Government: Legislative Programme

My Lords, I thought that it was particularly cruel for the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to refer to all the new Ministers on the Government Front Bench because it is a sad truth that not a single Labour Back-Bencher was promoted to the Front Bench in the recent reshuffle, in spite of the fact that my own Benches were ravaged by the Prime Minister looking for advice from this galaxy of talent I have behind me. I am not as harsh as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the Statement, which was foreshadowed in paragraphs 100 to 102 of the Governance of Britain. It has some welcome initiatives and puts forward ideas about how Parliament and the public can discuss plans and priorities. I also disagree with the noble Lord about a debate in this House. I understand that the Conservatives pressed for a debate at the other end. I hope that we will have time for a debate. On the regions, the Statement says that ““region by region”” they will be consulted. Perhaps the Lord President will explain how this regional consultation will work and whether any of the consultations will be able to change plans and priorities. The danger is that the Prime Minister is raising expectations about his style of government. Is this a genuine sea change in terms of avoiding legislative overload and knee-jerk reactions? Is it a real commitment to move power out of Whitehall, to work out a new concordat between central and local government, and to transfer real power, including financial responsibility, for delivering local services? Is it an end to the micromanaging of health and education from the centre? These are the real tests against which these proposals will be tested. On terrorism, I share with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the willingness to explore how we keep together an all-party consensus. I notice that the Prime Minister was rather coy when he said in the Statement that, "““we are seeking an all party consensus on … the period of pre-charge detention where, for terrorism alone, exceptional circumstances make it necessary””." The paper is more blunt. It states: "““We look for possible extension of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects beyond the current limit of 28 days””." If the woolly words in the Statement mean that the Government are coming back to extend the 28 days, I can say only that from these Benches such a proposal will be vigorously tested and vigorously opposed. I shall not try to cover all the issues, but I look at the housing commitments with some enthusiasm as a vice-president of Shelter and as one who came into politics at a time when housing was at the top of our agenda. Harold Macmillan made his reputation by building 300,000 houses a year. It is perhaps an example of how housing has dropped off our radar that 50 years later the aim is for 240,000 houses. I would ask the Leader of the House to remember that in the south-east of England, particularly in places such as Hertfordshire, there is a real concern that the green belt will be gobbled up and that local opinion will be overruled by new planning laws. On education, I welcome the commitment to educate more young people until they are 18. I think that there is a special role for FE colleges to play in this. Many young people who drop out of school do not take kindly to formal academic education, but I am consistently impressed during my visits to FE colleges at how they provide both academic and vocational education which is tailored to that age group and to those who may not have stayed in education. A little nugget to which I am very attracted is the use of unclaimed assets for youth facilities. Again showing my age, I belong to a generation that benefited from youth clubs and a whole network of youth provision. Research studies show that there is a link between good youth facilities in local areas and tackling vandalism and youth crime. If this is a way of putting money into those areas and providing facilities, that is to be welcomed. At the heart of this, there seems to be a wish to see an end to over-legislation. My right honourable friend Sir Menzies Campbell referred to the 29 criminal justice and related Acts of the past 10 years, which have produced more than 3,000 new offences. We are looking for quality, not quantity, in legislation. On the constitution, I should like to ask the Lord President of the Council where this is going to go. We have been promised a Constitutional Reform Bill. Does that rule out any proposal for a constitutional convention or a wider consultation on constitutional reform? The lessons of the past show that the broader the consensus, the better the chance of carrying constitutional reform through. We are not as sceptical as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, but we are looking for delivery as well as promises. We are looking for a greener, fairer, freer society to come from these measures, and we will judge them on their merits.