Debate on the Address

Mr. Speaker

It may be helpful if I announce to the House that the proposed pattern of debate for the remaining days of the debate on the Queen's Speech will be as follows: Thursday 27 November—international affairs: Monday 1 December—local government, environment and transport; Tuesday 2 December—home and constitutional affairs; Wednesday 3 December—public services, health and education; Thursday 4 December—economic affairs.

I now call on Mr. John McFall to move the Address, and Mr. Parmjit Dhanda to second it.

Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton) (Lab/Co-op)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows: Most Gracious Sovereign. We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom and Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

I am most grateful to be moving the Address, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), and particularly proud since I am the first Member from my constituency ever to do so.

I have been a Member of Parliament for 16 years, but I can honestly say that when I emerge from Westminster underground on a Monday, I still experience the same sense of elation at the sight of Big Ben and the magnificent edifice of the Palace of Westminster as I did on my very first, nervous day as a Member of Parliament in 1987. Like every other Member in this august place, I have had my ups and downs and highs and lows, but I have never lost sight of just what a privilege it is to serve the people of the area where I was born and grew up, nor my sense of reverence for this place, which, down the centuries, has seen so many dramas enacted and crucial decisions taken that have helped to shape our nation.

One of the highs of my parliamentary career was the time I spent as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. No one who has served in that capacity has left Northern Ireland without the fondest memories of the place and the people.

After my departure following the establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I was delighted to he invited back, as a Back Bencher, to address a conference in the Waterfront hall in Belfast. I was booked into the Hilton hotel. When I arrived a great fuss was made of me, just as it was at all times when I was a Minister there. I was surprised and delighted to find that I had been assigned a suite on the executive floor, but when I had been in my room for only five minutes there was a knock at the door. It was the bellboy, who asked "Is your name McFall?". I replied "Yes". There was a moment's hesitation before he said, "There is a bowl of strawberries and a bottle of water on the table." "Yes," I said. He said, "Can I have them back? I thought you were a VIP." They were meant for someone else along the corridor.

9 All ex-Ministers will recognise that instant when the trappings of office, however modest, slip away.

The Government are to be commended on their consistency, energy and commitment to making the peace process in Northern Ireland work. Past Governments of all complexions have failed to make progress because, all too often, there has been a presumption of failure. When difficulties have occurred, there has been a Micawber-like readiness to leave things for a while in the hope that "something will turn up".

We all know how far there is to go until we can be confident that a real and lasting peace has been achieved in Northern Ireland, but make no mistake: we have already travelled much further in that direction than many people thought possible a few short years ago. That is in no small measure due to the huge personal efforts of the Prime Minister, who, no matter what other pressing matters he has attended to—and there have been many—has never failed to give Northern Ireland the attention it deserves. Today, when elections to the Assembly are taking place, I am sure that the best wishes of all Members are with the people of Northern Ireland.

Like the Palace of Westminster, the Dumbarton constituency is redolent of history. It includes the town of Dumbarton, the ancient capital of the kingdom of Strathclyde—a kingdom of the Britons until the 11th century. It stretched almost all the way to Merseyside. I was greatly disappointed, when the devolution settlement was reached, that we did not take the opportunity to reclaim the territory we had lost. I think that Blackpool could have rivalled Edinburgh as capital of a devolved Scotland—and building a parliament there might have been a little cheaper.

Dumbarton castle sits astride a 500-ft volcanic plug, and has dominated the Clyde coast skyline since before the beginning of recorded time. Scotland's Braveheart, Mel—sorry, William Wallace—took control of the castle at the end of the 13th century. In fact he was later held there as a prisoner, before being transferred to this very Palace of Westminster to stand trial in Westminster Hall.

The first king of a newly independent Scotland, Robert the Bruce, had many associations with the town, and retired there. He began the 700-year tradition of shipbuilding in my constituency, which sadly ended with the demise of the world-famous Denny's shipyard in 1963. Bruce's heart was buried in the grounds of a church whose ruins can be seen in the local Levengrove park. As a child, Mary Queen of Scots resided at the castle as she waited to sail to the safety of our old friend and ally—France.

The history books record that in 1494 a certain Baldred Blackadder was appointed keeper of Dumbarton castle. It is open to question whether a cunning plan was executed to install him in that position. In more modern times, shipbuilding has shaped and energised the town of Dumbarton. It was there in Denny's shipyard that the fastest clipper ship of all time, the Cutty Sark, was launched in 1869. It is now a significant tourist attraction not in Dumbarton, but in Greenwich. Mr. Speaker, we would like it back. I implore you, as protector of Back Benchers' interests, to help in this matter.

10 The first helicopter capable of flight was also constructed in Dumbarton in 1909 and one of the greatest champions in motor racing history, Jackie Stewart, is a Dumbartonian and a friend. In the Vale of Leven area in my constituency, there is a small village named Renton, which has a proud history. In 1888, the greatest event in Renton's history occurred when the local football team won the first ever World cup, beating the then mighty West Bromwich Albion 4–1 in the final. I am told that that was an even more convincing victory than the only other time a British team won this particular competition, which I believe was around 1966.

Recently, however, a third world cup has come Britain's way, and I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating the English rugby team on their— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Take it easy. The English rugby team won a magnificent victory in Australia, and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Leader of the Opposition, has also added his congratulations, singling out Clive Woodward as standing out above all, as he was written off completely just four years ago. We can understand why that particular comparison comes to his mind.

Tobias Smollett, the man generally acknowledged as the author of the first English novel, was a Renton man. A few years ago, I visited a primary school in Renton and a teacher asked the children if they knew who I was. "Yes," one child retorted, "he's John McFall, the Prime Minister of Renton." So my right hon. Friend, the real Prime Minister, should be aware that when he visits my area again it is I who will be primus inter pares.

A few miles from Renton lies the gateway to Scotland's first national park. For 16 years, I have had the privilege of working with the community to ensure that there is national park status for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. The history associated with Loch Lomond is impressive, from the Viking invaders to the colourful Rob Roy, who lived on the lochside. Its beauty is famed world wide and it is developing its full potential as a tourist attraction, enhanced by the new £60 million Loch Lomond Shores development, which has already attracted 1 million visitors in its first year and is already in the top 10 tourist attractions in Scotland.

Further west lies the elegant seaside town of Helensburgh, renowned for its architecture. Famous names associated with Helensburgh include Charles Rennie Mackintosh, the world renowned architect; Henry Bell, pioneer of steam-powered navigation; and John Logie Baird, inventor of television. Indeed, Andrew Bonar Law, Conservative Prime Minister in 1922, lived in Helensburgh for 30 years. Following a funeral service for Bonar Law in Westminster abbey, Asquith bitingly remarked:

It is fitting that we should have buried the Unknown Prime Minister by the side of the Unknown Soldier

I welcome the 30 Bills—seven in draft—in this heavy legislative programme, and I am delighted to see in the Queen's Speech a Bill dealing with employment relations. The Bill rightly highlights the importance of management-worker relations in the workplace. This Government have always recognised the fact that employment is the key to both economic prosperity and 11 a fulfilled life. It is to their credit that more than 1.5 million extra jobs have been created since 1997.

Only a few weeks ago, I was privileged to present a certificate of achievement to a young constituent, Paul Devine, to celebrate his success in obtaining full-time permanent employment through the assistance of the action team for jobs programme set up by the Department for Work and Pensions. Paul was the one thousandth action team client to be helped into employment in my area.

Paul had sadly become addicted to heroin when he was at school. Now, 15 years later, he is free of drug use and has launched a successful career in social work. He recently won the Daily Record/Sunday Mail Young Scot award for an outstanding contribution to his community. The credit for that transformation must go to Paul for his determination and effort to succeed. However, without Government initiatives, such as the employment action team, the prospect of such success stories would be slighter. Happily, in the past few years the scourge of youth unemployment has been almost eradicated in my constituency, thanks to the new deal for young people.

We all lose our way at some time or other, and we need a helping hand to guide us, to get back us on track and heading in the right direction. The late Cardinal Winning, of the archdiocese of Glasgow, could testify to that. A few years ago, he came to Dumbarton for a civic reception for a retired primary head teacher, Sister Julie Marie. He was informed that the event would take place in the Burgh hall in Church street. Unfortunately, he entered the building on the opposite side of Church street and found himself in the entrance of the Masonic lodge. There was consternation when the person to whom he introduced himself informed the brothers, as they were about to undertake their Friday evening rituals, that there was a cardinal in reception looking for a nun. However, their composure was quickly regained, and his eminence was soon redirected and sent on his way with the best wishes of the brothers ringing in his ears. There was even an offer for the cardinal to call in at any time for a pint. There is no recorded sighting of such an event.

As a former teacher, I am deeply interested in the Bill on education. One of my areas of specialisation was pastoral care and guidance for pupils. The main focus was on encouraging all young people to use their talents and to maximise their educational opportunities. Nothing is so gratifying to teachers as to know that those whom they have taught have gone on to better things. Sadly, that is not always the case.

In the mid-1990s, as Opposition spokesman for home affairs, I was invited to Barlinnie prison in Glasgow to open "Prisoners Week". There was a full turnout, not least because the prisoners had heard that sandwiches and delicious home baking would be available. A very large inmate said to me, "You'll have had your food, wee man?". On learning that he was inside for grievous bodily harm, I readily concurred.

On the way out, I witnessed a young man coming out of the back of a prison van, handcuffed to two policemen. The look of recognition on his face was followed by the shout, "John!". Surprised and pleased at 12 what I took as a sign of my growing fame as a politician, I asked him, "How are you doing?". He cast a glance at his handcuffs, then back at me and said with incredulity, "How am I doing? How do you think I'm doing?". Hon. Members can guess what the omitted word was. As he was led away, he looked up at his guards, and gesturing to me with an obvious sense of pride said to them: "He used to be my guidance teacher". We all fail, and we all have to pick ourselves up and start all over again.

The child trust fund Bill is a welcome measure. It is an entirely laudable attempt to ensure that all young people are given a boost as they stand on the verge of adult life. The Chancellor is to be commended for this measure. I am sure that nowhere in his reasoning is the thought that a certain John Macauley Brown will benefit from the trust fund. I am also sure that, like a good parent, he will add what he can to the fund as the years go by. I should like to be there when young John reaches maturity to hear what advice his father gives him. I hope that he does not begin with a brief explanation of endogenous growth theory; or curb the young man's natural exuberance with warnings about adding to the fund by borrowing only if it is to invest; or, goodness forbid, set five tests before a decision can be reached to spend any of it at all.

There is so much to do and so far to go, but a lot has been achieved in the last few years in expanding opportunities and extending social justice. None of that would have been possible without the sound economic basis achieved by this Government, and the Chancellor deserves enormous credit for his part in that. As a Government Back-Bencher, it is my responsibility to do all that I can to ensure that the Government do not lose sight of the goals nor slacken their efforts to transform our society. The programme outlined today shows that they are as focused and as determined as ever to achieve their objectives, and I therefore warmly recommend this Queen's Speech to the House.

Mr. Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester) (Lab)

As the first English-based Member of Parliament to address the House in the new Session, and since my constituency includes Kingsholm—the home of rugby and of the cherry-and-whites, Gloucester rugby football club—I must congratulate the local boys, Andy Gomarsall, Phil Vickery and Trevor Woodman, and join my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) in congratulating the other 27 players of Clive Woodward's squad, the new world champions, England.

I do not wish to be partisan—

Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab)

Oh, go on.

Mr. Dhanda

Well, just for a moment and to please my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). I believe it was Harold Wilson who said that we only win world cups under a Labour Government. I have got that out of my system now.

The House will be aware of the campaign in the run-up to Saturday's final, urging us to "do the Jonny" as a gesture of good luck to the England No. 10. I do not have the space to demonstrate the Jonny here, but at the 13 weekend I assured a group of my constituents that I would seek to emulate "Jonny." They did not realise that I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton, who, as well as sharing his namesake's dapper build and winning smile, has demonstrated that he, too, is at the top of his particular field as a parliamentarian. I am delighted to pay tribute to him. I hope that he forgives the comparison with a Sassenach rugby player; I hope I pronounced that correctly.

The honour of commending Her Majesty's speech is an honour not just for me, but for the people of Gloucester, and one that, if I might say so, is long overdue—although not because of me, I hasten to add.

There is no recorded history of a Member for Gloucester playing a role in this unique parliamentary occasion, either as proposer or as seconder—ever.

In Gloucester, we have a theory, Mr Speaker; you might say it is something of a conspiracy theory. If anyone was ever worthy of the honour, surely it was my predecessor Lieutenant Colonel Edward Massey, who, in 1642, fought—literally—for the parliamentary cause at the siege of Gloucester. The honour never befell Massey. Instead, he had to settle for being knighted and becoming governor of Jamaica. Some people have all the luck.

On many a long evening in Gloucester's New Inn, the England's Glory and the Linden Tree, Gloucesterians have wondered aloud as to how they have been overlooked when Her Majesty has made her speech to Parliament. Perhaps it was all Massey's fault, they say, for fighting the parliamentary cause in 1642, rather than the royal one.

So I resolved to change all this. I had to make friends in high places: I needed to undo my predecessor's work and to get in with the royals. So, as many of my colleagues will be aware, I headed to Buckingham Palace last November. As the copy of The Guardian that I am holding shows, it was the day the Conservative party had to unite or die. Well, it did not unite, but as the front page of that paper also shows, there was the far more important story of my trip to Buckingham Palace to make new friends and influence people. That night, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and I had a chat. We talked about what each of us had done before our current roles in life. In the light of his time in the Navy during the war, and of my time as a student—doing not a lot—we struck up a real rapport. I would go so far as to say that we got on like a house on fire, regardless of what it said in The Guardian—and in the Daily Mail. And in Private Eye. And in Corriere della Sera. And in a Bolivian publication that I cannot quite pronounce. That goes to show that we really do live in a world of wall-to-wall media coverage.

Little did I know that so favourable was the impression that I left on His Royal Highness that he must have felt compelled to ring my Chief Whip himself to request that for this royal occasion, his old pal from Gloucester act as seconder—I stress, seconder—for the Queen's Speech. I hope that that clears up any confusion. I owe him a debt of gratitude for breaking Massey's curse for ever.

In making this speech, it is traditional to talk about one's constituency. But it is my constituents who make Gloucester what it is today, and it was for them that I 14 said in my maiden speech that I wished to deliver a city fit for the 21st century. All Members of this House—on both sides—rightly consider their constituencies to be the best thing since sliced bread, but mine has been the hub of an unprecedented scale of investment in the past two years. A £30 million private finance initiative rebuild of the Gloucestershire royal hospital has allowed me to become the first Gloucester MP in a generation to open wards in Gloucester, rather than presiding over ward closures. But Gloucester has also received new money for a university campus, and we are working towards a new police headquarters, new road infrastructure and the best leisure centre in the region. In all, that is more than £100 million of capital investment in Gloucester, and more than 100 million reasons for me to be proud of the city that I represent.

In my first two years in office, I have realised that if you don't ask, you don't get. But so many times when I have asked on my constituents' behalf, the Government have given. I thank them for that, but that does not mean that I am about to stop asking.

My constituents will welcome the Government's measures to ensure that our people do not have to be of working age to earn security. Introducing baby bonds will ensure that all young families can be assured of a new level of security in life. Combined with the new measures to protect pensions, that reminds me of a phrase that first brought me into Labour party politics—for this is a Queen's Speech that improves the quality of our constituents' lives from the cradle to the grave.

Given that all news is local, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may be aware of a campaign that was initiated by my local newspaper and me, and which is supported by the cross-party consensus of the 61 Members of Parliament who signed early-day motion 1811. That early-day motion supports the steps that the Government have taken to ease pensioner poverty, and urges my right hon. Friend to consider appointing a Minister with responsibility for older people, who would have the power to work across Government Departments in the interests of all our senior citizens. That said, I can reassure him that I am not trying to create a job for myself. Honestly.

I believe the Government deserve particular praise for introducing measures that trade unionists everywhere will welcome, by building on the Employment Relations Act. When people like my mum and dad came to this country nearly 40 years ago, to clean hospital floors, like mum, or drive heavy goods vehicles, like dad, it was not the Government of the day they turned to for help and support.

They had a lot to contend with, with people accusing them of coming here to nick British jobs. But as mum often tells me, there was no queue of people at Ealing hospital lining up to clean the toilets—only migrant labourers, invariably women, doing their bit to build our NHS. I salute them for the work that they did, and I salute the trade unions for sending them on courses to teach them enough English to be able to represent themselves in the workplace. They helped to create a generation of workers with the self-respect and determination to push their own children to make the most of opportunities in life that they themselves could 15 only have dreamed of. Trade unionists everywhere will welcome these new measures enhancing employment rights.

In 1997 my seat of Gloucester was the key seat. Labour needed to win it to achieve an overall majority in the House of just one. When my predecessor decided after one term that politics was not for her, my local party and the people of Gloucester took a chance. They took a chance on someone who did not look or sound like a typical Member of Parliament, someone who did not have the traditional background to be a Member of the House. I told my constituents that, if politics is about changing things—and I believe it is—in 2001, in the key seat, the barometer seat, the people of Gloucester had the chance to show the world that my party was changing people's attitudes for ever. Gloucester led the way that day.

After Labour's six years in office, the Gracious Speech demonstrates that the Prime Minister still believes that politics is about changing things for the better. I urge him to continue to do so, and I commend the Gracious Speech to the House.

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)

I begin by paying tribute to Paul Daisley, who came to the House with a formidable reputation as a reforming council leader. Tragically, his election to Parliament was overshadowed by the diagnosis of his cancer. Obviously in pain, but with an equally obvious pride in his constituency, many remember the courage that he showed when he delivered his maiden speech some eight months later. I am sure that hon. Members throughout the House will join me in expressing the hope that his spirit will live on after him through the work of the Paul Daisley trust. His spirit lives on in another way, too. Paul campaigned vigorously for his predecessor, Ken Livingstone, to be readmitted to the Labour party, and it rather looks as though he is going to have the last laugh. On both sides of the House, we will miss Paul Daisley.

I warmly congratulate the proposer and seconder of the Loyal Address. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) spoke with passion, great humour and great wit. He always does speak with passion. In common with the Prime Minister, he long had a passionate and principled devotion to the cause of unilateral nuclear disarmament—despite the fact that Faslane and Coulport employ hundreds of people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's constituency is undoubtedly one of the places in the world where even the Prime Minister could find weapons of mass destruction.

The hon. Member for Dumbarton also serves as the highly respected Chairman of the Treasury Committee, where he has a fearsome reputation. When he recently asked the Governor of the Bank of England the same question nine times, he was compared to Jeremy Paxman. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that nine times is easy. He should try 14; then he really could move to "Newsnight".

16 I am sure I speak for the whole House when I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) on his speech. He spoke with the eloquence that we have come to expect from him. But he must have been rather surprised to be asked to second the motion today, for earlier this year he voted against the war. His website diary gives a fascinating account of his private meeting with the Prime Minister hours before the crucial vote; it is full of startling political insights. The Prime Minister, the hon. Gentleman said, had obviously had a long and hard day. His shirt, usually impeccably pressed, looked slightly creased. But his eyes were bright, focussed and full of conviction. 'Parmjit,'

he said, We are where we are. The Prime Minister was clearly at his most persuasive. He continued: It's a far from ideal position, I know, but I need your support".

"A far from ideal position." I do not remember that phrase creeping into the Prime Minister's speech in the House that day. Could he just possibly have been saying one thing in public and another in private? Surely not. I hope that all this has not killed off the political prospects of the hon. Member for Gloucester, for on the basis of today's performance he has a great career ahead of him.

I, too, want to congratulate the English rugby team on their outstanding achievement in Australia; it is a great shame that the Minister for Sport was not there to see it. There are different accounts of his reaction when he was told to come back early. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said that that had always been planned, but the Minister's spokesman, when asked how he really felt, said, "I can't tell you. It's before the watershed". The Prime Minister was reported as being profoundly unimpressed by the Minister's reaction; indeed, a source close to the Prime Minister said of the Minister for Sport, "I think he may regret it." It may not be long before the Minister for Sport is proposing the Loyal Address.

Before I examine the Gracious Speech in detail, I shall mention certain matters that do not fall directly within the remit of the Government's programme. Today, the people of Northern Ireland go to the polls to elect a new Assembly. We support the Government in their efforts to re-establish devolution in the Province, and we hope that there will be a constructive and stable outcome to today's elections.

In Iraq, too, the Government are engaged in a commendable endeavour to replace tyranny and terror with peaceful democracy. The Prime Minister has shown political courage in standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies in America and elsewhere, and we support him. We must remember, in everything we say and do, that many British servicemen and women are demonstrating physical courage every day in Iraq. Their job is a dangerous one, and I am sure I speak for the whole House when I express my gratitude to them. In that context, I pay tribute to the two Members of the House whose duty as members of the reserve forces has taken them to Iraq—my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), who, happily, has returned safely to rejoin us, and my hon. Friend the Member for 17 New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who continues to serve our country in Nasiriyah.

Many of us have constituents who have suffered the tragic loss of close family members in Iraq, and we owe it to them to ensure that their loved ones did not die in vain. The House will also wish to pay tribute to the three British citizens, including the consul general, who died in the bombings in Istanbul, and to the many others who so tragically lost their lives there.

We welcome a number of the measures in the Gracious Speech. We regard them as constructive, and we shall support their passage. We are pleased to see the Government turn their attention to child protection and domestic violence. We will study the draft disabilities Bill when it is published, and we hope that it will live up to the billing that the Minister for Disabled People has given it.

We also support the principle of a civil contingencies Bill. Those recent terrorist atrocities in Turkey and elsewhere require us to do everything possible to protect British citizens and interests.

The civil partnerships Bill aims to address some genuine grievances that are acknowledged on both sides of the House. I believe that we all have a duty to recognise and respect the fact that people in our society choose to live their lives in many different ways. I also accept that there are a range of sincerely held opinions on how the law should reflect that. Conservative Members will have a free vote on the measure and I hope that will also be the position for Labour Members.

Although we welcome some of the individual proposals in the Gracious Speech, the overall reaction to it—even, I suspect, on the Labour Benches—will be disappointment. That sums up the general feeling of disillusionment that has built up over the last six and a half years. The Government were elected with great promise and a sweeping mandate. They had the world at their feet and a vast parliamentary army ready to carry forward whatever measures they proposed—and what has happened? In the words of Paul Daniels, "Not a lot." We are, after all, about to embark on the seventh parliamentary Session since the right hon. Member for Sedgefield became Prime Minister. He has been in office longer than Attlee—what has he got to show for it?

During that time, we have had seven education Acts. In 1998, the Government promised to cut truancy by a third. What has happened? Truancy has gone up by 15 per cent. overall and by 25 per cent. in our secondary schools. What hope is there for our future if so many of our young people are not even going to school at all?

Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North) (Lab)

rose—

Mr. Howard

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. While he is on his feet, I hope that he will tell us where he stands on top-up fees. Is he in favour of the manifesto proposal or is he in favour of the proposal in the Queen's Speech? Is he in favour of the Chancellor's policy or the Prime Minister's policy? I hope he will deal with that.

Mr. Gardiner

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government had achieved not a lot. What does he consider the 91 per cent. drop in unemployment in his constituency to be? Is that not a lot?

Mr. Howard

I am very, very sorry that the hon. Gentleman was unable to enlighten us about his position on top-up fees— [Interruption.] I was only trying to help the Chief Whip; she needs to know the numbers.

Since the Government came to office, we have had five transport Acts. Yet we have more congestion, and twice as many trains running late as before. We have had 18 Acts from the Department of Health—18—but none will be of any comfort to the million people languishing on waiting lists. We have had no fewer than 30 pieces of legislation from the Home Office, yet crime is up by 800,000, gun crime has doubled and we have the highest level of violent crime ever.

Are the major Bills in this year's speech likely to be any different? The asylum Bill—the third immigration and asylum Bill—is merely the latest chapter in the sorry story of incompetence and irresponsibility that has marked the Government's attempts to deal with the problem. Almost five years ago, the then Home Secretary said that he was legislating to provide the United Kingdom with a modern, flexible and streamlined system". —[Official Report, 22 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 50.]

Whatever happened to that?

The Government have wasted—

Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney) (Lab)

rose—

Mr. Howard

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that in order to help the Chief Whip he will tell us what his position on top-up fees is.

Mr. Blizzard

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. What the Chamber would like to know, in view of his comments on the asylum Bill, is will he and his party oppose the Bill?

Mr. Howard

I promise that I shall deal with that. This Government have wasted the past six and a half years reversing the measures brought in by the previous Government, and then reintroducing them.

Mr. James Plaskitt (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howard

No, I am about to answer the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). This time the Government have gone further than any civilised Government should go. Earlier this week, we read in our newspapers that the Government propose to use the children of asylum seekers as pawns to cover up their failure to get a grip on their asylum chaos. Children of asylum seekers are to be taken into care in order to force their parents to leave the country. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. We shall oppose any legislative provision that seeks to give effect to this despicable proposal. I have no doubt that when we do so we shall be joined in the Lobbies by the many Labour Members who, unlike the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, retain their self-respect.

Now, what about pensions? The pensions Bill will do nothing to tackle the main causes of the pension crisis. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary needs to contain 19 himself. If he briefs newspapers so that they carry headlines such as we saw last week, he has only himself to blame for the furore that follows.

I repeat that the pensions Bill will do nothing to tackle the main causes of the pensions crisis. Without reform of the state pension and a reversal of the spread of means testing, that crisis will continue to get worse. Without new incentives to save, pension provision will continue to shrink.

What of the pledge in the 1997 Labour manifesto to make the House of Lords more democratic? We now know exactly what the Prime Minister means by democracy—one flatmate, one vote. While we are talking about manifestos, what happened to the pledge made in 2001, just two years ago? "We will not introduce top-up fees," it said—and there was more: the manifesto boasted that Labour had "legislated to prevent them."

When the Prime Minister gets up, perhaps he will say what exactly happened there. Was it a misprint? Was it the intention to say that the Government would legislate to introduce top-up fees, or did the Prime Minister simply miss that line altogether? Was it perhaps sneaked in by the Chancellor at the last minute? Is that why the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has been brought back in to oversee the manifesto—to keep an eye on any last-minute changes by the Chancellor? Is it not extraordinary? It does not matter how many times that right hon. Gentleman is sacked from the Cabinet and forced to leave Downing street by the front door: the Prime Minister will always find a way to smuggle him back in through the back door.

Today, there was no mention of the phrase "top-up fees" in the Queen's speech. It is the tax that dare not speak its name.

Government plans for regional assemblies will take the number of referendums held by the Government to 37. However, the Queen's speech also refers to a Bill about a referendum that the Government dare not hold—the draft Bill for a referendum on the euro. There is one thing, surely, on which we can all agree. Since no one believes that the Government will call a euro referendum before the next general election, why on earth are we wasting any time on it?

On regional assemblies, we are being given referendums that we do not want. On the euro, we are being given a referendum that will not be called, but on the new constitution for Europe—a measure of the utmost importance—we are being given no referendum at all.

No one could say that the late Hugo Young was a Eurosceptic. Indeed, the Prime Minister recently paid a handsome and well-deserved tribute to him: but the Prime Minister would do well to listen carefully to Mr. Young's wise words. He wrote in July that this change in the shape of the EU is indeed constitutional, does mark something pretty big, and merits the thumbprint of the nation to endorse it. There is now total confusion at the heart of the Government. The Prime Minister said that the European constitution is good for Britain. The Chancellor says that it is bad for Britain. The Prime 20 Minister has told us that the constitution is essential for enlargement. The Foreign Secretary has now said that it is not. That is why the Prime Minister will not hold a referendum, and why he will not even try to persuade the British people that the constitution is either good or essential. He cannot even persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary, so it is no wonder that he will not allow the country a say. After all, it is not as though the Government are against consultation. This evening, the Prime Minister will launch what he pretentiously describes as a conversation with the nation. It will not come as much of a surprise to the nation to learn that that conversation will be rather one-sided.

On Sunday, the Leader of the House was asked by Jeremy Vine what would happen if the people said, in the course of that conversation, that they did not want top-up fees. In reply, the Leader of the House said, Well indeed buter…well the point I'm making is that top-up fees are an issue which are current now, today, this year, in this coming year, in the coming couple of years.

That is all clear, then. What is the conversation with the nation about? Again, the Leader of the House was crystal clear. He said: Because, in the context of a long term future … that is, that was what the Prime Minister was talking about and not in respect of, you know, the need for reform.

So it was not anything to do with reform.

We all know the real conversation that the Prime Minister needs to have. He needs to have a conversation with his next-door neighbour. The current situation makes one wonder who is the leader and who is being led. Real Prime Ministers lead their Chancellors: he follows his. What is the Prime Minister's response? He cannot get his way on policy. He cannot get his way on strategy. All he can do is deny his Chancellor a seat on the national executive.

The Prime Minister may strut his stuff on the world stage, but when it comes to domestic policy, never in recent history has a Prime Minister been so weak, so feeble and so utterly unable to do what he wants, even though he has a huge majority in the House of Commons. How utterly humiliating for him—and how very damaging for our country. He has been "outmanoeuvred" by a "politically obsessed Chancellor". Those are not my words, but those of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, who is probably the world's leading authority on their 10-year feud.

Is it any wonder that the Government have given up on delivery? The House need not take my word for it. We have it on no less an authority than the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I am happy to see her in her place.

Andy King (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Lab)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howard

No, the hon. Gentleman should listen to this, because it is rather important. The Secretary of State has admitted that when we talked about delivery, that may have been something of a mistake … We are not in government in order to show that we can be more competent than the Conservative Party was. The right hon. Lady knows, as we all do, that Labour promised far too much and has delivered far too little. 21 Labour Members know that they cannot deliver and they know that they are incompetent. They know that they have failed, and the Gracious Speech will do nothing to remedy that.

We could be doing so much better. We are the world's fourth largest economy. We are a nation of hard-working, enterprising, energetic people. We have great potential, but this Government—who promised so much—have let our country down. In the absence of real reform, their only answer is higher tax. When that fails, they turn to higher taxes still. They approach every problem with an open wallet and an empty mind. They are taxing and spending and failing. After six and a half years, the Prime Minister has lost his grip and the Government have lost their way. They are running out of steam, and they know it. We need better schools and the Government just give us top-up fees. We need safer streets, but the Government abolish the Lord Chancellor. We need improved hospitals but the Government give us legislation on the euro.

The Prime Minister and the Government are simply unequal to the task. They have run out of ideas, they have run out of money and they are running out of time. All they have to offer is open wallets and empty minds. [HON. MEMBERS: "You've said that."] And I will say it again, because it happens to be true.

This Queen's Speech should have included a programme that delivers real power to patients, to parents, and to front-line professionals. It should have included a programme that gives value for taxpayers' money and security for the national interest. But that programme will only be put in place by a different Government—a Government who boost the economy rather than chain it, who implement serious reform of our public services, and who give real power to people. That Government is the next Conservative Government, and the sooner it comes, the better life will be for the people of our country.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)

Let me start by remembering our colleague Paul Daisley, who sadly died in June this year. Paul had been a Member of Parliament for only two years when he died, but I know he made a great impact on both sides of the House and had many friends from all parties. As has just been said, his courage through his illnesses was remarkable, as was his service to his constituents both as a Member of the House and, prior to his election, as a councillor and, indeed, council leader in Brent. I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with his wife Lesley and his family.

Perhaps the House will permit me to express yet again our deep sorrow at the death of Gareth Williams, the leader in the other place. He was someone of quite exceptional ability, intellect and integrity, and I know that he, too, is missed on all sides of the political spectrum.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) made an immensely engaging and witty speech, as we anticipated. I thank him in particular for his kind words on Northern Ireland and all that we have done over the past few years. I can assure him that we will carry on working for peace in Northern Ireland to the 22 best of our ability, both now and after the elections today.

My hon. Friend is the well-respected chair of the Treasury Select Committee. [Interruption.] I am sorry; the Tories want me to say "Chairman". I thought they were getting up to date, but no. They could have a free vote on it maybe; I do not know. Anyway, my hon. Friend lists running among his hobbies. I understand that these two seemingly unconnected skills came together recently when, with just two minutes to go on the vote on paying Select Committee Chairmen, he found himself by mistake in the No Lobby. Who said Select Committees cannot move fast when they want to?

My hon. Friend has taken up many issues. I had occasion to read his maiden speech, which included an immensely powerful attack on the poll tax. I suspect that little did he know that, 16 years later, he would have the opportunity to move the Loyal Address, to be followed by Mr. Poll Tax himself—the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—so it is very much back to the future for him, and indeed for all of us.

As I am sure the whole House would agree, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) also made an effective and amusing speech. I am particularly grateful that he did not remind me that before I entered the House I was rejected as the Labour candidate for Gloucester; obviously, his qualities are far more appealing both to the party and to the electors there. The Gloucester seat was, as he explained, the first seat for which my hon. Friend had applied, and as he said rather movingly in his tribute to his constituency, the people of Gloucester showed by sending him to the House that all they cared about was his character, his commitment and his talent, and that is an example to all. How right they were can be seen from the fact that my hon. Friend showed very early in his parliamentary career that he was a politician who could spot the issues and priorities of the future. How else can you explain a new Member of Parliament who, within weeks of arriving in the House, starts a campaign to ensure that top-class international rugby is open to all television viewers? I am sure that all of us would like to be able to see the future with such accuracy.

My hon. Friend is, I am sure, at the start of a long career in the House, but I have no doubt that whatever else he achieves in life, he will be for ever remembered for a publication that he authored in 1993 entitled "Measuring Distances using a Gallium Arsenide Laser." I am afraid that there is nothing further that I can say—that is clean—about that.

We have heard two excellent speeches—self-deprecating, generous, forward looking and compassionate. Now, though, I come to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. Free and fresh from his leadership triumph, the Conservatives are consulting the people—a contest in the best tradition of the politics of North Korea, I thought. Six years ago, of course, when he last stood for his party's leadership, he came a poor fifth out of five candidates; but here he is today. Why did his party believe in 1997 that he was the very last person who could convince the country that the 23 Conservatives had something to offer? I think that we all know why—it was because of his record in office. No wonder the Conservative party did not want juries to know about previous convictions—he has got form as long as your arm.

In fact, on almost every occasion when there was a serious crime against this country, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was on the scene. Who was the Environment Minister who personally brought in the poll tax? He was. Who was Home Secretary when police numbers were cut by 1,000 after he promised to increase them? He was. [Interruption.] We are talking about his record in government. Who was the Employment Secretary when unemployment rose by 1 million? He was. That represents 1,300 people added to the dole queue for every day that he was called the Employment Secretary. Not even Paul Daniels could make that record disappear.

It is no wonder that the Tories want to hide previous convictions. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said when he was Home Secretary, "If you don't want the time, don't do the crime." His crimes were in government, and six and a half years in opposition is not long enough for him. Of course, we are told that he has changed. He stands before our wondering eyes the new born-again leader of the Conservative party, shedding all the earlier skins—something of the day about him. Along with the bright born-again leader comes a bright new born-again team. There they all are, the shadow Cabinet, facing tomorrow's challenges with yesterday's men—and one woman. At least the reshuffle has confirmed one thing: it takes two men to do one woman's work—two men trying to control the Tory party, but only half a man to run education and half a man to run our health service.

There are not just two party chairmen: the right hon. and learned Gentleman has also appointed three former Tory leaders and a former Chancellor as his personal advisory team. I can just imagine the discussion they will have. The right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) will keep telling him to turn right on every occasion. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) will want to turn left. The former Member for Huntingdon, John Major will most likely stop in a lay-by to consult the map. There has been nothing like that ominous presence in one group since the four horsemen of the apocalypse, but it is all a sham to let them concentrate on their real objective—and my goodness did we see it here this afternoon—to mount a ceaselessly negative attack, without anything positive to say about the future of this country.

I thought that it was the most predictable speech that we could have heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He may want to pose as the nice Dr. Jekyll, but we know that, deep down, he is still the same old Mr. Howard—utterly negative. The NHS is apparently hopeless. The schools are all failing. The economy is on the road to ruin. It was straight out of the Saatchi book 24 of negative campaigning. [HON. MEMBERS: "Labour isn't working."] Oh yes, they are remembered for saying, "Labour isn't working." That was when unemployment was 1 million and then the Tories trebled it—not once, but three times.

This Queen's Speech, by contrast—[Interruption.] Oh yes, we are going to draw a contrast between the measures for the future and the return to the past under the Conservative party. The Queen's Speech addresses the issues, even difficult ones, that allow us to meet the challenges for the future on the basis of opening up opportunity to all. First, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about delivery, we must preserve our hard-won economic stability. This country has weathered the storm best of all G7 countries. We have the lowest interest rates for many generations, low inflation, low unemployment, the highest-ever levels of employment, and debt down from 44 per cent. of GDP to 32 per cent.

If we want to contrast what we have done in the past few years on delivery with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman delivered, let us remember the interest rates at 10 per cent. to 15 per cent., the 1.5 million fewer people in work, the boom and the bust and the borrowing at 8 per cent. of GDP. How did the Conservatives create that mess? They promised tax cuts and higher spending at the same time, which is exactly their policy now. Re-linking the basic state pension with earnings was described a short time ago by the new member of the shadow Cabinet who speaks on policy development as not affordable and…not…well targeted and a wild and uncosted policy". It is now their policy, however, along with 40,000 more police, extra spending on defence, farming and local government, scrapping university fees and their pensions pledge—which alone will cost about £8 billion over this Parliament—all at the same time as promising to cut taxes.

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)

The Prime Minister has alluded to defence expenditure. How can the Government introduce a cut in defence expenditure of £500 million a year after he has taken the country to war five times in six years?

The Prime Minister

Defence spending is rising in real terms for the first time in many years. As we are declaring the contrast between the two parties, some of us remember defence cuts of 30 per cent. when the hon. Gentleman's leader was in office. We will therefore take no lessons in support for our armed forces from the Conservative party.

Secondly, as well as preserving stability, we must continue the investment in and reform of public services. Let us never forget that in the years before we came to power, hospital waiting lists rose by 400,000. Over six years, that has been reversed—they have fallen to their lowest level for over a decade. In 1997, for example, 30,000 people were waiting for more than 12 months—now the figure is 114; 118,000 were waiting over nine months—and now it is 42,000. By mid-2005, we will 25 have a maximum waiting time of six months, and by 2008 that will be down to three months. In 1997, we inherited 70,000 out-patients waiting more than 26 weeks—now the figure is 700. The Leader of the Opposition says that we have wasted money, but that is where the money has gone. It has gone into 55,000 more nurses; 14,000 more doctors; 24 major new hospitals; 180 accident and emergency departments that have been or are being modernised; the NHS Direct helpline, which takes half a million calls per month; 42 walk-in centres; 23 diagnostic and treatment centres; 300,000 more operations a year; almost a million more elective admissions; cancer deaths down by 10 per cent.; and heart disease deaths down by 23 per cent. Yes, there is a long way to go, but let no one pay any attention to the Conservative party's campaign claiming that nothing has happened in the past six years, because it simply is not true.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)

Will the Prime Minister tell us why his Government are running down and partially closing the cancer centre at the Kent and Canterbury hospital—the first cancer centre in a generation to be threatened in this way?

The Prime Minister

We are improving cancer services throughout this country— [Interruption.] Yes, there will be changes in the service. We are putting almost £600 million into cancer in this country. The number of cancer deaths is down by 10 per cent. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members talk to people in cancer services, who will tell them that they are improving as a result of the extra investment.

We know what the strategy of the Conservative party is. The new Conservative chairman outlined it a short time ago. These are chilling words for the country to remember: The first" — phase— is to persuade the public that the NHS is not working. The second is that it 'won't work' and 'can't work'. The final stage would be details for the manifesto, 'ultimately the most difficult phase"'. He is right there. Foolishly, however, the Conservative party has made a specific policy commitment—that patient's passport is an iniquitous proposal that will subsidise people to go out of the NHS but only to the tune of 60 per cent. of the cost. The other 40 per cent. must be paid by the patient. It is not just the unfairness and the dead-weight cost that would rip more than £1 billion out of our health service. It is not a policy that is designed to improve the health service, but one that would allow a small number of people to escape it. That is typical of Conservative policy and would simply take this country backwards. Pensioners and others would have to pay 40 per cent., and the cost of some operations would run into literally thousands of pounds for those people.

Mr. Howard

If the Prime Minister affects such anger at that, how can he condone the fact that the number of people without any kind of private medical insurance at all, and who leave the health service and pay for their own operations because they are so appalled at what they find, has tripled under his Government from 100,000 to 300,000 a year?

The Prime Minister

I do not believe that people are appalled at what they find in the national health service. The reason that we have been able to reduce waiting times—every single one to below what we inherited—is because of our investment. There we had another typical example. The right hon. and learned Gentleman stands and says that the national health service is failing people in this country. That is simply not true. The fact is that he wants to tell people the health service is failing because he does not believe in it, never has believed in it, and wants to get rid of it.

On the issue of schools, again the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we have made no progress at all, but this is what the chief inspector of schools said a few weeks ago when discussing schools policy: Government policies are rightly focused on raising standards: it wants more and more young people to achieve more and more. Our Annual Report shows clearly that these policies are bearing fruit.

The Ofsted report went on—this is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman should remember, because it offers a contrast to what used to happen—to say: Standards of attainment are rising in England. We can look at improvements in National Curriculum tests and public examinations. In 1996, only 57 per cent. of pupils in their last year at primary schools reached level 4 or better … Six years later that figure stands at 75 per cent … A similar story can be told about mathematics. In 1996 only 54 per cent. got those results. Now, three-quarters get the right results. That is what delivery is about for people in this country.

We are increasing nursery provision and expanding sure start, with 400,000 children benefiting. Yet again, if we want a sign of what would happen if the right hon. and learned Gentleman got his hands on power, the Conservative party has consistently refused to support the sure start programme. It delivers an immense amount of benefit to people. There are 200,000 modern apprenticeships. We know, however, that we have to do more. Education through life is now the key.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

The Prime Minister

In a moment.

The vast bulk of the jobs of the future—certainly those with career prospects—require higher degrees of skill and learning, so we have to give greater access to higher education and skills and fund it fairly. I believe strongly that the proposed reforms on university funding are vital for the future of this country. They are vital to keep Britain at the top economically and not to put all the burden on the general taxpayer; they are vital to open access to university education for more and more children; and they are vital to preserve and enhance our universities as a great British asset. I believe that it is essential that we carry this through.

Mr. Robert Jackson (Wantage) (Con)

Does the Prime Minister recall the all-party support for the Dearing's committee report on higher education a few years ago? Does he agree that it would be better to continue with the policy of all-party support for these important reforms that the Government are now implementing?

The Prime Minister

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has long experience in these matters, for those sensible words. We all agree that universities need more money and, at least on this side, we believe that the idea that we have too many people going to universities or that there is some limit on how many students should go on to higher education is elitist nonsense. Many countries have 50 per cent. or more young people at university.

One thing is for sure—we cannot raise all this money from the general taxpayer. Over the past 25 years, with rising numbers of students, funding per student in this country has halved. That is simply unsustainable. Our proposals would abolish all up-front fees—no family, middle class or poor, would from then on be asked to find money for fees— they would ensure that repayment occurs on graduation; they are more generous than the present loans system, and payments would be linked to ability to pay. For example, someone on £18,000 a year would pay just £5 a week, not £13 as at present. As Ivor Crewe, president of Universities UK, said: We need to make sure politicians understand just how serious for universities it is to lose the additional income offered by variable fees. There will be fewer student places, important subjects will not get taught and the quality of provision will be under threat.

I think we should at least pay heed in this House to his words.

Mr. Salmond

Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister

In a minute.

Of course, there are two alternatives—

Mr. Salmond

rose—

The Prime Minister

I shall give way in a moment.

There is the Liberal Democrat alternative. The Liberal Democrats agree that universities need more money, but all of it is to come out of a 50 per cent. top rate of tax. Some time previously, I totted up for the House their 70 spending pledges. They now have an alternative Queen's Speech with 40 measures, 34 of which are spending commitments. It is fair to say that there are very large sums of money, but nothing is too small for a spending commitment. This one in particular caught my eye the other day: spending on supplementing home composting with doorstep collection of organic waste, subject to appropriate safeguards against contamination, and establishing a network of local closed vessel compost plants".

A fresh one just in from the Lib Dems is compulsory cod liver oil for everybody in England.

Mr. Salmond

Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman is from Scotland; this is about England.

Mr. Salmond

rose—

The Prime Minister

I meant, of course, the cod liver oil.

Mr. Salmond

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Prime Minister is not giving way.

The Prime Minister

I shall give way in a moment. It was the cod liver oil, of course, to which I was referring.

There is an alternative, of course, from the Conservatives as well.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) (UUP)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may not have heard it, but the Prime Minister said that this was about England, not Scotland. I understood that the Queen's Speech dealt with the United Kingdom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that it was a slip of the tongue by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister

I was actually referring to cod liver oil, but I am very happy to pass on the comments that have been made to the Lib Dems; no doubt they will seek to make it compulsory in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales also.

Mr. Salmond

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I call again for some calmness, and I tell the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Salmond

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Prime Minister is not giving way and that is the end of the matter.

Mr. Salmond

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I hope that it is a point of order.

Mr. Salmond

A few moments ago, the whole House heard the Prime Minister indicate that he would give way to me in a few seconds. Is this another broken promise from this man?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a matter for the Chair.

The Prime Minister

There is an alternative from the Conservatives as well— to abolish fees now. That is a £430 million cut from university funds, which would mean 100,000 fewer students at university. A further £740 million would be denied through the scrapping of variable fees. In total, there would be a quarter of a million fewer places at university. That is the real alternative posed by the Conservatives. It is hard to think, even from them, of a more reactionary, regressive and muddle-headed policy.

Mr. Salmond

Everything comes to he who waits. As the Prime Minister knows, every party in the Scottish Parliament, including the Labour party, opposes top-up fees, so they will not happen in Scotland. The Prime Minister should also know that almost every higher education institution in Scotland opposes top-up fees 29 south of the border because of the knock-on effects in Scotland. Under those circumstances, how does the Prime Minister justify dragooning Scottish Labour Members of Parliament into the Lobby to vote for top-up fees in England?

The Prime Minister

Under devolution, Scotland is perfectly entitled to have its point of view. However, I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why I believe that all United Kingdom Members of Parliament should have a vote in the UK Parliament: it is the nature of the United Kingdom. It does not surprise me that he does not understand that.

The Queen's Speech also contains measures to continue the fight against antisocial behaviour and improve our criminal justice system. From February next year, there will be sweeping new powers for the police and others—

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab)

rose—

Hon. Members

Give way.

The Prime Minister

In a moment. The police will have sweeping new powers to shut down drug houses, close pubs that are causing a nuisance and introduce on-the-spot fines for antisocial behaviour, including fining the parents of youngsters who engage in antisocial behaviour.

The Queen's Speech adds measures to license private landlords where persistent antisocial behaviour occurs and outlines new measures to tackle domestic violence, provide more support for victims of crime and establish a supreme court of justice.

The Queen's Speech signals yet more measures to curb the abuse of asylum. The problem is not confined to the UK, and we welcome the contribution that lawful migration makes to Britain. The proposed legislation will build on the previous Act, which cut asylum applications by more than half in one year. It will strip out the multiple tiers of appeal, make a presumption against asylum seekers who have destroyed documentation and extend the categories of those who will be subject to non-suspensive appeals and therefore fast-tracked. I am confident that it will continue to bear down on the problem. At least it is a serious proposal.

Now that we know from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe that the Conservative party opposes our policy, what is the Conservative proposal? The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who is now shadow Chancellor but was shadow Home Secretary a few weeks ago, gave an explanation. It is worth telling the House about it. A few weeks ago, he was interviewed by Andrew Neil, who asked: This idea that you launched yesterday … that asylum seekers would now be shipped off to an island somewhere … You can't give us any idea what sort of island this would be"? The right hon. Gentleman replied: I have no idea where the island is at the moment". The interview continues thus. Neil: Well give us an idea of the kind of idea. Letwin: A place a long way away, that's poor. 30 Neil: Is it the Cayman Islands, could it be Bermuda, how about the Pitcairns, how about the Isle of Wight? Letwin: It's very unlikely to be somewhere like Bermuda because it has to be somewhere almost certainly that is very poor. Neil: What about St. Helena, we used to keep Napoleon there"?

Letwin: I don't know why you're trying to tempt me into talking about places when I've said to you perfectly clearly, I don't currently know where it will be. But I believe that the British Foreign Office has the capacity to negotiate with some impoverished nation to allow us to go there. That would be an interesting conversation. The British Foreign Office: "Hello, are you a very impoverished nation? You've got to be really impoverished. How do you fancy a few thousand British asylum seekers?" A piece of cake. That is not fantasy island but a fantasy policy that shows that the Conservatives have no genuine policy agenda. Moreover, the right hon. Member for West Dorset claims that the Conservative policy would save £1.4 billion. The truth is that we need a new system and we are developing it.

We also need to confront the future challenge of a viable biometric identity card. Legislation will allow us to develop such a system while keeping the final options open until cost and technology issues are bottomed out.

The Queen's Speech includes essential reforms to promote a fairer society. The child trust fund will give each child a nest egg to which parents, families and friends can contribute tax free. It will help those from poorest backgrounds most. A children's commissioner will look after children's interests. A pension protection fund will help to guarantee against the collapse of a pension fund—that reform is long overdue. New employment rights will protect people at work and give them greater consultation rights. There will be recognition of the commitment that same-sex couples can give each other through civil partnership registration.

I want to make it clear that we intend to extend the new deal for the unemployed, not scrap it as the Conservatives want.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC)

Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister

In a moment.

Just a few weeks ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe described the new deal as an expensive failure. Eight hundred thousand people have been helped by the new deal. No wonder the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks it does not work, for he is the man who told us that the minimum wage would cost a million jobs. He is the person who said that the social chapter would cost a million jobs. Since then we have seen an increase in employment and a reduction in unemployment—now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party is no longer in charge of this country.

Mr. Llwyd

On the subject of employment rights, will the Prime Minister tell us whether his Government will do away with the iniquitous eight-week strike rule?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the details of the Bill, but no, we will not do away with it altogether. It is important for us to keep our labour laws and labour markets flexible, and also to ensure that when we make changes to employment rights we do not prevent companies from operating effectively.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)

My right hon. Friend has covered a lot of issues, but he has not mentioned a ban on fox hunting. Will he give the House, and in particular Labour Members—400 of whom have voted to ban fox hunting in the past—a guarantee that we are going to get rid of it before the next general election, possibly in the current parliamentary year, and certainly before the Tories appoint another new supply leader?

The Prime Minister

I have nothing to add to what the Leader of the House has already said. We have said that we will resolve the issue during this Parliament, and so we will resolve the issue during this Parliament.

Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey) (LD)

On the domestic agenda—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The House must allow the hon. Gentleman to speak.

Simon Hughes

On the domestic agenda, the one issue that the Prime Minister has not mentioned is housing. Are the Government committed to doing what they have not done in any of the years during which they have been in office—significantly increasing the amount of affordable housing in this city and elsewhere, so that the present housing crisis can be dealt with not in never-never land but in the immediate future?

The Prime Minister

We have actually put billions of pounds extra into social housing. The largest social-housing programme for many years is currently under way in this country.

It is no use the hon. Gentleman's lecturing me about never-never land. He is the person who represents the party of never-never land.

Mr. Gordon Prentice

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

The Prime Minister

No. Sorry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way!"] I am sorry, but I must make progress.

The Queen's Speech will allow us to put in legislation the outcome of the intergovernmental conference in a few days' time. I assure the House that in that negotiation we will rigorously protect Britain's vital interests, while playing our full part in shaping Britain's future in Europe. Let me say also that we will continue to work for peace, stability and democracy in Iraq, and that we will stay there until that job is properly done.

Two themes run through the Queen's Speech, the future and fairness. The first means that we must continue the reform programme in the health service and schools, and extend it to universities and skills. It means that we must change outdated planning laws, introduce still further measures on asylum and push 32 forward the development of a British identity card. The second—fairness—makes us tackle domestic violence, protect children, help the poorest pensioners, give our work force new employment rights and bring an end to discrimination. Both—the future and fairness—mean our finally ending, once and for all, the absurdity of hereditary peers in our House of Lords and establishing an independent statutory appointments commission. If the Conservatives wish to challenge us, let them try and win a general election, rather than using the House of Lords as an unelected weapon to frustrate the business of a Government who were elected.

The future and fairness: let us contrast that with the negative destruction campaign waged by the Conservative party. The Conservative party is desperate to return to the past, and desperate to conceal it. There is a new driver, but it is the same old clapped-out Tory banger.

This country is better than it was six and a half years ago, after 18 years of Conservative government. A future of rising prosperity, quality personal services and high levels of education and skills, open to the many not the few: that is what the Queen's Speech provides, and that is what I commend to the House.

