides produced by civil servants. Ministers get the blame ; the Government are responsible for the measure, but there is another responsibility. The civil servants produce the regulations

Column 82

and write the bromides, but they do not answer the questions posed to them in the letters from my distraught constituents.

In the private sector and industry, if people do not do their jobs properly, are incompetent and hide behind a mass of detail so that one cannot find out what is happening and is given a cloud of fog instead of an answer, they are fired. Some of the civil servants, particularly in relation to the Child Support Agency, are not doing their jobs and should be given their marching orders.

8.12 pm

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) : I am proud of London, particularly its ceremonies. I was pleased to come here today ; to participate in one of the great rituals of state is both a pleasure and a privilege. It was a matter of some excitement for me--as for other hon. Members--to come here this morning and go to another place to listen to the Gracious Speech. I hope that there will be many occasions on which I can follow that ritual.

However, I am slight unhappy about our constitutional arrangements because today is the only occasion when ordinary hon. Members, apart from those in government, have a sight of, let alone contact with, the head of state. That is a pity because in all the countries to which one travels around the world--whether they have monarchs or presidents--one encounters the good practice whereby the head of state meets his or her legislators on a regular and informal basis. I hope that over the coming years those who advise Her Majesty the Queen will suggest that, in addition to the state opening of Parliament, there should be other occasions when she meets Members of Parliament for informal meetings. Garden parties are no substitute. I am not interested in going to garden parties, but I am interested in being able to bend the ear of the head of state--whether monarch or president--on political issues and hear his or her views in an informal setting.

The Gracious Speech reflects another anachronism. It is neither a legislative programme nor a state of the union message. In this regard it is deficient, particularly this year. It would be sensible if each year there was a statement detailing a full list of all the items of legislation that the Government would like Parliament to consider in the coming Session. However, we know that many items were omitted from this Queen's Speech which, in a short time, the Government will present in the form of Bills to the House of Commons.

I think that the reason that at least two such items have been omitted from the Queen's Speech is that they are a source of embarrassment to the Government. Clearly the Government are now discovering omissions, deficiencies and the nonsense of what is now the Railways Act 1993. They will have to repair the botched legislation that they rushed through at the end of the last Session by introducing another Bill. However, they omitted to mention that item in the Queen's Speech.

A number of references have today been made to the Child Support Agency. There is clearly an urgent need for amending legislation to deal with that organisation, which is not only not working, but is hurting many people. I venture to suggest that the majority of those whom it is hurting most voted Conservative at the last general election. However, the Gracious Speech contained nothing about such legislation, because its announcement would be

Column 83

an embarrassing U-turn by the Government. Such readjustments are necessary due to the Government's bad handling of the legislative process in the last Session.

I ask any hon. Member who can find in the Queen's Speech any reference to the national health service to raise his or her hand. It is breathtaking that, when there is a major crisis in the running of the health service, the Queen's Speech contains no mention of the funding or restoration of the NHS. That is indicative, partly of the Government's disinterest in something that is greatly valued by the people of this country and partly of the fact that the Government have run out of steam.

The Queen's Speech refers to teacher training and clobbering the National Union of Students, but contains nothing to bolster the morale of teachers and parents who are desperately concerned about the crisis in many of our schools. That crisis has been largely caused by the lack of resources, and the inordinate and unreasonable demands and expectations made of dedicated teachers and professionals. They have to cope with a shortage of resources and a growing education crisis reflecting the failure of society outside the schools. That is a pity.

The Queen's Speech contains no reference to heritage--one of the great areas of state neglected by the House of Commons. The Department of National Heritage has responsibility for matters that can affect all our lives and opportunities for us to enjoy life and live it to the full. However, there is no mention of heritage in the Queen's Speech. If we had the occasional informal meetings with the monarch, I would use one such meeting to say to her that I do not like the idea of charging for admission to Windsor castle, which I consider to be an impudent and unwelcome move.

The speech contains no mention of public transport, which is demonstrably-- particularly in our capital city--in crisis. I understand from my colleagues from other parts of the United Kingdom that they and their constituents face the same transport problems in their urban areas. The position is chaotic, and people are finding it more and more difficult and costly to travel around our cities. The only mention of transport in the speech is the Queen's hope that she will be able to go to France in May to join President Mitterrand in the celebrations to mark the opening of the channel tunnel.

Her Majesty the Queen may feel embarrassed by her Government's failure to match the infrastructure exploiting the great engineering achievement of the channel tunnel on the other side of the water. Our infrastructure does not compare well with the great infrastructure built by the French Government. One of the great fiascos of the past 14 years is that one of the most remarkable, exciting and modern rapid transport systems sweeping across north-western Europe will emerge from the channel tunnel at Dover and hit a Victoriana railway system. One of the great tragedies for the United Kingdom is that we shall not be able to exploit, on behalf of our people, industries and commerce, the great advantages that come from the channel tunnel, due to the failure of the Government to fund and plan an environmentally sound but nevertheless efficient and rapid system of linkage from Dover to London and the rest of the United Kingdom.

We heard last week how the Government, for dogmatic reasons, are to defer further the construction of the channel

Column 84

tunnel link. They lack the leadership and are unable to take the bold initiative and make the investment required to get it constructed in the shortest possible time but with minimal environmental disadvantage. The consequences for my constituents in Thurrock, and for many constituents of hon. Members throughout Kent, is one of enormous blight. A great cloud is hanging over them. There is much anxiety about their future due to the indecision, procrastination and foolishness of the Government with regard to the channel tunnel link. When Her Majesty goes to France and joins President Mitterrand for the opening of what is the most remarkable flagship project of our century, I fear that she will have been embarrassed by her Government.

Her Majesty told us also that she looked forward to the celebrations to mark the 50th anniversary of the Normandy landings. When I listened to Her Majesty, I thought about the people who fought at Normandy and through northern Europe, many of whom suffered greatly and bore great sacrifice-- some still have the emotional and physical scars of the conflict of 1939- 45. I reflected that it was that generation who proudly voted for a Labour Government in 1945, which set up our welfare state and provided for our national health service. I believe that the overwhelming majority of the people who fought in that conflict, many of whom will attend the celebrations in June of next year with Her Majesty, were proud of the fact that they created the NHS. They did not mean it to last for only a generation. It was a priceless heirloom that they wanted to hand down to my generation and generations to come. It is something that they wish proudly and jealously to covet as a great achievement for their generation when they elected the Attlee Government.

Many of those veterans, who are now in the evening of their life and need the NHS, are justifiably concerned about its deficiencies and its under- funding as it relates to them. However, because they are not selfish people, because they wished to create a society that was fair and just, and above all else because they wanted a free NHS available to all on the basis of need, they are now deeply concerned that the Government are increasingly depriving their children and grandchildren of the opportunity of having a good and comprehensive NHS, for which they voted in 1945.

There were references in the Gracious Speech to our defence and our armed forces. I noticed yet again that there was the reiteration that the

"Government attach the highest importance to national security and wish to maintain full support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation."

There is no doubt that there is grave concern--in all walks of life, at all ranks in our armed forces, among journalists who write about these things and among people who are involved in international affairs--that the Government are on the brink of cutting our defence forces without any review of our defence commitments or our resources. Neither is there under way an examination of the fairly immediate effects that such cuts would have on employment among those people involved in industries that supply our armed forces. Those cuts, about which we are likely to hear in the next few weeks, are being brought about through the panic of the Treasury rather than a conscious decision by people involved in our nation's defences and our international commitments. I think that that is wrong. Although we have had many differences in the House and across the political spectrum about defence, Her

Column 85

Majesty's Opposition have always been determined to argue that reckless decisions should not be taken about our defence forces. There is a need for a review, but what we are threatened with is a reckless cut, done in panic by Her Majesty's Government because of the economic crisis into which they have led our country. Last week I was at NATO and Shape in Belgium. These anxieties were expressed by many professionals who are deeply concerned at our inability to maintain and fulfil our defence commitments, particularly in relation to international organisations promoting peace, to which this country has had a proud record of contributing.

I took a deep breath when I heard in the Gracious Speech that the Government professes to work to ensure that the European Community is expanded to include those countries which are ready and wish to join the European Community. Implicit in this claim is reference to those countries, particularly those in the Visigard group--Poland, Hungary, the Czech republic and the Slovak republic--which are desperate to join the European Community. The Government are not moving as vigorously as they should, both in the interests, of those countries, and in our own long-term interests, to bring them into the European Community and to the group of western nations. I also think that it is somewhat dishonest, because, for the best part of 50 years, we were taunting people in central and eastern Europe by effectively saying, "Look over the wall. Come and see what the free democratic societies with mixed economies can offer you." Yet when communism failed and the wall came down we would not let them come and join us. That is dishonest and foolhardy in the extreme.

I am not insensitive to the need for us to tread with caution with regard to the reaction of the Russian republic. There may be some anxieties if things move too fast, but our capacity to attract, involve and bring in to the European Community particularly the states to which I referred, and others, is far too slow. I hope that over the coming year the Government will reflect on that and do all they can to facilitate and bolster those fragile democracies and economies which are emerging in central and eastern Europe. I would like to say, Madam Speaker--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He has been most graciously pleased to have given me a rise in rank. I am in fact the Deputy Speaker, not Madam Speaker.

Mr. Mackinlay : For a moment, I thought that I had done something else wrong. I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

My complaint against the Government in boasting that they wish to bring the countries of central and eastern Europe into the European Community is that these are merely words. My complaint has now been bolstered by the recent activities of the Secretary of State for Transport who has removed the permit of Lot airlines to land at Heathrow. I thought that this was a spiteful, silly and bullying act by Her Majesty's Government. There are at present no direct flights from Heathrow to Warsaw because Her Majesty's Government seem totally beholden and committed to do the bidding of British Airways, which is a private company. It is quite deplorable.

We are trying to bolster the commerce and enterprise of states such as Poland. However, because British Airways demand an extra slot in its winter schedules to go to

Column 86

Warsaw, and Lot airlines and the Polish Government would not agree, the Secretary of State withdrew Lot's permit to fly to and from Heathrow. We would not do that in relation to many other countries with whom we have relations. That is a bullying act and a way of treating Poland as if it were a third-world country.

Mr. Michael Spicer The hon. Gentleman's argument is extraordinary. He is saying that we should not do things in the interests of our own country. He says that we are bullying a little airline, but effectively we have done exactly the same thing today to American Airlines.

Mr. Mackinlay : I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a substantial disagreement between us and the United States, but we would not dare do to United States airlines or carriers what we have done to Lot airlines. My point is that we are treating the Polish Government and Polish airlines differently from the way we would treat partners such as the United States with whom we have relationships. That is the tragedy. We should not have acted in such an overbearing and high-handed manner, particularly when Poland's economy and democracy are so fragile.

I am not suggesting that we should not try to promote our own companies and enterprises. To do so is perfectly correct. Indeed, that is the duty of Government. However, there is a balance to be struck and the Government have behaved in an indefensible way and against the backdrop of proclaiming that they want to do much to promote the fortunes of central and eastern European countries and to bring them into the European Community.

In the Queen's Speech, Her Majesty read the Government's claim that they wish to

"continue with firm financial policies designed to support continuing economic growth and rising employment, based on permanently low inflation."

We obviously welcome the fall in inflation. However, that has been achieved at the ridiculous price of widespread unemployment. Earlier today, the Prime Minister and other Government spokesmen bragged about the fall in the unemployment figures. However, that fall is a fall from a very high level. It is a basic law of physics that what goes up must one day come down. I do not believe that some minor drop in the unemployment figures is a great victory. Any drop is welcome, but there is no sign that there is a trend which will continue unabated. There is no sign that the unemployment figure will plummet.

The unemployment figures are indefensibly high, particularly in the south- east where, outside Greater London, I am one of the few Opposition Members. As I have said before in this Chamber, arguably I represent not thousands, but millions. People in the south-east who voted for the Conservatives at the last general election now feel bitterly betrayed.

Before I came to the Chamber today, I checked the figures with the Library. In November 1989 there were just over 2,000 unemployed people in my constituency. The figures released today show that there are now 5,173. In November 1989 in Basildon there were 2,328 unemployed people. The figure today is 5,900. In Harlow in November 1989 there were 1,562 unemployed people. Today there are 4,950. The November 1989 figure for Medway was 1,613. The figure today is 5,023. The unemployment figure in Gravesham in November 1989 was 1,938. The figure today is 5,379. There were similar rises in Crawley, Slough, Dover, Brighton, the Heathrow travel-to-work area and

Column 87

Southend. Throughout the south-east of England, there is a catalogue of unemployment which the Government choose to ignore. The Government ignore that catalogue of unemployment at their peril. One day the Government will have to face the electorate and the people of south-east England will seek retribution at the ballot box for their great betrayal and that of their families who have endured, and continue to endure, extreme levels of unemployment with the attendant distresses of business failures, loss of homes and family break up. During this Parliament, I will do all I can to charge and point the prosecutor's finger at the Government and the Conservative Members who have supported and sustained that Government whose policies have brought blight and deep recession to the south-east.

The Government have been in office for 14 years. At 14 Conservative party conferences, and in every Queen's Speech over the same period, there have been ritual references to the need to tackle crime and to introduce measures to promote law and order. That is now a very thin and boring claim which convinces no one. The most recent utterances by the latest Conservative Home Secretary have no credence whatsoever.

One of the problems which the Home Secretary and his colleagues fail to address is the congestion of our courts system. Nothing would be worse than to arrest more people, particularly young people, and then to allow even longer periods to elapse before they reach the courts. We know that when people are arrested and are on bail, they often commit similar crimes again before they reach court. It is a priority for the Government to fund and facilitate a proper courts system and to address the universities of crime, which is what our underfunded and Victorian prisons have become.

I was deeply concerned a couple of weeks ago when the Home Secretary came to the House and more or less said that he had abandoned most of the recommendations of the Sheehy inquiry report. People are quite rightly concerned about the Sheehy recommendations which I believe attacked the pay and conditions of service of police officers and which would have also sapped public confidence in the police. I was worried that people may have wrongly assumed, from the Home Secretary's statement, that he had called off the hounds. I was concerned that many people would overlook the White Paper proposals which, according to the Gracious Speech, are to appear in a Bill. I believe that the proposals are serious and dangerous. They threaten 170-odd years of the unique tradition of British policing. The Government propose that there should be new police authorities which should be chaired by a paid appointee of the Home Secretary. That will threaten the independence of policing and our police traditions.

Until now, there has been a good balance between elected representatives who provide the heads of our current police committees, and the chief constables. However, if there are to be paid appointees of the Home Secretary at the end of the corridor, there will be all the chemistry of clash and division over who is in charge of our police forces. It will not be fair to chief constables or their officers. Their operational decisions will almost

Column 88

certainly be challenged by the Home Secretary's paid nominees. We cannot escape the fact that there would be political appointments. Even at this stage, I hope that the Government or their supporters will reflect on that dangerous and serious departure. When my colleagues assume office, I hope that we will reverse these moves. I hope that we will not be tempted to install our nominees as paid chairmen of police authorities. Instead, we should restore the independence and involvement of local authorities on the present basis. That would be fair and sensible.

In the Bill on the police, I hope that we will address for the first time the fact that there is no set national standard or control in relation to people who claim or hold the office of constable. For some years I have been deeply concerned about the fact that the names and numbers of many people who hold the office of constable are not known to the Home Secretary. There has been a proliferation of minor police forces. In the Bill on the police, I would like to see a standard laid down for the office of constable so that when non-Home Office police forces appoint constables there is a standard which can be recognised by all police forces in the country.

There are some very professional non-Home Office police forces--for example, the Ministry of Defence police, the Atomic Energy Authority police, the Royal Parks constabulary, and the British Transport police, which is one of our biggest police forces. Those are distinguished police forces, but there are some which are very small and which do not have an acceptable standard, although they may be made up of dedicated men and women who wish to give public service. In Wandsworth, there is a parks police force in which people hold the office of constable, and in Kensington and Chelsea parks there are people who hold the office of constable. By no stretch of the imagination can they be deemed to be comparable with officers in the other forces to which I have referred. I hope that that will be recognised in the forthcoming Bill.

On the occasion of the Bill coming before the House, Parliament should instruct the Government that there should be no more privatisation of police forces. I am deeply concerned and amazed that the Government propose to privatise the police force at Northern Ireland's international airport. I find that breathtaking. This is an armed police force doing great service in protecting travellers. Its officers are literally at the gate to Northern Ireland, yet the Government intend to privatise them, along with the Northern Ireland airports. I hope that the Government will reflect and pull back from this foolish course.

I now refer to the long-awaited announcement that we will soon have before us legislation to reform the laws relating to Sunday trading. One of the main industries in my constituency is the retail and distributive trade. I have in my constituency Lakeside, and many other stores in and around it, together with the new controversial Costo club or wholesale store. I have a dilemma in respect of the proposed legislation. It really is dreadful that we already have had an extension of Sunday trading despite the fact that what everyone knows to be the law prevented most Sunday trading. Whatever one might ultimately feel about the merits or otherwise of Sunday trading, it is surely wrong that Parliament should have been bounced into the

Column 89

need to make changes by a flagrant disregard of the law by some big high street names. However, that is what has happened.

My dilemma is that many of my constituents work on Sundays--indeed it is the only employment that some can obtain. I have to reconcile their needs with that of ensuring that there is regard for the law. At the same time, many people have also come to enjoy the facility of shopping on Sundays.

There has been a sorry tale of failure by the Government to address, much earlier than this parliamentary Session, an issue that needed to be resolved. We should have had regulations to bring about a sensible regime for Sunday shopping while ensuring that people who do not wish to work on Sundays are not penalised or disadvantaged. Our much-valued corner stores, which are very vulnerable to the growth of out-of-town shopping centres, also need some protection.

I have not made up my mind about the legislation--we have yet to see the details of the Bill--but I hope that a reasonable compromise can be struck. It really is quite dreadful for the Government to bleat on about law and order, discipline, and regard for others when they have acquiesced by their silence and inaction in allowing large companies to break the law in order to achieve selfish commercial objectives. That is what has happened. It is for Parliament over the next few weeks to try to find a way of creating a settlement which meets the needs of those people who wish to shop on Sundays while balancing this against the needs of those who wish to maintain some special features of Sunday. We must also ensure that people are not made to work on Sundays if they do not wish to do so. I hope that we can reach a settlement that will last for 20 or 30 years before it is reviewed. The current position is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.

I am sorry to have delayed the House, but the Queen's Speech debate is an occasion when we can reflect upon the Government's stewardship of this country. When I came away from the other place today, I recalled from my youth the famous cover of Private Eye which showed Her Majesty the Queen reading the Queen's Speech. On the cover there was a balloon which read, "I hope you don't think that I wrote this rubbish." Today's Queen's Speech represented a failure by the Government. It glibly dismissed the things that are wrong in our country and it produced no alternatives to improve the quality of life. We look forward to a Queen's Speech whose author is my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). We look forward then to hearing from the Throne a speech which will be described as an agenda for a generation and which provides hope for people of all age groups who wish to see the country's commerce expand, its health services promoted and, above all else, full employment restored.

8.46 pm

Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South) : We are forming quite a select band. Perhaps we could huddle up together or even move to a smaller room. The last time I followed the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was after his maiden speech. I hope that he will not mind if I am not as polite to him on this occasion. He has all the qualities that will make him a great filibusterer.

I suspect that, in large measure, this parliamentary Session will determine the course of British politics until

Column 90

the next general election and, because of that, until the next millennium. It is tempting to suggest that that will hang on the legislative programme outlined in the Gracious Speech. The programme of law-making that we are promised is on the whole admirable. I look forward to doing my bit of tramping through the Lobby in support. I said "on the whole" because it will come as no surprise to some hon. Members to hear that I am less than totally ecstatic about the prospect of passing a law which will put up taxes in order to supply money to the European Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) eloquently said, it will pay money to the growers of olive trees in Greece and to mushroom growers in Ireland. It just so happens that I do not represent the Irish, the Greeks, the French or the Germans. I represent the English and the British. To that extent, it worries me that the people whom I represent will have their taxes increased as result of that law. Of course I wish my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary well for the passage of his legislation to re-establish public confidence in the rule of law. I also very much welcome the proposed Bill to privatise the coal industry. There has been much discussion today about that measure, especially among Opposition Members. My greatest regret when I was Minister for coal and power was that I lost the argument in the Government about privatisating the coal industry at that stage. I felt then, as I feel now, that the combination of access to private capital--more capital--to private expertise and management, and in particular to private expertise in marketing would have stood the industry in very good stead, especially when the electricity industry was being privatised. I had the honour of taking that Bill through Committee. I felt that the two privatisation Bills should have come at about the same time. One of the problems with the industry at present is the disparity between the privatised electricity industry and the coal industry which is still in the public sector. I faced and lost two arguments at that time. The first argument was that the National Union of Mineworkers would hate it. At that time, once we had got past the rhetoric in public, they took me around the back and asked what they thought was the main question--what will the price of shares be ? I hope that the Government will find a way to ensure that employees become shareholders in the privatised industry, whatever shape it takes.

Another argument was that we could not map the industry's reserves in time. I hope that we will quickly find a way through that--I suspect that we will --by franchising excavation rights and overcoming the mapping issue. Certainly, I welcome the proposed Bill because it will put the industry on the right footing in the way that should have been done some time ago.

All that being said, I doubt whether the extent to which public confidence in the Government is restored will depend entirely on the number of wonderful laws that we pass over the next year. There has been some discussion this afternoon about clogging the proposed legislative timetable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) expressed his concerns about not getting Bills into Committee before Christmas. It seems that part of the answer has been found by the Government, and that is not to have too much legislation this Session.

There is also the problem of the new budgetary timetable. I absolutely agree with the concept of producing

Next Section

Home Page