| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): There is no denying the large majority on the Labour Benches, and I support the current electoral system. Is it not the case, however, that, since the Labour Government got fewer votes than we had in 1992, they should be wary of saying that they have a mandate to change this country in all sorts of ways? They have no such mandate--or, if they have, we had a greater mandate in 1992.
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right to say that all democrats in the House must understand what the electorate were saying.
The electorate were, of course, criticising us, and we must learn from their criticisms. The electorate were saying to Labour, "We will give you a trial. If you make our schools better, if you make our hospitals better, and if you continue the economic recovery that the Conservatives generated, we shall applaud what you do." That is conditional approval even for a party with such a majority. In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for
Blaby (Mr. Robathan) rightly said, the overall number of votes cast was below the level we achieved in 1992, with a much smaller majority.
The Prime Minister's other proposed reform for Prime Minister's questions, as I understand it, is to make Back Benchers table in advance the general subjects of their questions, in order to narrow the scope for cross-examination. It is not always possible to know what crisis will blow up or what will be the issue of the moment when we get to Prime Minister's Question Time. It is far better, on the Tuesday or the Thursday, to have open questions, so that Members of Parliament can ask the supplementary on any issue that matters.
The public have a right to see the chief executive of the nation--the Prime Minister, the leader of the Government--under close cross-examination at least twice a week, and we have the right to ask about anything that is of public interest. Madam Speaker will keep us in order; she will make sure that we ask only about things that fall within the responsibility of the Government. I ask again why the Prime Minister wants to run away from accepting responsibility, facing the questions and allowing us and Labour Back Benchers to ask about things that are topical and which clearly matter.
A lot has been made by Labour Members in our discussions on the Queen's Speech about the money that will be freed by the rather bitter measure to abolish assisted places. We are glad that assisted places are paid for out of taxpayers' money, thus giving children from low-income families or from modest backgrounds the chance to go to an excellent school. Labour will create a worse kind of apartheid in this country, because children from low-income families will have no chance to go to a fee-paying school.
The Government will not succeed in lowering class sizes dramatically across the rest of the country as a result of that mean-spirited measure. As the Leader of the Opposition has already pointed out, a great deal of the money that is saved on assisted places will have to be spent on providing spaces for those self-same children in the schools to which they will go instead. The proposal is bogus, and it will undoubtedly backfire.
I say to Labour, as I said to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) a few minutes ago, that a large amount of money is already available in the budgets of the county councils and other education authorities. Labour councils are blocking that money from going into schools. That is where the money is needed, and that is the problem that the Prime Minister should be tackling in his policies.
I find it surprising that the Prime Minister, having refused to answer me and others over the past two years when we have raised points about the wrongdoing and bad practices of so many Labour authorities, is now turning against them. He intends to use Conservative legislation to intervene in schools that Labour councils have failed to run well. I am glad that he has at last got there, but I believe that it is a great pity that he did not support our legislation to the full when we introduced it. It is a great pity that he and his colleagues in councils around the country have wasted two years when they could have tackled the problems, dealt with the bad teaching, got on with the job, and spared some more children a poor education.
The Government's proposals in the Queen's Speech and the forthcoming Finance Bill are equally unwelcome to us and to many voters. I did not find enthusiasm even among Labour voters for a utilities tax. People know that, in the end, the customer has to pay, and they know that the customers who find the water bill, the gas bill and the electricity bill the most difficult to afford are those on low incomes, those who spend most of their time at home, and pensioners--those who need the utilities' products more than the rest. It is a disgrace that a Labour Government can propose such a mean measure, which will attack the weakest and poorest in society, while not seeming to be aware of what it will do to all those people.
There are now rumours in the press that mortgage interest relief will be abolished just to make sure that home owners, who are already smarting under the first Labour interest rate increase, will have even less tax back to help them to meet their mortgage payments. I do not remember new Labour telling the electorate before the election that there would be a double whammy of that kind on home owners. Conservatives must speak out against the abolition of mortgage interest relief if the Government make such a proposal in the forthcoming Budget.
The Labour party has proposed some referendums, which are very welcome. I relish the prospect of helping to fight devolution through the ballot box in the campaigns leading up to the referendums in Scotland and Wales. It is likely that the Welsh people will decide, as they did in the 1970s, that they do not like Labour's proposals.
Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside):
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many Conservative Members of Parliament there are in Wales?
Mr. Redwood:
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is well informed; I do not think that he really needs an answer to his question. I can tell him, however, that, in the 1970s, there were many Labour Members of Parliament in Wales. The Labour-Liberal Administration at the time proposed a form of devolution for Wales which was remarkably similar to the one that is in the Queen's Speech. It was voted down by a majority of 4:1 in the Welsh referendum. We have a good chance in the forthcoming Welsh referendum, and I look forward to it.
In the campaign leading to the Scottish referendum, we have a good chance of persuading the Scottish people that they do not want a Parliament with tax-raising powers; we shall return to that matter in due course.
Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North):
If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is reasonable for English Members of Parliament to intervene in the devolution proposals for Scotland and for Wales, is he suggesting that any referendum that takes place on those issues should take place over the whole of the United Kingdom rather than just in those principalities?
Mr. Redwood:
The hon. Gentleman is way out of line with the Government's proposals. We wish--
Mr. Redwood:
I am about to answer the question.
We wish to have the widest possible referendum. We certainly have strong views on what should be adjudged a victory. It is most important that the Welsh and Scottish referendums should require not a simple majority of those voting but a simple majority of those eligible to vote. Those who seek a dramatic constitutional change should have to show that there is a real appetite for such a change.
Hon. Members who told me a moment ago that we had no chance of winning the referendum are now saying that they could not possibly accept a referendum that required even 50 per cent. of the electorate to vote in favour. What is so wrong with demanding that? Why are right hon. and hon. Gentlemen so afraid of their own case that they immediately say that they could not possibly accept the idea of half the electorate having to agree?
Mr. Wilkinson:
Would my right hon. Friend extend his admirable principle of the necessity for a qualified majority to the referendum on London's government? As a London Member, in the recent general election campaign I encountered not a single voter at a public meeting or on the doorstep who expressed any wish whatsoever for a directly elected assembly for London.
Mr. Redwood:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a positive suggestion that we shall need to debate if and when similar legislation is produced for London.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |