Helen Goodman

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland):

It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to reply to this important debate on the Government’s draft legislative programme for the next Session. We have heard some interesting and thoughtful speeches.

Let me begin by saying something about the process, which a number of hon. Members raised. Some hon. Members may be aware that I was a civil servant before I entered the House. At one stage, I was tasked with briefing the then Chancellor of the Exchequer on what should be in the legislative programme. At that time, 10 or 12 years ago, the process was rather random. There are some things that any Chancellor has to support—there has to be a Finance Bill, for example—but I would look down the list, think, “That looks quite good,” and then brief him to support certain things. We have taken a major step forward in opening the process up, so that there can be proper scrutiny and so that the entire nation can take part in considering not just the individual items of legislation, but the programme as a whole.

I felt that the speech of Mr. Vara was a little contradictory. On the one hand, he said that he was disappointed, but on the other, there were 12 items that he completely agreed with.
Add your comment

Shailesh Vara (Deputy Shadow Leader, North West Cambridgeshire)
I thought that I was very clear, but obviously I was not. For the record, let me say that I was very pleased with the contribution that the Conservative party had made to the draft legislative programme, but disappointed with all the rest, which was simply rehashed policies or efforts to make good the damage of the past 11 years.

Helen Goodman:
The hon. Gentleman has again set out what is essentially a contradictory position. He criticised the Government for being closed minded, but then said that we borrowed policies. He said that not just about the general shape of the programme, but about specific items. Early on in his speech, he said that we were not doing anything about overcrowding in prisons and prison places, yet when he talked about the law reform, victims and witnesses Bill, he criticised the fact that the new body will take account of the prison population.

Shailesh Vara:
Given that the hon. Lady is trying to pick up on what she says were contradictions in what I said, let me make the position absolutely clear. My first comment on crime and prison was simply that when somebody is sentenced to prison, they should serve their sentence in prison, not outside as part of the early release programme. My second comment was about the Government’s proposal to have a separate committee to consider sentencing and whether it should be influenced by the amount of space available in prisons. The two are separate and distinct issues. I am sorry that she was not paying attention and therefore got a little confused.

Helen Goodman:
The hon. Gentleman then talked about the constitutional renewal Bill. He said that it contained some good elements, but wondered why English MPs could not vote solely on English legislation. Publishing the draft programme in its entirety enables us to look at the territorial extent of different Bills. The situation is different for different Bills. The banking reform Bill, for example, applies to the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as does the saving gateway Bill, but the business rates supplement Bill applies to England and Wales. The marine and coastal access Bill applies in its entirety to England, but as Sir Robert Smith acknowledged, only some parts of it apply to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Education and Skills Bill applies in its entirety to England, but only the provisions on the Learning and Skills Council apply to Scotland, while other parts apply to Wales and Northern Ireland. That reflects the different devolution settlements with different parts of the country.

The notion that we should have only English votes on English Bills is so over-simplified that it fails to do justice to the complexity of the current situation. Even when a piece of legislation applies to only one part of the United Kingdom, it is often used as a model for secondary legislation in other parts. I thus hope that the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will think again about this issue.

The hon. Gentleman went on to criticise the effectiveness of the Government’s education policies, but he did not take sufficient account of the very significant achievements that my hon. Friend Sarah McCarthy-Fry described in the context of her constituency. We also know that at the overall national level, literacy rates have improved by 26 per cent.—a very substantial improvement—over the last 10 years.

The hon. Gentleman similarly criticised the welfare reform Bill. He said that there was nothing new in it and that we could not be proud of our record. Well, I am proud of the fact that unemployment is half what it was 10 years ago and I think that that is a significant achievement. I also think that it is good that young people have opportunities for paid work, training and voluntary work, which they did not have 10 years ago.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the costs of the consultation process. We have 60 events planned across the whole country and the consultation period carries on until 6 August, so we do not know the full costs at the moment. When we have completed the programme, we will inform the House how much it cost.

Shailesh Vara:
There is one further point. I asked the Leader of the House to be gracious enough to acknowledge the contribution of Her Majesty’s Opposition to the draft legislative programme. I am gracious in thinking that her failure to do so was an oversight on her part, so I invite the Deputy Leader of the House to give due credit to the Conservative party for the policies that Labour has adopted from us in the draft legislative programme.

Helen Goodman:
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise and I am very sorry if he is disappointed with that.

My hon. Friend Mr. Purchase made a very different speech. He reflected on the nature of change in modern society; he reflected on the world becoming more individualised and atomised; he talked about the importance of community and the Labour party’s traditional role in working in communities; and he spoke about housing. My hon. Friend took the time to develop an argument, which made his speech excellent and enjoyable to listen to. I hope that he will look more deeply at the community empowerment legislation when it is introduced. The Bill will facilitate many of the measures to build up communities that he seeks.

One of our aims is to improve democratic accountability in local communities. The policing and crime reduction Bill will do that by giving people further opportunities to control the way in which their local community is policed. Although I recognise that the law applies nationally, my hon. Friend’s constituency in Wolverhampton is very different from mine in County Durham, so a different policing approach is appropriate.

I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that the saving gateway Bill promotes fairness and equality, which he was pressing the Government to take into greater account.

My hon. Friend mentioned his concerns about housing. One can be sceptical about the theory, but then see what happens in practice. In my constituency, when the tenants in Wear valley voted for the move to an arm’s length management organisation, the management of the housing improved as well as the level of resource. The involvement of tenants in the management of the housing has also significantly improved some of the communities that were suffering most from low-quality housing and local environments.

My hon. Friend said that not everyone benefited from being in a classroom for a long time. I am sure that he understands, however, that the legislation on changing the entitlements to education up to the age of 18 does not relate solely to class-based education. Entitlements to learning while having a job, or in other training environments, are also covered.

My hon. Friend spoke about what he saw as the over-egging of choice in the NHS. I would ask him to draw a distinction between different kinds of care. He has a good point—if he and I break our arm, we both want it mended, and we want it done quickly. The skills to mend one arm are much the same as those to mend another. But if he and I needed psychotherapy, it would be reasonable for us to say that we required a more personalised and individualised approach. Therefore, empowering patients in some circumstances, as the Health Minister responsible for personal care is doing, can improve the quality of care.

Finally, my hon. Friend criticised what he saw as too many re-announcements. Sometimes consultation can look like a re-announcement when it is not intended as such. For example, he saw part of the draft legislative programme as just a re-announcement of the banking reform Bill. I would say to him, however, that it is good that we had consultation on the previous banking Bill. It is good that we had a White Paper on the business rates supplement Bill. It gives more people the opportunity to have an input into the drafting of the law, and it allows stakeholders to influence the laws that particularly affect them.

The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine spoke of the importance of giving legislation its appropriate place and not seeing it as the only lever of Government policy. The point was well made, and that is what we have tried to do. I am sure the hon. Gentleman noticed that chapter 2, which refers to the main themes of the programme—economic stability, potential, handing power back to the people—combines Bills with other significant policy initiatives. Our objective was to achieve the kind of rounded approach that the hon. Gentleman wants.

The hon. Gentleman asked how long the next parliamentary year would be. The average length of a parliamentary year is 155 days, and apart from short years in which general elections take place, parliamentary years do not vary significantly in length. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman’s point was reasonable. We have made a small but significant improvement in our planning: this year we produced the draft programme before deciding on the length of the parliamentary year, which we have not always done on other occasions.

The hon. Gentleman welcomed the business rates supplement Bill, but thought that it should go further. The Bill will promote long-term growth, and should facilitate investment that will increase economic activity. He asked about co-ordination with the Scottish Executive on the marine and coastal access Bill. Ministers are fully conscious of the importance of that, and are working on it. He went through the Bills in a very systematic way, but I shall not respond to all his points, because I have dealt with some of them in responding to other Members….

…..The hon. Gentleman found the constitutional renewal Bill somewhat disappointing, as did my right hon. Friend Mr. Meacher. The Bill contains 61 reforms relating to such matters as the civil service, treaties and the role of the Attorney-General. Those are all important matters, even if they are not widely understood: they make a significant difference to the way in which the country is governed, and to the openness with which it is governed.

The hon. Gentleman made a plea for electoral reform to be included in the Bill. As I am sure he appreciates, a key element of constitutional change is a degree of consensus so that changes can be sustainable and long-lasting. I do not believe that there is that degree of consensus on electoral reform.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton congratulated my right hon. and learned Friend Ms Harman, the Minister for Women and Equality, on the proposed equality Bill, and spoke of the importance of promoting equality in this country. He wanted us to look at how the draft legislative programme fitted in relation to three issues: what he sees as the over-centralisation of power and the collapse of accountability, problems in the financial market, and problems in the housing market. I have already outlined some of the measures in the constitutional renewal Bill, but my right hon. Friend needs to ask himself whether it is correct to assert, as he did, that Parliament is significantly weaker now than it was 20 years ago. I am sure he is familiar with the statistics put together by Professor Cowley at Nottingham university, which demonstrate that this Parliament, the one before that and the Parliament elected in 1997 are far more assertive than Parliaments were in the previous 50 years. That is not always applauded by my colleagues in the Whips Office, but it is true. That shows that parliamentarians are taking an assertive approach to scrutinising proposed legislation.

I am sure my right hon. Friend is also aware of the significant programme of parliamentary reform that is under way. He knows that we will introduce regional Select Committees, and I hope that he knows that we are looking at the petitioning arrangements and at having an e-petitioning system. We have also opened up the EU scrutiny process. The Minister for the Cabinet Office is taking forward the practice of pre-appointment hearings for many public-sector posts. While I do not know what happens in the other political parties, the truth is that Labour Select Committee members are not chosen by the Whips; there is a negotiation with the elected committee of the parliamentary party. I am not saying that we have a perfect Parliament and that we do not need to make further reforms, but it is right to acknowledge the good things that have been happening in recent and current Parliaments.

My right hon. Friend talked about empowerment and citizens juries, and about the role of the Attorney-General. Ministers are, of course, primarily responsible for maintaining national security, so it is reasonable for there to be an exception in respect of the involvement of the Attorney-General in national security cases. The benefit of the proposed legislation is that the conduct of such cases will be clearer and more transparent.

My right hon. Friend talked about the banking reform legislation. He displayed a far greater expertise in, and understanding of, all the different financial instruments that are used internationally than I have, so I cannot say that I know exactly how all the points he made will be addressed. However, we will pass on Members’ suggestions on different Bills to the relevant Departments.

My right hon. Friend also talked about inequality and his concern about the level of pay and bonuses in the City, which he feels have reached irresponsible levels. I hope that he saw the remarks of the Governor of the Bank of England to the Treasury Committee a couple of weeks ago.

My right hon. Friend referred to the current significant housing need, and his interest in the forthcoming housing Green Paper. I hope that in addition to his appreciation of the equality Bill, he will be pleased to see that legislation will be introduced on agency workers and on the right to request flexible working time.

My right hon. Friend was right to say that the Opposition seem to be opposed to building more council housing, and he pointed to the need for a significant increase in affordable housing. In fact, the Opposition seem to be opposed to most house building….

….My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North made an excellent speech about the importance of economic stability and fairness. She spoke particularly eloquently about the Education and Skills Bill—in fact, she spoke so eloquently that I cannot really add anything to what she said. She was absolutely right, however, about the importance of giving young people better advice on what is available to them. That was brought home to me when I discovered that 1,200 different apprenticeship courses are now available from employers, which really is remarkable.

My hon. Friend also talked about the importance of the equality Bill and about the fantastic work that Val Price has done in supporting Labour women in coming into this House. I echo absolutely what she said. Val Price was a remarkable woman who was always supportive when we were in our darkest hours and unsure about how the future would turn out.

My hon. Friend also talked about the importance of tolerance in a more diverse society, but she did not, unfortunately, refer to the proposals on breastfeeding. I was a little disappointed about that. The other day, my teenage son was in the National Gallery, in the room with the early Italian paintings. As you are well aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are lots of paintings of the Madonna feeding the child. There was a woman in the gallery feeding her child, and the attendant said to her, “You must not do that in here—this is totally unacceptable.” So she unlatched her baby, and the baby began to scream. The attendant came back and said, “Can’t you make that child be quiet?” The tolerance that my hon. Friend is looking for would be very welcome for every generation.

I am about to close today’s debate, but consideration of the programme is not over. We are already receiving comments and feedback on the website, and people can give evidence until 6 August. There will be national events across the country on 11 July to enable people to have their say on where they think the draft programme should go. This draft programme contains 18 important Bills. It demonstrates that the Government remain committed to the key issues that matter to people: economic stability, making the most of potential, improved public services and handing power back to the people. I commend it to the House.

You can read more of this debate here