Previous Section Index Home Page

It is odd that measures which are presumably designed to empower the citizen make an assumption about the attitudes of those citizens and almost ignore the substantial political changes that are taking place. That is exemplified by the configuration of the British-Irish Council.

There is throughout the Green Paper an obsession with forging a sense of Britishness as a conceptual framework for legislative changes to follow. That is highlighted as a key objective. That concept is fundamentally out of date. It more reflects a sense of confusion in respect of what might be politically advantageous for a Scottish Prime Minister seeking electoral success in England than the reality of modern Scotland and modern Wales—and even, to some extent, modern Northern Ireland.

I do not agree that the Prime Minister should try to mask his Scottishness in order to convince England of his worth. I have a much higher view of English voters. I think that the Prime Minister will win or lose the next UK general election not on his nationality, but on his policies. The difficulty he faces is in getting to grips with the fact that we now have a multi-identity state. In Scotland, there is a resurgent Scottish identity and, crucially, that identity includes diversity.

A very interesting study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation last year, conducted by the universities of St. Andrews and Stirling, surveyed attitudes towards Scottishness of young Asian Scots. The study showed that young Asian Scots felt more Scottish than their white counterparts, because they felt that Scottishness was an inclusive identity. I doubt whether another
25 July 2007 : Column 1000
society in western Europe could make that claim at the present moment. It is an important finding, which got relatively little publicity in the Scottish press. I am certain that if the finding had been otherwise, it would have got major publicity. It is a finding that makes me proud to be Scottish, and which should give the UK Government cause to reflect on the dangers of looking for identity that does not allow reflective diversity. Some of what is in the Green Paper seems to suggest that the Government are moving down that road.

The Prime Minister’s attempt to contrive a new-found sense of Britishness is deeply misguided. The only thing that is absolutely clear is that, after some time of trying, he has been unsuccessful thus far in his attempt. I have no doubt that if anyone in these islands is able to buck the trends that have been taking place in Scotland and elsewhere for a generation and more, it is the current Prime Minister. However, this quest for Britishness—at the very time when Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are moving on a perhaps different path and exploring new avenues of expression, government and society—seems to me backward-looking and misguided.

I want to draw a contrast between the approach of the Green Paper—which should have been consultative, as Green Papers usually are—and that of the Scottish Government’s forthcoming White Paper. Rather than dictating the answers, my Government will champion the natural evolution of Scottish democracy, and consider sincerely and openly the spectrum of powers that will inevitably flow from this place to the Scottish Parliament. Let me welcome in particular the indication from the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) this evening that he is in favour of a referendum at some point to advance such arguments. I do not know whether that was inadvertent, but it is substantial progress in terms of the dialogue taking place in Scotland. So we will approach our White Paper on the constitution with the conviction that our case for an independent Scotland is the right one, but that the process will also involve genuinely listening to other people’s ideas.

The Prime Minister has fundamentally misunderstood the situation. Much of Scotland is relaxed about its identity and its future. It is a country comfortable with the inevitability of further constitutional change—change that is bound to repatriate further powers to Scotland. My submission this evening is that Scotland has moved on, Wales is moving on, and Northern Ireland is moving on; it is time that England moved on, as well.

10.8 pm

Mr. Shailesh Vara (North-West Cambridgeshire) (Con): The Leader of the House referred to the fact that all Members had been sent a copy of the booklet. It is important to put it on the record that I received a letter from her this morning, dated 20 July, enclosing the booklet. The same is true of a number of colleagues to whom I have spoken. The letter says:

All present will agree that in order to have had a proper debate today, it would have been much more helpful to have received the letter and enclosed booklet several days earlier.


25 July 2007 : Column 1001

This is not the first time that the office of the Leader of the House has given information for debate at the very last minute. Last week, there was a discussion in Committee of the remit of the Leader of the House, and Committee members did not receive the information that was to be discussed until the morning of that Committee’s sitting. I respectfully suggest that the Leader of the House take note and, in the interests of protecting the welfare and concerns of all hon. Members, rectify the situation in future.

The distinguishing feature of the debate is the sheer audacity of the Government in pretending that they are presenting new policies in their draft legislative programme, when they clearly are not. I suggest that the Government take note of the words of the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband), who will write Labour’s next election manifesto. Earlier this week, in an interview with The Guardian, he said with reference to the new Prime Minister taking over:

As the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have shown a reluctance towards such candour, let me assist them.

The brutal truth is that the Government have had a decade to deal with the issues that they speak of in the draft legislative programme, and they have failed to do so. The programme gives new meaning to the word recycling. It is a programme of recycled material. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) eloquently made that point when she listed all 23 Bills that have been previously mentioned in the public domain.

When the Prime Minister spoke of his new measures for building more houses, he should have qualified his words by saying, “As I have previously mentioned, in 1994, 1998, 2005 and 2006.” On education, with reference to young people staying on in education and training, the Prime Minister should have started by saying, “As I said more than a decade ago, in 1996.” The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) emphasised the importance of education, especially in a global market, but in the past 10 years we have seen a rise of 1 million in the number of young people who are not in education, training or work. On fixed-interest mortgages for 20 or 25 years, the Prime Minister should have started by saying, “As I said four years ago, in 2003.”

The Bills on those issues, and others in the programme, are nothing more than repetition from the past, with a huge dose of spin added to them. This programme is the result of failure, not success, in the past decade. Let us consider some of the specific issues.

Mr. Salmond: I have some sympathy with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, but does he agree that what is really at stake is the process? The issue is whether hon. Members believe that they can influence the Government in this debate. If they thought that, this would be, for obvious reasons, a hugely important parliamentary occasion. It is one thing to say that the Government’s record is abysmal, but what is it about the process in which we are engaged that has not convinced hon. Members?


25 July 2007 : Column 1002

Mr. Vara: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, to which I shall refer later. He makes a good point when he says that if Members genuinely believed that they had the opportunity to influence the Government, they might have turned up in greater numbers than they have done tonight.

Mark Lazarowicz: Are not the hon. Gentleman’s remarks somewhat inconsistent with the welcome that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) gave to the process?

Mr. Vara: We welcome the process, but we criticise the end product, which will mean that the views of hon. Members will not be taken into account. If the hon. Gentleman would care to listen further, I will come to that point a little later in my speech.

Simon Hughes: As encouragement for the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) I wanted to point out that we started without any prospect of a separate debate. We had to battle for that and we got it. Clearly, it has not been at an ideal time of day, because other business got in the way and the Government did not organise it very well. The Government have a lot of learning to do, and our view is that a good start has been made in theory, but that the practice leaves a lot for delivery.

Mr. Vara: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment, and repeat that I shall return to the efficacy of the process a little later. For the record, I should clarify that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said that she welcomed the debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) would do well to make sure that he uses the correct wording in future.

I turn now to some of the specific issues. The Government should take no pride in the fact that they are proposing to introduce the 65th criminal justice Bill since 1997. As the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, it is quality not quantity that matters. As for extending the 28-day detention period for terror suspects, the Government should accept that any change should be based not on rhetoric and soundbites but on proper and compelling evidence. So far, that is clearly lacking.

The draft programme also contains a new health Bill. People all over the country are suffering from hospital closures and cuts in departments—especially accident and emergency units and maternity units—so it beggars belief that the Government are still tinkering with our health structure after a decade in power. That is a mark of failure, not success. While I am on matters medical, I commend my hon. Friend the Member Buckingham (John Bercow) on his typically passionate and learned speech. Among other matters, he spoke about the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, and I have no doubt that he will make a significant contribution to its discussion in this House.

The draft programme is significant in that it highlights what is not included in the list of Bills. In his statement to Parliament on 11 July, the Prime Minister said that


25 July 2007 : Column 1003

the summer statement

That is fine sounding, but if the Prime Minister and his Government genuinely care about what people think, why have they not included a Bill to have a referendum on the European treaty that is currently on the table, even though 86 per cent. of the British public want one? Incidentally, the Government’s closed mind on the matter is further endorsed by the fact that there is still no English version of the treaty. There is a French version, of course, but not an English one. It is bad enough to ignore the views of 86 per cent. of the British public, but it is much worse for the Government to seek to stifle debate by not having an English version of the treaty.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said, the draft legislative programme makes no mention of the proposed reclassification of cannabis, or of the U-turn on super-casinos. Those matters were left to be dealt with by planted questions. It has nothing on prisons, or on the West Lothian question mentioned by the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

We are told by the Prime Minister and the Government that they will listen to the views of the public and others on various subjects, but our experience so far suggests the contrary. The Government have announced a plan to build 3 million new homes by 2020, but they have ignored the advice that they have already received from their own consultants. They have warned that building so many homes in some areas could increase the danger of flash flooding if land needed for drainage is concreted over.

Given the circumstances, the response from the Minister for Housing showed an extraordinary attitude. In a recent Sunday newspaper article, she wrote:

I suggest that she be less judgmental of her critics and pay a little more attention to the advice of experts in the field.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith spoke of first-time buyers and about helping people to get on to the housing ladder. He will be aware that after a decade of Labour government home ownership is actually falling for the first time since figures were published. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) spoke of the need for more social housing and highlighted the fact that there is a 13-year wait for a four-bedroom house. I have to tell her that under 10 years of Labour government less social housing was built every year than in every year of the predecessor Government.

Much has been made of the Government’s desire to consult on the draft legislative programme and to listen to the public, but if a member of the public visits the Cabinet Office website they will find that they are restricted to using only 1,000 characters in their response. After taking account of commas, full stops and spaces, that leaves about 150 words. There we have it: the Government want to hear from the public, but only if the response is confined to 150 words. Given
25 July 2007 : Column 1004
that many politicians have a problem articulating points succinctly, it is indeed ironic that the public should be subjected to such a limit.

This draft programme represents a decade of failure, a decade of spin and a decade of style over substance. The proposed Bills are nothing new; they are old, rehashed and recycled, and the so-called public consultation is nothing more than a cosmetic exercise—it is sham, pure and simple. The Opposition are not falling for that publicity stunt and neither are the public.

10.21 pm

The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Helen Goodman): I am pleased to have the opportunity to reply to this important debate. The benefits of the decision to publish the legislative programme in draft and to give Parliament an opportunity to discuss the draft proposals have been vindicated by the debate. I point out to the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that it is not a question of quantity; it is the quality that counts.

As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, the special debate on the draft programme was requested by the Opposition following the Prime Minister’s statement. It was a request to which we were happy to accede.

Mrs. May: People might think that greater importance was attached to the debate if the Leader of the House was actually present for the wind-ups.

Helen Goodman: I have just been informed that the Leader of the House is on her way here—which has nothing to do with the criticism the right hon. Lady makes.

The debate demonstrates that Parliament has a role in considering the direction and content—

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why the Leader of the House may have been caught slightly short is that the debate has gone short? The Opposition demanded the debate, yet they cannot even fill the time.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

I promise Members who have taken part in the debate that we shall ensure that their detailed and specific points about particular pieces of legislation will be drawn to the attention of the relevant Ministers and Departments.

Mr. Salmond: Which of the various suggestions that the hon. Lady heard this evening was she most attracted to move into the Government’s programme? Perhaps it was the joint ministerial Committee proposal. Is that one of the things that attracted the hon. Lady?

Helen Goodman: If the right hon. Gentleman will be a little more patient, I shall come to that very issue.

I believe that the more open and participative process helps to make the Executive more accountable. Publishing the draft legislative programme is part of our wider proposals on constitutional reform, which will strengthen Parliament’s effectiveness and authority and help to reinvigorate our democracy.


Next Section Index Home Page