---

Draft Legislative Programme

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment, and repeat that I shall return to the efficacy of the process a little later. For the record, I should clarify that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said that she welcomed the debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) would do well to make sure that he uses the correct wording in future. I turn now to some of the specific issues. The Government should take no pride in the fact that they are proposing to introduce the 65th criminal justice Bill since 1997. As the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, it is quality not quantity that matters. As for extending the 28-day detention period for terror suspects, the Government should accept that any change should be based not on rhetoric and soundbites but on proper and compelling evidence. So far, that is clearly lacking. The draft programme also contains a new health Bill. People all over the country are suffering from hospital closures and cuts in departments—especially accident and emergency and maternity units—so it beggars belief that the Government are still tinkering with our health structure after a decade in power. That is a mark of failure, not success. While I am on matters medical, I commend my hon. Friend the Member Buckingham (John Bercow) on his typically passionate and learned speech. Among other matters, he spoke about the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, and I have no doubt that he will make a significant contribution to its discussion in this House. The draft programme is significant in that it highlights what is not included in the list of Bills. In his statement to Parliament on 11 July, the Prime Minister said that"““in the interests of good and open government and public debate””" the summer statement"““can be the subject of widespread and informed public debate.””—[Official Report, 11 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 1449.]" That is fine sounding, but if the Prime Minister and his Government genuinely care about what people think, why have they not included a Bill to have a referendum on the European treaty that is currently on the table, even though 86 per cent. of the British public want one? Incidentally, the Government’s closed mind on the matter is further endorsed by the fact that there is still no English version of the treaty. There is a French version, of course, but not an English one. It is bad enough to ignore the views of 86 per cent. of the British public, but it is much worse for the Government seek to stifle debate by not having an English version of the treaty. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said, the draft legislative programme makes no mention of the proposed reclassification of cannabis, or of the U-turn on super-casinos. Those matters were left to be dealt with by planted questions. It has nothing on prisons, or on the West Lothian question mentioned by the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. We are told by the Prime Minister and the Government that they will listen to the views of the public and others on various subjects, but our experience so far suggests the contrary. The Government have announced a plan to build 3 million new homes by 2020, but they have ignored the advice that they have already received from their own consultants. They have warned that building so many homes in some areas could increase the danger of flash flooding if land needed for drainage is concreted over. Given the circumstances, the response from the Minister for Housing showed an extraordinary attitude. In a recent Sunday newspaper article, she wrote:"““To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it’s about building more homes, stupid.””" I suggest that she be less judgmental of her critics and pay a little more attention to the advice of experts in the field. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith spoke of first-time buyers and about helping people to get on to the housing ladder. He will be aware that after a decade of Labour government home ownership is actually falling for the first time since figures were published. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) spoke of the need for more social housing and highlighted the fact that there is a 13-year wait for a four-bedroom house. I have to tell her that under 10 years of Labour government less social housing was built every year than in every year of the predecessor Government. Much has been made of the Government’s desire to consult on the draft legislative programme and to listen to the public, but if a member of the public visits the Cabinet Office website she or he will find that they are restricted to using only 1,000 characters in their response. After taking account of commas, full stops and spaces, that leaves about 150 words. There we have it: the Government want to hear from the public, but only if the response is confined to 150 words. Given that many politicians have a problem articulating points succinctly, it is indeed ironic that the public should be subjected to such a limit. This draft programme represents a decade of failure, a decade of spin and a decade of style over substance. The proposed Bills are nothing new; they are old, rehashed and recycled, and the so-called public consultation is nothing more than a cosmetic exercise—it is sham, pure and simple. The Opposition are not falling for that publicity stunt and neither are the public.