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West) (LD)

It is a pleasure to join in the deserved compliments that have been paid to the hon. Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) for their highly successful speeches in moving and seconding the Loyal Address. As one Scot to another, I say to the hon. Member for Dumbarton that, in days gone by, and he alluded to this, he was affectionately known as the unilateralist MP for Trident. It is quite an achievement to square such a circle.

Professionally, the hon. Gentleman has been an educationist—a teacher, and a senior one at that—and he remains a devoted educationist. Given the education content of the Queen's Speech and the controversy that we all know is heading inexorably in the House's direction over coming months, perhaps it was brave of the Government to allow him out to express his views this afternoon.

Talking of brave choices, it is appropriate that the hon. Gentleman is here, as he served in Northern Ireland. A brave choice is being made there today, and I know that he would be among the first in the House to say that, whatever the outcome of that democratic process, let us all hope that the peace process and the work of the Assembly can be re-established and put back on track.

The hon. Member for Gloucester did not refer to what is—not least for the parliamentary Labour party, never mind the rest of us—the most controversial issue in the Queen's Speech. The publication Red Pepper offered him the ultimate accolade when it described him as seen as reliable by Millbank That must single him out in the ranks of the parliamentary Labour party; indeed, these days it might even single him out in the ranks of the Cabinet. We 33 congratulate him on his speech. It was a fine contribution and it was much appreciated in all quarters of the House.

At the last general election, it is fair to say that many of us experienced, not just at the outcome, a sense of disappointment that had taken hold after four years of a Labour Government who had a benign economic inheritance and who were bolstered by a big, three-figure parliamentary majority. Many of us would have been more ambitious over those four years had we been swept to power in such circumstances.

Since then, the sense of disappointment felt by those who hitherto have been Labour supporters, never mind those of a different political persuasion, be they Conservative, Liberal Democrat, nationalist or otherwise, has increasingly turned to one of despair. The Queen's Speech offered little to reverse that feeling—that mentality—that any people share in this country.

Indeed, it was reported a number of years ago—I do not know whether it is true, but it had the ring of truth about it—that former President Clinton once remarked to our Prime Minister that, whatever else he did, he should not make the mistake that President Clinton had made, which was to squander—[Interruption.] In world affairs there is perhaps more than one mistake that should always be avoided—one politician listening to another—but the mistake in question was the squandering of his second term. We are far enough into this second term for the Government, again bolstered by a big parliamentary majority, to say on what vital issues of the day, such as domestic public services and the international situation, they have delivered. An awful lot in the Gracious Speech will pass the vast majority of citizens by.

In the Prime Minister's first address to Labour MPs the day he was elected, he said: We are not the masters. The people are the masters. We are the people's servants. Forget that, and the people will soon show that what the electorate gives, the electorate can take away. Those words may have a more and more telling prescience. The international scene has overshadowed events inside and outside Parliament over the past 12 months or so, and the servant-master relationship that is necessary between an elected Government and a parliamentary democracy such as ours has become skewed.

There were sincerely held differences of view on that big issue among Conservative and Labour Members, such as the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), with whom many Liberal Democrats made common cause. I thought that mutual respect was a feature of the House of Commons throughout that difficult period of strongly held differences of view on the war, but there is now an insidious attempt in certain quarters to try to cast those of us who opposed the decision to engage in war as soft on the international scourge of terrorism. That is unworthy.

I remind the House of the Joint Intelligence Committee's assessment at the time, before the war was launched. It was revealed during the Hutton inquiry. A1-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests … That threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq. 34 It is worth reminding people of the clear facts of the matter, what was said at that senior level and what should be respected as events unfold.

The war has helped the terrorist cells of al-Qaeda and others to recruit new misguided terrorists into their ranks. It has also been unhelpful because, as we have seen again with the welcome visit of the French President this week, it has caused difficulties with those who should be our main European allies. If we do not pull together, Europe's capacity to conduct its important role in the fight against terrorism will be impaired.

In a few months or weeks, we will hear the outcome of the Hutton inquiry. There is no need for any of us to prejudge that now. If there is substantial criticism of the Government's behaviour at any level, we should expect the doctrine of collective responsibility to apply. That will be a test of the Prime Minister's view of integrity in public life.

Alternatively, if Lord Hutton interprets his remit, which was set by the Government, to inquire into the circumstances of Dr. Kelly's death narrowly and strictly, many important questions may remain unanswered, and more than a few of us in the House will demand, as we did earlier in the year, a fully independent judicial inquiry into the events leading up to the war.

On the specifics of the Queen's Speech. Liberal Democrats would obviously be expected to say that they would have liked it to contain a dose of liberalism. There is a danger that, on certain issues, the Government are displaying even more instinctive illiberalism than did their Conservative predecessors, which is a sad irony indeed.

In the previous Session, civil liberties were threatened by the proposals on jury trials. In the forthcoming Session, there are several new threats to civil liberties that, as a House, we must resist. As a party, we are determined to do so as strongly as we can.

There is one measure for which I give credit to the Government—the proposed Bill on civil partnerships, which is overdue but very welcome. We take a particular pride in the fact that it is modelled on a Bill drafted and proposed in the House of Lords by the Liberal Democrat senior judicial peer, Lord Lester. I am glad to see Anthony Lester's work finding fruition in the content of the Queen's Speech today.

Other proposals are extremely disappointing. Clearly, crime is a huge worry to some people. It is rising, and rising in tandem with the prison population, which is heading for record levels. We do not seem to be making sufficient progress on either front. Surely at some point we have to stand back and ask ourselves whether there is a better way of going about things.

First and foremost, people want a greater police presence on their streets and in their communities. All of us know from our dealings with the police locally that they would be delighted to deliver that, but they are bogged down by paperwork, bureaucracy and performing their day-to-day tasks. A lot more imagination could be applied; for example, people who have served in the police and who do not necessarily want to retire could be used. They might not be physically capable any longer of carrying out community policing, but their experience could be brought to bear in doing some of the work that currently 35 ties up younger officers in local police stations. That should be a priority, rather than the type of issues that are being proposed.

That leads me to the emotive issue of asylum seekers—one of the central issues of the Queen's Speech. There is more than a hint of cheap populism here. I agree entirely with the sentiments of the leader of the Conservative party, who pointed out that it would be quite wrong for the children of potential or actual asylum seekers to be used somehow as bargaining chips. However, I never thought that I would see the right hon. and learned Gentleman suddenly emerge as the friend of the asylum seeker, let alone of the children of asylum seekers. I say gently to him—we enjoy a friendly relationship, and I congratulate him on his election—that I am aware that the identity of the island in the Conservative proposals remains unclear. I represent the Isle of Skye, and he need not look in that direction.

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)

The right hon. Gentleman is making assertions about what is and is not in the Queen's Speech. In this case, he is talking about asylum seekers. Does he not mean failed asylum seekers? Would it not help the debate if he got his facts right? [HON. MEMBERS: "Read the Speech."]

Mr. Kennedy

As my right hon. and hon. Friends are saying, the hon. Gentleman should read the Queen's Speech and the briefing that has accompanied it. There will be a big debate on that issue in which we will take part.

Reform—if that is the right word—of the House of Lords has to be a prime example of the political reformist fatigue that has set in the Government. Indeed, it was the former Labour Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House who wrote recently with characteristic clarity that Modernisation is to be limited to moving from the 15th century principle of heredity to the 18th century principle of patronage". As things stand, that is pretty much it in a nutshell. The Government cannot count on our co-operation if they eventually decide to proceed in that way. In the 21st century, there has to be a substantially democratic House of Lords. A Government with a majority of this scale, and with the political co-operation that would be open to them, should waste no further time before moving in that direction.

As we