| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. David Clark (South Shields): I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to join in the debate so ably opened by the mover of the Address, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), and seconded by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark).
I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw for almost 30 years. His contribution was typical of him: it was witty and down to earth and, in a sense, it epitomised him in that he is the epitome of common sense. He truly represents his Bassetlaw constituents.
I do not know my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pentlands as well as I know my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. I have visited her constituency--I join her in acknowledging the beauty of that part of Edinburgh--and I was impressed by the forward-looking, progressive approach that she and her constituents had to affairs of state. I have been cross-examined by her in a Select Committee: she showed her forensic skills, and got to the core of the problem in the way she did when she seconded the Address. I look forward to hearing her speak in future.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made a good speech, although he got carried away a little bit in his peroration. He talked about timidity, but he has not taken on board the problems that the Government face.
I find myself in rather a strange environment. This is the first time for a decade and a half that I have spoken from the Back Benches, and I was rather cruelly reminded of that by my local paper, The Gazette, which is the oldest provincial evening paper--and the most important paper--in the country. When I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a question a couple of weeks ago, The Gazette ran the story and introduced it topically by saying, "Last time our Member of Parliament asked a question from the Back Benches, Alan Shearer was still at school." That brought it home forcefully to me, but here I am.
Most of my years as a Front Bencher were spent on the other side of the House, preparing for a Labour Government. I do not believe that those years were
wasted, and I have certainly not been disappointed by the first 18 months of the Labour Government. There have been many active, radical and progressive measures--more than 50 Bills--and I look forward to many more in the years to come.
I shall follow the path of the right hon. Member for Yeovil and try to compare the progress of the Government with that made by the other two radical, left-of-centre Governments of this century, although it is difficult to do so after only 18 months and we should perhaps take a raincheck on it.
Those Governments were returned by landslide--in 1906, as the right hon. Gentleman said, and in 1945. I see obvious parallels. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, the first is welfare reform. In the early years of this century, that first radical, Liberal Government were dealing with only the basic requirements of the welfare state, although that is perhaps too grand a title for it. A lot of Bismarckian concepts were accepted within our system, but that was a way forward and it was probably epitomised by old-age pensions, which were introduced in that period.
I think that everyone accepts that the 1945 Government laid the groundwork for a complete change in the relationship between society and the citizen: we had the welfare state, the national health service, pensions, national insurance and a raft of measures which served us well for the best part of 40 years. It is interesting that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister greatly emphasised the fact that one of the present Government's flagships would be welfare reform, based, as the Queen's Speech says, on
The Government are trying to expose our unhealthy dependency on the dependency culture. The Queen's Speech refers to the stakeholder pension, the working families tax credit--I am disappointed and saddened that the official Opposition have said that they are opposed to those--the disability rights commission and a range of changes in the welfare system. That must be right.
The other common factor, which has tended to dominate the debate today, is reform of the House of Lords. It is uncanny how history keeps repeating itself, and it is uncanny that that first radical, Liberal Government of 1906 ran into trouble with the other House; indeed, the position was the people versus the peers. The two general elections in 1910 culminated in the Act of Parliament that finally cut the Gordian knot--the Parliament Act 1911.
History repeated itself under the 1945 Government--a radical, Labour Government were frustrated by the other House. They had to use the legislation of the previous radical Government--the 1911 Act--to achieve the Parliament Act 1949. Here are we in 1998: in 1999 or 2000, we shall have, in effect, another Parliament Act or House of Lords reform through the invoking of the 1949 Act. That has got to be right. In my judgment, it is impossible in a modern society to defend a legislature that is based partly on the hereditary principle. That is anathema to democracy and an anachronism which cannot sit comfortably in the new millennium.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby):
The right hon. Gentleman will agree that, if there is to be a bicameral
The right hon. Gentleman is an intelligent and sensible man. Does he believe that it would be an improvement on the current situation to have purely nominated peers sitting in a second Chamber--which would be unreformed, apart from getting rid of the independent element--and to have a Chamber resting solely on the patronage of the Prime Minister?
Dr. Clark:
One of the weakest points made by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was his attempt to claim that the House of Lords was independent. I find that incomprehensible, and I believe that 99.9 per cent. of the British people would do likewise. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Gracious Speech, he will see reference to a royal commission. He will have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister refer to the fact that he would seek consensus wherever he could, to try to achieve agreement about a reformed second Chamber. That is the way forward.
The hereditary peers in the House of Lords are the antithesis of what drives the Government--modernisation. It is clear that, if we are to equip our country and ourselves for the new millennium, we must modernise many of our institutions and approaches. One might argue that the Government were elected on the theme of regeneration--the economic, social and democratic regeneration of our country. That was the right approach, and it was endorsed by an overwhelming number of constituencies, which is why the Government have a majority of 179.
It is a matter of regret that so many Opposition Members still have not realised that the British people yearn for modernisation of our country so that we can play our part in the world. If we are to modernise our country, we must modernise our attitudes, our culture and some of our institutions. A key cultural change which needs to be made is that of the Government's relationship with its citizens. There must be more openness. I was pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition support the concept of a freedom of information Bill--such a concept has certainly been endorsed by his official spokesman. If we are to change our culture, we must move from being one of the most secretive societies, when it comes to government information, to one of the most open.
Last December, I produced a White Paper entitled "Your Right to Know", which has been widely welcomed. Everyone agrees that it would move us a long way forward. Although more than 90 per cent. of the work on the draft Bill was completed, I was not surprised that it was not mentioned in the Gracious Speech.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall):
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work that he has undertaken on that important aspect of modernising our system of government. Does he accept that the best way to test the Conservative
Dr. Clark:
I shall pick up that point as I develop my argument.
I understand the Government's difficulties. We do not know the position of either the Conservative party or the other place. Given the limited time at our disposal, certain Bills have had to be put on the back burner. Like the right hon. Member for Yeovil, I was encouraged to see the draft Bill referred to in the Gracious Speech, but I was disappointed that it did not go before the Select Committee on Public Administration in September as we had hoped. I hope that that will happen early in the new year. It is an extremely useful innovation whereby we publish draft Bills and hon. Members can analyse them and make suggestions so that, when Bills finally come before the House, they are in the finest possible form. Freedom of information is not an easy subject on which to legislate, given the interface with human rights, data protection and the necessary security of our country. However, we have done all the detailed background work and are well on the way to having a fine piece of legislation. I anticipate that such a Bill will appear in the next Gracious Speech in 12 months' time.
I have dealt with changes in culture; I shall conclude by discussing changes in institutions. The structure of government is becoming increasingly outdated. It is based on the paper chase of the old industrial society. We are moving into not only a new millennium but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this afternoon, a new world--an information society--which means that many of our institutions will have to change. The Gracious Speech recognises that by announcing a Bill that will transfer the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue. That makes common sense, as the system will be more efficient and easier for our citizens, which is what government should be about.
I was also pleased that the Gracious Speech referred to a Bill on electronic commerce. I disagreed slightly with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister--I am glad that he is not here now--when he said that we have two decades in which to make such changes. The pace of change in electronic issues is so fast that, unless we get it right within one decade, or half a decade, we shall miss the boat.
I was interested to see that we must still await a White Paper on better government. I was encouraged to see in the Sunday press that the Government were investigating the possibility of doing away with girocheques for the payment of benefits. They are an out-of-date and inefficient method of paying benefit and are open to fraud. We should move towards a system whereby, once a person has been assessed for benefit, the money is immediately transferred electronically. The possible savings are immense. When a similar process was undertaken in Australia, the cost of delivering benefits was reduced from 100 cents to 4 cents. Savings of a similar magnitude were made in the United States.
We should not be timid about making such a change. Hon. Members on both sides of the House want post offices to be retained. People who do not want to use a bank should be offered a free post office account so that money can be transferred to it directly. Many rural areas
have no banks, so post offices could be used instead. Experts in such matters say that we could save some £6 billion a year on our welfare bill.
"clear principles of work, security, fairness and value for money."
That is right.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |