|Previous Section||Home Page|
Mr. Maclean: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary secured an excellent deal for the police service in the public expenditure survey round. At a time when there had to be, and rightly so, tight constraint on Government expenditure, we achieved a settlement for the police of 3 per cent. under the formula that is distributed around the country. If there are any errors in the calculations, each and every force can, of course, bring them to the attention of myself or the Department of the Environment during the consultation period.
Mr. Shersby: Does my hon. Friend agree that the determination of police pay using the mechanism of the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom has served the country and the police very well? Can he assure the House that the Government's policy is that the PNB will continue to do its good work?
Mr. Howard: The Government are committed to providing generous compensation to the innocent victims of violent crime as a mark of society's sympathy for such victims. It is a measure of this country's generosity that we pay out more in compensation than the United States and far more than all other European countries put together.
Mr. Khabra: Will the Home Secretary admit that police officers, firefighters and ordinary people who are victims of the most horrendous injuries will lose out if his changes go ahead? Does he realise that some of them will have their level of compensation cut from £250,000 to a few thousand pounds, proving that the Home Secretary is not interested in the victims of crime?
Mr. Howard: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures since, under the tariff scheme that we propose, 60 per cent. of victims will receive at least as much or more money than under the old scheme.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the generous package provided in the United Kingdom is only one aspect of dealing with violent crime? When one is addressing the problems of violent crime, it is important that the forces of law see that their actions are being upheld in this place and elsewhere and that the perpetrators of violent crime are dealt with in a determined fashion.
Mr. Howard: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The best thing that we can do is to give the police the effective help that they need to bring to justice those who perpetrate violent crimes. I am determined to do all I can to achieve that end. The police take their duties in these matters extremely seriously and it is up to the House and the nation to give them their support in the sort of partnership for which I have called.
Column 274compensation for victims of crimes of violence well before the last election and that Ministers agreed the cuts within weeks after the 1992 election, why did the Secretary of State's party not mention a word about the cuts in its 1992 manifesto, but instead, in its 1992 campaign guide, congratulated the Government on the continuance of the old and much more generous scheme? Is not this yet another example of the way in which the British people were grievously misled by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues at the last election?
Mr. Howard: As I have made clear, our record in these matters is absolutely outstanding. The hon. Gentleman conceded in his question that no decisions had been taken at the time of the last general election, so he destroyed by his question the very premise on which it was based.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it has always been a fundamental principle of the benefit system in this country that only the poorest should be recompensed? Therefore, would not it seem sensible to recognise that the criminal injuries compensation scheme is wrong to compensate those on substantially higher than average earnings?
Mr. Howard: It was necessary to reform the scheme for reasons which have been explained comprehensively to the House and to do so in ways which have been approved by the House on more than one occasion.
Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister accept that that is a ludicrously inadequate answer? Does he recollect that the Home Office consultation on wheel clamping ended in May 1993? When will he do something about it and rid the country of the menace of the cowboy clampers?
Mr. Maclean: I also recollect that there was no clear consensus about what the future proposals should be. It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to accuse me of being late in bringing forward proposals when there is no agreement about what, if anything, should be done.
Mr. Alexander: Regardless of that, is not it a fact that there are far too many instances of extortion and placing people, particularly women, in fear as a result of the activities of these clampers? Surely we must take some action to give people greater reassurance should their cars be clamped by one of these cowboys.
Mr. Maclean: There is also a balance to be struck. We need to protect the legitimate interests of organisations such as hospitals and casualty departments which are sometimes affected by silly and indiscriminate parking. Of course, we must also protect the vulnerable and those who may be wrongly clamped but, as I said, I shall introduce proposals when I have come to firm conclusions on the right way ahead.
Mr. Whittingdale: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the fight against drugs remains at the heart of the Government's crime prevention programme? Does he agree that to legalise cannabis, which the Liberal Democrats voted to support, would seriously undermine that campaign? Will he confirm that he has no intention of adopting such a policy?
Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. Only the Liberal party could associate itself with something as stupid as the legalisation of cannabis. To do so would send the wrong message to the country about our determination to fight drugs. That determination is clearly underlined in the Green Paper which sets out a strategy to tackle this scourge, which affects every section of every community.
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
Mr. Shepherd: Is the Prime Minister aware that his firm stance on the integrity of the United Kingdom is widely appreciated? Does he agree that if English Members of Parliament were unable to vote on Scottish issues, our constituents would want to know why Scottish Members of Parliament could vote on English matters which affect them?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a question that has been raised in the House on many occasions when devolution has been discussed in the past. There has never been a satisfactory answer to that question and, indeed, there is no satisfactory answer to it. If certain matters were devolved to a Parliament in any part of the kingdom and that Parliament were to have exclusive responsibility for them, then Members of Parliament from that part of the United Kingdom could not vote in this House on those issues affecting other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister: Our party does not stand on such a policy. It is dangerous and, as I have indicated, I believe that the nature of devolution, with a tax-raising Assembly, will play Scot against Scot, Scot against Briton in other parts of the United Kingdom; leave Scotland as the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom and leave Scotland losing inward investment--and Wales, too, were
Column 276it to have such an Assembly; and were Scottish Members of Parliament given the right to deal with, for example, education and health in Scotland, it would not be proper for Scottish Members of Parliament to come to this House and vote on education and health in so far as England and other parts of the United Kingdom are concerned.
Mr. Blair: That manifesto said that "devolution is our policy" and that it was the opposite of centralism. It said that it would free Scotland from the rigours of centralisation and went on to say that it was the opposite also of separatism. If it was right in 1974, surely after this passage of time it is right now.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is being very defensive --and with good reason. He should look more carefully at those proposals. He will find that there was no proposal for taxation-raising powers for that Assembly and no executive power for that Assembly. He might also be aware, in terms of this Government, that I was not even in the House then. Every single aspect of what he now proposes will lead inexorably to circumstances in which the United Kingdom itself might break up. He can have an absolute guarantee that the Government will oppose his proposals lock, stock and barrel from this day forward.
Mr. Blair: What is more, it was actually called in this manifesto a "Scottish Assembly". Is not the truth that the Prime Minister's anger is synthetic and that after 15 years of Conservative Government, 15 years of centralisation and the quango state and 15 years of anything and everything being run by unaccountable bodies stuffed with Tory placemen, it is time to bring government closer to the people it serves?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is his latest sound bite; indeed, it is. When he uttered it first last week, in the same paragraph he proposed extra quangos. Labour's so-called "quango count" includes grant-maintained schools and self-governing hospitals. In any event, the number of non-departmental governing bodies that the right hon. Gentleman calls quangos has fallen by 35 per cent. during the passage of this Government.
The right hon. Gentleman seeks to hide the fact that he cannot answer any of the questions on devolution that we have put to him. He cannot explain why the Scots should be more highly taxed than anybody else. He cannot answer the West Lothian question. Indeed, he does not even understand what the West Lothian question is. Until he can find credible answers to that, it is no good his going back a quarter of a century and digging up, in a
Column 277mistaken way, old policies. He knows that he is wrong. He is on the defensive and he cannot win this argument for his policies are damaging to the United Kingdom.
Sir Cranley Onslow: If my right hon. Friend heard the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) rabbiting on the "Today" programme this morning about regional government for England, did it occur to him that it might be time for the House to have another look at the unfair electoral quota system which results in serious
under-representation of the English electorate?
The Prime Minister: I did not have the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on the "Today" programme or, indeed, to his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) who, I believe, was on morning television on the same subject. I did read the transcripts and I noticed that the hon. Gentlemen were unable to answer any of the questions that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has found himself unable to answer. What is undoubtedly the case is that if there were regional Parliaments with policies devolved to them, there would be bound to be an effect, unless the constitution was gerrymandered, on the number of Members of Parliament in this House from the parts of the United Kingdom that had such a Parliament with devolved tax-raising powers. That is the game that the right hon. Gentleman is playing and he is doing it because he is running scared of the Scottish Nationalists.
Mr. Kirkwood: With the Prime Minister, quite rightly, being convinced of the merits of the concept of subsidiarity in the context of the European Union and of Northern Ireland, why does he set his face against using the self-same principles for the governance of Scotland when, in the 1992 general election in Scotland, 75 per cent. of the electorate voted for parties favouring a system of greater legislative control over Scotland's own affairs?
The Prime Minister: The difference between the United Kingdom and Europe is that the United Kingdom is a single national institution--a national state. Europe and the United Kingdom-- [Interruption.] Europe is not a national state. We are a single Government entity; we have been since 1707. I will not set us on a path where that may be broken up. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that would be in the interests of Scotland, I suggest that he examines the matter more carefully, for he will find that it is not in the interests of Scotland and not in the interests of the individual Scot.
Mr. Viggers: Has my right hon. Friend had time during his busy day to contemplate the identifiable Government expenditure on the different individuals within the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, which in England is £3,290 per head and in Scotland 20 per cent.
Column 278higher at £3,968? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Labour party proposals for devolution were to be carried through, it would inevitably lead to a questioning of that subsidy, which is well understood at the moment? Therefore, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, is right when he accuses some Labour politicians of infantile incompetence, but wrong when he restricts his comments to Members of the European Parliament.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a sound and important point. We are a single United Kingdom. I wish us to remain as a single United Kingdom so that we may direct our public expenditure across a single United Kingdom to the areas that most need it. That is what we have traditionally done. That is what I wish us to continue to seek to do. What concerns me is that for party political reasons a proposal is now being put forward by the Labour party which will unsettle those traditional arrangements and set one part of the United Kingdom against another.
Mr. Gerrard: Does the Prime Minister recall that just over a year ago the Minister for Transport in London promised that the travelcard would be protected not only in name and form but in price in real terms? With people in London facing fare rises this week of up to 11 per cent. and the cost of travelcards going up by two or three times the rate of inflation, how does the Prime Minister justify that promise being broken?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should have a look at the policies on transport right across London, including the travelcard. He will find that the Government have a better record for keeping their promises on transport and other matters than any previous Government. I suggest that he looks right across the range at those promises that have been kept and the improvement in transport facilities that are available. What will damage transport facilities is--
Mr. Booth: Is the Prime Minister aware that for every £1 spent on private schools coming through charitable status, £1.30 is given out through bursaries and scholarships by those schools? So, the Labour party's exercise is a vindictive, cynical manoeuvre.
Column 279talk about the crusade for education. Their crusade seems to be to take away choice from as many people as they possibly can.
Mr. Canavan: Will the Prime Minister have another go at trying to justify his ridiculous claim that the idea of a Scottish Parliament is a form of dangerous teenage madness? Bearing in mind that the idea of a Scottish Parliament has been supported, even by prominent Tories, such as former Prime Ministers Douglas-Home and Heath, and by the current Secretaries of State for Defence and for Scotland, what is the Prime Minister going to do about those dangerous teenage madmen?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman needs to engage in some grown -up politics. He may, for example, ask his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) whether he would agree with his remarks. The answer to his question is the one that I gave a few moments ago. There was not a proposition for a tax-raising Parliament with Executive powers, dividing responsibilities and tax-raising authority between different parts of the United Kingdom.
Column 280The Labour party's proposition will put Scotland significantly backwards in its economic prosperity; will lose inward investment to Scotland; will increase taxation in Scotland; and will set Scots against other parts of the United Kingdom and some Scots against other Scots. That is not a wise proposition. It is, as I have said, very unwise.
Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Birmingham council women's unit has been wasting £300,000 per annum of ratepayers' money and that the head of that department has been suspended for many months on full pay of £44,000 per annum while she wasted a further £250,000 on an ill-judged housing scheme? As she has now been offered £11,000 to leave the council and to go away and keep quiet, does my right hon. Friend feel that that is a matter for the Audit Commission to consider in the light of its recent report?
The Prime Minister: I was not aware of that particular matter. As the Opposition so often talk about waste in local government and elsewhere, they might conceivably have raised it. I saw the Audit Commission report which made the point that too often local government services are provided by a dramatically over-staffed service indeed. It seems to me that too often local government cuts services instead of staff and then takes the easy option of blaming the Government for underfunding it when it has cut those services. The Audit Commission report makes that clear and I am delighted that it does so.
|Next Section (Debates)