Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
We are supposed to be debating Third Reading and there are four specific objections to the Bill. First, it offers no flexibility. We have tried to improve that, but there is still no flexibility short of the Chancellor ripping up the legislation. Secondly, the provisions cannot be disregarded. There is no flexibility for different circumstances, and there is no formal mechanism for disregarding the Bill. It is all to be done on the whim of the Chancellor or a Minister. Thirdly, there is no accountability. What will happen if the Government do not meet the terms of their own legislation? The answer is nothing.
Finally, and most importantly, the Bill is not meant to achieve any of the things that I have mentioned. The Minister has acknowledged that it is meant to send a signal that the Labour Government are credible on deficit reduction, but no one believes that it sends that signal. There are only two reasons why anyone in the markets and in the country is feeling reassured about deficit reduction. The first is that Lord Mandelson has seized the wheel of the Government again, and he appears to have an understanding of these matters that the Prime Minister does not. The second is that people are expecting Labour to lose the general election. They are not as alarmed as they would otherwise be because, when they see this charade; they know that the group of people surrounding the Prime Minister who put together this insulting legislation will be governing the country for only a matter of weeks, and that we can then get on with the serious business of making proper progress.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): I have sat through the debates all afternoon; I left the Chamber for only a short time. I hope that the House will forgive me if I intervene at this point, but my amendment was not reached. I think that that has now happened for about three days running, but never mind.
The tragic irony for many of us is that there is a consensus across the main political parties that some of us do not share. That consensus is on the answer to the question: who is going to pay for this crisis? It appears from the consensual discussions that have taken place that the people who will pay for it are those who never contributed to it. It will not be the people who got the bonuses, or those who, through their reckless greed, brought the economy to a standstill and into crisis. Nor, to be frank, will it be the Government Ministers who, through their neglect and deregulation, allowed that to happen. As a result of this Bill, it will be ordinary working people who will lose their jobs.
The level of cuts described in the Financial Times interview yesterday involved a 17 per cent. cut across the board for Departments other than those covering health, schools and policing. On average, we can expect a 10 per cent. cut in jobs, which means 500,000 civil servants. The tragedy is that, in the very month in which the Government are announcing those cuts through this legislation, they are also bringing forward proposals to scrap the civil service compensation scheme, so the redundancy scheme will go as well. Large numbers of people will lose their jobs as a result of this economic crisis, which was not of their making. They will also
lose the redundancy entitlements that they had been expecting and to which they signed up when they took their jobs in the public service.
In addition, our communities will now be at risk of losing some of their essential services. We have already seen announcements in London this week about possible hospital closures. There was a lobby of Parliament today by Land Registry workers, 1,700 of whom are to be sacked, and 1,500 jobs are to go at Network Rail, which will put public safety at risk. This is all because there is consensus in this House that ordinary working-class people will pay for this crisis.
Some of us think that there is an alternative. Yes, it would involve cutting some public services, but it is also about scrapping Trident and ID cards, and about getting rid of the waste of resources involved in privatisation and getting rid of all the consultants, on whom we spend hundreds of millions: £400 million alone was spent on the private finance initiative on the London underground. It is also about re-introducing a fair taxation system that would tackle all the avoidance and evasion and ensure that those people who have made such profits through their exploitation of the public services that have been privatised actually pay their way in our economy. Why are we so hidebound in trying to resolve this economic crisis within the four-year time scale that the Government have set for us?
What we are asking for now is a planned economy-no longer a casino economy. We need an economy that serves the needs of our people, rather than the current rush towards cuts, further privatisations and towards the creation of an economy that will enable the casino wheels to start spinning again. That is the debate that we should have had today, but instead we have had a surreal debate about a meaningless piece of legislation that will have no effect in the real world in terms of reassuring the markets in the long term, but will have a real effect in terms of cuts in public-
Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 10 January).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 3, 4, 5 and 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft Charities Act 2006 (Changes in Exempt Charities) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 18 November, be approved.
That the draft Charities Act 2006 (Principal Regulators of Exempt Charities) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 18 November, be approved.
That the draft Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Fees) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 1 December, be approved.
That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Environment) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 2 December, be approved. -(Mr. Watts.)
That, at the sitting on Thursday 21 January, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business) the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour, and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business. -(Mr. Watts.)
That, for the purposes of its approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2009 shall be treated as if it were an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees). -(Mr. Watts.)
Paddy Tipping (Sherwood) (Lab): I wish to present a petition on behalf of 20 of my constituents in support of home educators and against the proposals of the Badman report. The petition follows in a long line of similar petitions. I do not intend to read it out, but I hope that Ministers will look at it and consider its content very carefully.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Sherwood parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr. Watts.)
Next Section | Index | Home Page |