---

Home Affairs and Communities

That is an important point. I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that the Government—and the Chancellor in particular—have improved the quality of life and the income of hard-working families, that there has been a substantial uplift, and that poverty has been reduced. That is certainly true, but my objection is that inequality has continued to increase because the gap between the poor—although they are fewer in number and they have a bit more—and the rich is still being increased by the enormous and soaring escalation of incomes at the top. Both problems need to be addressed. One reason why there has been a switch to the BNP is because working-class families feel that they are not getting enough, or a fair deal in society. Things have improved, but not enough. Thirdly, there is, inevitably, a balance to be struck between protecting civil liberties and safeguarding the security of the state, which has been mentioned. However, since 9/11 that balance has been pulled in an uncomfortably authoritarian direction. Quite apart from the removal of the right to silence and restrictions on jury trials, the Government seem—I hope that I am wrong, but this is what is reported—to be returning to Algeria those acquitted after the Bourgass trial, including one person who had been granted asylum. They are almost certain to face torture, and may face death, which is reminiscent of the awful American practice of ““rendition””, I think it is called—or outsourcing torture. In the case of the much-trumpeted ricin plot of January 2003, it now emerges that there was no ricin and no plot, only a convenient pretext to bang the anti-terrorist drum just before the Iraq war, and perhaps even to claim the need for ID cards. Above all, however, in the case of control orders, which the Government are obliged to reconsider, there is a much better way of reconciling individual rights with state security. I propose that where terrorism, or at least acts preparatory to terrorism, are alleged, all the evidence relevant to the case should be made available to the suspect unless the judge is convinced—on the basis of advice from the security services or the Home Secretary, and on proper grounds of national security—that it cannot safely be made available. That compromise, for which, of course, there is already an effective precedent in the form of public interest immunity orders, would protect human rights and ought to be acceptable to the Home Office. I hope that the Government will reconsider that later in the year. My fourth concern is how the so-called public services reform will be pursued. All too often that is a euphemism for more privatisation, deregulation and outsourcing. It is worrying that the first speech of the Secretary of State for Health emphasised strongly the transfer of 10 to 15 per cent. of operations to the private sector, when the consequences of that are so clear: it means skimming off the most lucrative procedures while leaving the more difficult and expensive cases to the national health service, and it means draining off doctors and resources from the NHS—not for a saving, which we could understand, but at greater cost. That policy agenda is not—I repeat not—about choice when, in the case of housing policy, tenants who choose the fourth option, to stay with their own local authority, are denied that choice, and when, in the case of transport policy, the majority who want rail franchises to be transferred to the public sector are denied that choice. Lastly, we need to learn the real lesson of Iraq: we have become far too close to the US line. We need a foreign policy bottom line driven by our fundamental British interests and by our commitment to the United Nations, and not by US interests. As proof of that, we need an early statement from the Prime Minister that under no circumstances will we give support, even indirectly, to any military attack on Iran, whatever the Americans may do. I hope that all those points will be taken.