| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Jackie Ballard (Taunton): Does my hon. Friend agree that when addicts decide to come off drugs, it is important that they have access to treatment and counselling as soon as possible? Only two weeks ago, a constituent who is a heroin addict and has been waiting 10 months for treatment came to see me. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is too long to wait, and that the Government should give more resources to health authorities to enable them to provide speedier access to treatment and counselling?
Mr. Hughes: Not only is my hon. Friend right, but that example requires joined-up government to tackle it. A huge amount of crime is caused by drugs and we must consider ways of dealing with that beyond the criminal context as well as in it.
Let us finally consider the proposed measure on the right to trial by jury. The Liberal Democrats are arguing a simple case. The Home Secretary made comparisons with Scotland and other countries. Scotland is different in three respects: it has an accountable prosecution service; there are professional judges, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged; and the system has been settled in the Scottish judicial process for hundreds of years--it has not been established for cost reasons. In England and Wales, despite the royal commission and the Narey report, the Government do not seem to have passed their own test on the reasons for changing from the position that the Home Secretary admits to espousing only two years ago.
Most cases do not go to the Crown court, and magistrates do not send to it many cases that could go there. Many cases that used to go to the Crown court no longer go there under the speedier procedures. The changes that the previous Government began and that go on under this Government should be allowed to continue. We believe that, even if there is a cost benefit or a time benefit to removing jury trial, the prejudice to the individual significantly outweighs any benefit to the criminal justice process.
I hope that the Home Secretary will put in the Library not only the summary of the responses to the consultation undertaken in the summer, but all the responses, which, as far as I am aware, have not yet been published. I hope that he will realise that the royal commission and the
Narey report both recognise the controversial nature of the proposal. I hope that colleagues in all parts of the House--with respect to many of them, not only the lawyers among us--will realise that this is a real test of the Government's commitment to the freedom of the individual. I believe that the other House will want to scrutinise the Bill particularly carefully.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon):
My hon. Friend mentions again that the Home Secretary has admitted that he has changed his mind on this issue. I hope he agrees that it will be in everyone's interests if the Home Secretary puts in the public domain all the evidence that has caused him to change his mind.
Mr. Hughes:
I hope that the Home Secretary either heard that remark or has it reported to him. We must have the evidence. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) rightly said, the duty of the House in this matter goes as far as any duty we have to our constituents.
I end where I began: Britain has no written constitution and the House is still looked to as the place that defends liberties. Jefferson said 200 years ago:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Madam Speaker has placed a 15-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches from now on.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield):
We are debating the home affairs, education and employment measures in the Queen's Speech. Having been deputy home affairs spokesman to Roy Hattersley between 1987 and 1992, it is a great temptation to launch into a debate on that subject. I shall resist it, however, although I cannot resist saying to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that I remember with crystal clarity the five-year period during those days in which crime rose inexorably every year, by an amazing percentage while the Conservative Government seemed to do no more than twiddle their thumbs.
It is amusing to listen to our debates about police numbers because I remember those five years: every time I looked at a speech, a Tory Minister had said that there would be another 1,000 policemen, but we could never find out where they had gone; they were a mythical army spread around the country. Tory Ministers launched the figure of 1,000 officers again and again. My old friend
the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe(Mr. Clarke) was part of that period and I recall that he was a master of launches and relaunches in those days.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe):
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I think that I am the only Prime Minister in history--[Interruption.] I am one of the many Home Secretaries who has never been Prime Minister, and I am the only Home Secretary in history who did not promise to increase police numbers in any year. I took the view, which I still hold, that the number of policemen was utterly beyond the control of the Home Secretary; it was entirely dependent on police authorities and chief constables, who had to spend the resources we gave them. On the other hand, I increased police resources and the crime figures began to come down. The hon. Gentleman's point is irrelevant and ancient compared with the account given to his party conference by the Labour Home Secretary, which deliberately misled people about police numbers on a scale that I do not recall any Home Secretary ever attempting.
Mr. Sheerman:
It is lovely to recall the days when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was nearly, but not quite, Prime Minister.
In the short time available to me, I want to concentrate on education. I have been involved in education for a long time, and was the Labour spokesman on education when we were in opposition. When I worked for a living, as they say after one comes to this place, I was a university teacher and, as a parent of four children at different stages of their education, I have always been interested in its fashions and changes.
I want to quote from the first speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) when he became Secretary of State for Education and Employment. He was the first Labour Member in 18 years to hold that office, and listening to him was an exciting occasion for all Labour Members. Something that my right hon. Friend said about his intentions struck a chord with me, because I have spent a lot of time with business in the private sector considering the quality of people who are available to businesses hiring both young and older people.
My right hon. Friend said that it was the Government's intention
I went to the local school, where I was lucky because I was good at academic subjects. I was always held in high esteem, as were my peers who were similarly good at theoretical subjects. We were the achievers--the ones who got O-levels and A-levels and went to university. But the people of my age who were not so good--many of whom have performed very well in later life--have miserable memories of education. They remember being treated as second-class citizens at school. They were the people who did not achieve at school; they were treated as if they were not good at anything and had no hope but to work in a factory or at a dull, miserable job for low pay.
The Government want to provide lifelong learning and to get adults back into school. However, the truth is that many people still think going to school is like going to a bad dentist--a painful experience. To get them to go through the door of an educational institution is difficult. That is a terrible heritage. Historically, we have failed most of the children who went to school, because they have bad memories and experiences of education.
The policy document that I had a hand in drawing up all those years ago was for a Government who would face up to the fact that those kids had not been given a chance and that British society was changing so fast that the skills needed were different from those in which people had traditionally been trained. In the old days, there was a small elite--the generals--and as long as the rest of the people were literate and could follow simple instructions, they worked on the shop floor.
Those involved in the private sector know that there is only a small number of large firms, and that that number is constantly diminishing. Even the car industry and its work force have shrunk dramatically. Most people now work for small and medium-sized enterprises. A dramatically smaller number of people work in the manufacturing sector: the figure is down to about 20 per cent. of employed people, which is a very small number.
We have a totally new society based on wealth creation through innovation, knowledge and technology. The skills that we impart to young people in schools and universities must be dragged into the end of the 20th century andwe must prepare for the 21st century. Although the Government have set their hand to this problem and have made steady progress, there is still too much emphasis in our schools on the purely theoretical and on awarding the purely theoretical achiever. There should be a balance between theoretical knowledge and practical, applied knowledge.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and governments to gain ground."
We must resist that. Our criticism of the Government is that, in the interests of trying to be the Government of the many and not the few, and in the interests of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, they are being weak on liberty and weak on the defence of liberty. I hope that the House will make sure that they are put right where they are going wrong and that the citizen, where he is being let down, will, by the end of this Session, have greater confidence in Parliament again.
5.17 pm
"to enable people to determine their own lives and to be given the opportunity and the wherewithal to flourish in a complicated world of new technology and a knowledge-based society in which human capital has replaced the 19th-century investment of fixed capital."--[Official Report, 15 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 179.]
That day marked where we should be going. I am delighted that, over the past two and a half years, my right hon. Friend has been vigilant in maintaining that focus and goal. The Queen's Speech contains yet another measure. It says:
"Having focused change upon primary and secondary education, a Bill will now be introduced to establish a new Learning and Skills Council to improve standards for Post 16 education and training."
For the 1987 election, I wrote a pamphlet and policy document on Labour's policy on education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds. I have always believed passionately that all parties have neglected the many people who are not good at theoretical subjects. We have for many years concentrated attention on those who are
able to attain the magic three A-levels and entrance to university--there are a third more and the number has increased under this Government.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |