---

Home Affairs and Communities

I pay tribute to the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones), who was a passionate advocate for his constituency. I knew his predecessor, to whom he paid a gracious tribute, well. The hon. Gentleman spoke on several issues that relate to his constituency but have national implications. I have no doubt that he has a distinguished future in this House. Listening to him—indeed, listening to every one of today’s maiden speeches—prompted me to think how deeply rooted Members become, often very rapidly, in their constituencies. That led me on to a further thought—that those who would dabble with the method by which people are elected to this House should consider the implications carefully, and perhaps read this debate, which exemplifies the importance of the constituency link. This House can take great pride in the strength of that deeply rooted link between the individual Member and his or her constituency. It has been exemplified by all those who today spoke for the first time in this House and I pay tribute to every one of them. A second thought occurred to me as I listened to the debate, prompted by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband), who is my neighbour. I knew his father well in the 1970s, and it makes me feel old to remember my hon. Friend and his brother as much younger than they are now. I was reminded of the extent to which Members of this House come from a diversity of backgrounds. My mother’s family came to this country from pogroms against Russian Jews. Many Members have similar backgrounds. The father of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North graced the intellectual life of this country—he was a prominent European intellectual and a great man—and his sons will grace the House in representing their constituencies. That made me think how foolish was the policy to have a numerical cap on the number of people who should be allowed into this country, which would have been implemented had the Conservatives had their way. Many of the people who went on to enter this House, or whose children and grandchildren did so, might well have been prevented from coming here. I want to make a few points about the Queen’s Speech, but will try to curtail them in view of the fact that there are still Members wishing to speak. The first relates to incapacity benefit, which affects many households in my constituency. In Streethouse, for example, more than 60 per cent. of households have somebody, often the prime earner, on long-term sickness or incapacity benefit, often as a result of working in the mining industry. I am pleased that the Government have agreed the massive compensation package that has been debated in this House many times. About £70 million has been paid to people who have long-term illnesses as a result, frankly, of the negligence of the National Coal Board. It is a fabulous and welcome programme. Many of those men have been on incapacity benefit for 20 years, since the pits closed, and some for longer than that. I do not believe that the villages that I represent will regenerate fully until larger numbers of people earn an income. If we can persuade people off incapacity benefit, that will be a good step towards helping to bring about regeneration. I hope that we shall do that through enticement rather than coercion. I received private assurances from the previous Secretary of State that the Government would want to continue in that way. On that basis, I believe that a consensus can be achieved with people such as me. Let us briefly consider the health service. In most hon. Members’ constituencies, the local hospital plays an important role and is a valued asset to the people whom we represent. In my constituency, there are two hospitals, Pinderfields and Pontefract, both of which are receiving much needed investment from the Labour Government. They are also undergoing massive change, some of which will inevitably impose some strains. Doubtless, the doctors, nurses, technicians and administrators will do their best to ensure that there are centres of excellence in both parts of the constituency. However, I am slightly worried about the announcement only hours after the election that we will now put 1.7 million operations into the private sector. If that initiative is about increasing overall capacity, I have no problem with it because it means that some of my constituents will receive operations earlier, but if, as I fear, the effect is somehow to cream off capacity from the national health service—mathematically, it is hard to understand how else it can happen—that is an entirely different matter. Any sign of a reduction in NHS capacity either at Pontefract or Pinderfields as a result of a decision to outsource to what the Government choose to call the independent sector would be most regrettable and meet resistance from my constituents. I would feel that they were justified in resisting such proposals. I shall therefore examine carefully the precise way in which the policy rolls out. I want briefly to mention city academies. In a place such as London, where millions of people live cheek by jowl, and high schools are close together—perhaps only a mile or a mile and a half apart—a choice agenda may well be an appropriate way in which to structure public services. However, in an area such as mine, which has 24 separate villages with only four secondary schools, the choice agenda is meaningless, especially when there is little co-ownership and poor public transport and highways infrastructure. The capacity of parents and young people for exercising choice is limited simply through geography and the dispersed nature of the communities that I represent. It is therefore hard to understand how a programme that effectively means the construction of 200 schools at £5 billion can be offered as a panacea for the whole country. One could almost use the term ““bog-standard””. A bog-standard regime—I use the term advisedly—will be implemented throughout the country, irrespective of the heterogeneity of the various communities that comprise it. The initiative needs to be examined in the greatest detail if the Government are to demonstrate that it is not an ideological imposition from above. They must produce some evidence, which does not currently exist, to show that the policy will work across the broad range of communities that make up this country. I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so although I had more to say, I shall conclude my remarks.