---

Draft Legislative Programme

I welcome the opportunity for the House to debate the draft legislative programme. I also welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Lady listened to hon. Members’ concerns and staged this debate separately from tomorrow’s summer recess Adjournment debate. As she mentioned, the publication of the draft legislative programme was one of the proposals contained in the Prime Minister’s statement on ““The Governance of Britain””, which also leads to the Constitutional Reform Bill. I wish that I could welcome the Prime Minister’s new-found commitment to Parliament, if only it were genuine. Much has been made of his determination to make statements to the House before briefing them to the media. When he made his statement on the constitution to the House, everyone was impressed that he had not gone on the ““Today”” programme to talk about it there first. After the previous Prime Minister, who was so obsessed with spin, here was a new Prime Minister who put Parliament first—at least so said his spin doctors. The Prime Minister’s statement included proposals to allow Parliament to vote on whether we go to war, to request the dissolution and recall of Parliament, to ratify international treaties, and to scrutinise public appointments, as well as proposals to remove the prime ministerial power to appoint bishops. That was in the statement made on 3 July, but on 2 July The Daily Telegraph reported:"““Gordon Brown will this week propose…giving up royal prerogatives traditionally exercised by the prime minister, such as the power to declare war without parliamentary approval or to ""appoint bishops to the Church of England. The House of Commons will be given new powers, including the right for MPs to recall Parliament during a recess if there is a national emergency, to hold American-style confirmation hearings…and to ratify international treaties.””" I imagine The Daily Telegraph just made five lucky guesses. The same must be true of The Independent’s coverage of the right to trigger legislation by petition on 28 February, The Guardian’s prediction of citizens’ juries on 27 February and the predictions by The Times of a new ministerial code on 16 May and of a new Bill of Rights on 1 July. Before I talk about the draft legislative programme, I want to make one thing clear. All the bluster about announcing things to Parliament first was just that: bluster. There is already a whole list of examples of how the Prime Minister has treated Parliament and hon. Members with disdain. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, promised in the previous Queen’s Speech, will have its Second Reading in October, just a couple of weeks before the end of the Session. It is going to be a carry-over Bill, but the carry-over procedure was introduced for Bills that had nearly completed their parliamentary stages, not Bills at the very beginning. The Prime Minister has twice reversed policy—first on casinos, secondly on cannabis—in response to planted questions during Prime Minister’s questions rather than in an oral statement, which would have given hon. Members the chance to ask questions of the Minister concerned. The Prime Minister has since insinuated to a press conference—not to Parliament—that he might reverse the liberalisation of licensing laws. Those proposals are not in the draft legislative programme. As we discussed in a previous debate this evening, the Prime Minister has also confirmed that Parliamentary Private Secretaries will sit on Select Committees. They might not be formal members of the Government, but they work for Ministers. That is a conflict of interest, but the Prime Minister has ignored it. As I mentioned in my intervention on the right hon. and learned Lady, the Prime Minister also opted to use parliamentary privilege to override the other place, after it voted for a lifeboat fund to compensate properly the 125,000 people who have lost their pension savings. If the Prime Minister trusts Parliament, why has he completely ignored the wishes of the other place? The Prime Minister is also ready to sign the latest EU treaty, as he made clear in Prime Minister’s questions today, which would subjugate the Westminster Parliament to the institutions of the European Union. The conclusions of the previous European Council state:"““National parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union””." The Prime Minister, who supposedly believes in the sovereignty of Parliament, is therefore happy to sign a treaty that places upon Parliament an obligation to do whatever the European Court of Justice decides is for the ““good functioning”” of the European Union. No, the Prime Minister does not believe in putting Parliament first. In relation to the proposed legislation in the draft legislative agenda, I said earlier that we had heard most of the statement on the constitution in the media before the Prime Minister made his statement. That was down to spin. However, we had heard most of the draft Queen’s Speech many times over, throughout the Prime Minister’s career. That was down to his failure to deliver. So why should people believe that he is going to deliver now, after all this time? Furthermore, why should we believe that the Government will deliver what is in this legislative programme when they have failed to deliver several Bills in their previous legislative programme? According to the Leader of the House’s website, the following Government Bills for 2006-07 have not yet had their First Reading: the climate change Bill, the counter terrorism Bill, the protection of cultural property during armed conflict Bill, the House of Lords Bill, the human tissues and embryos Bill, the local government regulation office Bill, the party funding bill and the road transport Bill. Three of those Bills are actually in this draft legislative programme, but that should not be a surprise, because every single one of the 23 Bills proposed in the Prime Minister’s statement has been announced before. For the information of hon. Members, and for the record, here are the relevant dates: the child maintenance and other payments Bill, December 2006; the children in care Bill, June 2007; the climate change Bill, March 2007; the constitutional reform Bill, July 2007; the coroners Bill, June 2006; the counter terrorism Bill, June 2007; the criminal justice Bill, July 2006; the Crossrail Bill, February 2005; the education and skills Bill, March 2007; the employment simplification Bill, March 2007; the energy Bill, May 2007; the European Communities (Finance) Bill, June 2007; the health and social care Bill, February 2007; the housing and regeneration Bill, March 2004; the human tissues and embryos Bill, December 2006; the local transport Bill, May 2007; the national insurance contributions Bill, March 2007; the pensions Bill, May 2006; the planning reform Bill, May 2007; the planning gain supplement Bill, March 2007; the regulatory enforcement and sanctions Bill, May 2007; the sale of student loans Bill, March 2007; and the unclaimed assets Bill, May 2005. A total of 23 bills, and not a single one of them is new. Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that he wanted more houses to be built. But he has said that before. He once said:"““What would a Labour Government do today? We will get Britain building homes again””." That was in 1994. Three weeks ago, he said that he wanted to develop long-term, fixed-rate mortgages. But he has said that before, too. He once said that he wanted to"““develop a market for long-term fixed rate mortgages—something that is important to the UK””.—[Official Report, 9 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 279.]" That was in 2003. Three weeks ago, he said that he wanted to develop eco-towns, but he has said that before. His Housing Minister once said that the Government would"““create small scale eco-community developments rather than individual homes””." That was in 2006. Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to use unclaimed assets to spend on youth and community centres, but he has said that before, too. He once said:"““Today I can announce an agreement with the banks and building societies that unclaimed assets held in bank accounts will be put to use to improve youth and community facilities””.—[Official Report, 5 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 613.]" That was in 2005. Three weeks ago, he said that he wanted to raise the school leaving age. But he has said that before. He once said:"““New proposals—universal education after sixteen””." That was in 1996. So I do not know how the Prime Minister can claim that he is some kind of a new start. He is not a new start; he is a broken old record. And talking of records, the Prime Minister has missed this opportunity to put right his record. On his watch, 125,000 people have lost their pension savings. Where is the legislation to compensate them properly? On his watch, home ownership started to fall for the first time since records began. So why will people trust him to deliver more housing? On his watch, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has passed 1 million. So why will people trust him to create opportunities for young people? On his watch, the NHS has been plunged into deficit and forced to make swingeing cuts. Where is the action to stop the cuts? Where is the Bill to increase NHS autonomy and accountability? On his watch, violent prisoners have been released because there is not enough space for them in jail. Where is the legislation to ensure that criminals get what they deserve? In 2004, the Government committed themselves to introducing a marine Bill. The 2005 Labour manifesto, on which the right hon. and learned Lady was elected, promised to introduce a marine Bill during this Parliament. Where is it? And what about women? Only last week, the right hon. and learned Lady came to the House to make a particularly vacuous statement on her agenda for women, yet there is nothing in this legislative programme specifically for women. Where is the action on equal pay? Where is the action on human trafficking? Where is the help for the families who use a relative or neighbour to care for a child? As the legislative programme is rolled out, there will be Bills that we support and, where we do, we will engage constructively with Ministers. Indeed, we encouraged the Government to introduce a climate change Bill and I am pleased to see that they are doing so. As another example, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear today, we will work with the Prime Minister in making the country more secure against terrorists. On the whole, however, the draft Queen’s Speech is a massive disappointment. The public wanted a change from the Blair years, but this legislative programme is not the answer to the country’s needs, because this Prime Minister is not the answer to the country’s needs, because he is not the change that the people want. He is not a change. His disdain for Parliament, his lack of new ideas, his spin and stealth are no change. It is just the same old Labour.