| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford): As we are talking about supposed cave-ins, will the Leader of the Opposition explain Labour's education policy to the House? Last year Labour favoured taking grant-maintained schools back under political control, but when the right hon. Gentleman sent his child to a grant-maintained school, the policy changed and suddenly grant-maintained schools were in favour. Extremists such as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) complained and the Labour party shifted policy again. Now it is in favour of retaining half of all grant-maintained schools under political control.
Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on every point, and if he were to read the relevant Labour party documents, he would realise that. I will tell him what the difference is between Labour and the Conservatives. If we
make a change, we do so in the interests of this country and we stand up for that change. What is more, if there needs to be a change, I lead it; I do not follow it.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): Why should we believe the right hon. Gentleman's views on Europe today when they are the complete opposite of his views 12 years ago? What will his views be in 10 years?
Mr. Blair: I have heard it all now. Twelve months ago, the right hon. Gentleman sat in the Cabinet and agreed with the Government's policy. He is the man--I shall be corrected if I am wrong--who served in the Government at the time of the Maastricht decision and supported the Government all the way. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will stop shouting so much.
Mr. Blair: As I said last year--and I meant it--I would rather serve in a party that stands up for a constructive, proper relationship in Europe, than in a party that, probably later under the right hon. Gentleman, would move to take Britain out of Europe altogether.
Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva (Brentford and Isleworth): Does the right hon. Gentleman know that last year there were 38,000 bogus and 1,700 genuine applications for asylum in Britain? Bogus applications damage race relations in this country.
Mr. Blair: I hope that no one will suggest that we or anyone else are in favour of bogus asylum applications. I hope that the Government are not either. Earlier, I made a suggestion that is worth considering. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would agree that the Bill should go to a Special Standing Committee that would take evidence. That would take the matter out of party politics altogether.
Not a promise has been kept on tax, VAT, mortgage relief, the value of the pound, Europe, education and health. The Conservative Government have created a less equal, more unfair and more divided country than any Government this century. For decades, our nation, under Governments of both political persuasions, tried to pursue policies that brought the nation together because it was fair and efficient. Today, there is not even a pretence at it by the Government.
Britain as a nation is less fair, less united and less cohesive. It thinks and acts less like one nation than at any time this century. The Tories may wrap themselves in the language of the nation state, but they have done more to destroy the fabric of Britain than any party in living memory.
Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr):
A few minutes ago, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that he would rather belong to a party that had constructive and objective views on Europe, so why does he not come and join us? Why does he not accept that he has already moved down a whole pile of avenues that the Conservative party has advocated over the years? Perhaps he should recognise his true position in future.
Mr. Blair:
At first I thought that it was an error of judgment by the Whips to stop interventions. Now I know that it was a canny and intelligent move. For heaven's sake, we know perfectly well that there are different views
We needed a Queen's Speech for Britain. We needed measures to lift Britain up the prosperity league by raising investment in skills, infrastructure and the regions and to bring knowledge and information to the people by harnessing new technology for our schools, in the workplace and in the home. We needed a Queen's Speech to provide new opportunities for the young unemployed, to build homes for the homeless and to allow people a decent standard of living. We needed a Queen's Speech to reform welfare and allow people back into work who need and want to work, to cut class sizes, to raise standards and to take tough action against failing schools. We needed a Queen's Speech to restore the health service as one unified system of proper public service in Britain. We needed a Queen's Speech to make the streets safe again by legislating for a proper crime prevention strategy in every part of Britain.
We should and could have had a Queen's Speech to revive local government, to bring real democracy to the nations and regions of Britain and to clean up politics after years of Conservative sleaze. We should have had a Queen's Speech with a foreign policy based not on the need to appease people within the Conservative party but on Britain's true national interests.
The Queen's Speech was not designed to make Britain proud, hopeful or confident. It will merely strengthen the desire of millions of people to see the Government put out of office. They have been there too long, they have told too many lies and they have made too many mistakes. They have nothing whatever to offer the future of Britain.
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major):
At the outset of his remarks, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, paid tribute to those of our former colleagues who sadly died in the past 12 months. I willingly join him in that tribute. They each in their own way made a distinctive contribution to the House, and we shall miss them. I reiterate our sympathy to their friends and families.
No one who knows my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) will be remotely surprised by the quality of his excellent speech. I sat alongside my right hon. Friend often enough at international meetings to know his worth. Time after time, often in a hostile environment, he won arguments for the United Kingdom, and won them well.
In the House, my right hon. Friend has a particular reputation. Throughout the years I have known him--that goes back to long before I became a Member of this place--my right hon. Friend has always been valiant for moderation. Not for him the cheap and silly soundbite to sully his opponents. My right hon. Friend is rightly
contemptuous of that. His politics have been constructed on rational argument. I believe that the country and the House will be the poorer when he leaves this place.
My right hon. Friend has been a generous source of wise counsel to the country as well as to the Government. He has been a great servant of the state. I am most grateful to him. All of us in the House who wish our country well should join in those sentiments.
I congratulate also my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on his amusing speech. He was very amusing but not wholly frank. My hon. Friend had a dark secret that he declined to mention--his distant ancestor, Jeremiah Brandreth. Jeremiah was an agitator, a left-wing agitator, and, like so many, he was rather unworldly.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
He was a good one.
The Prime Minister:
The hon. Gentleman says that he was a good one. Well, he was known as the hopeless radical, and so good was he as a left-wing agitator that he was arrested and convicted, and became the last man to be beheaded for treason in this country.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley):
So far.
The Prime Minister:
The hon. Gentleman may unknowingly be right.
I have not told the House that Jeremiah was arrested by a Mr. Waldegrave, an illustrious predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. I warn my right hon. and hon. Friends: if they consider that the spending round is rigorous, let them know that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is in no mood for compromise.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester was president of the Oxford union. He had an endearing habit in debate. If he found--it was a most unusual circumstance--that he was losing the argument, he would physically stand on his head to confound his opponents. I congratulate him on an extremely useful preparation for national politics.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |