If these proposals represent a genuine attempt by the Government to consult in advance of the Queen’s Speech, they most certainly should be welcomed, but I say to the Prime Minister that we should be concerned about the quality of legislation as much as we are about the quantity. I hope that he feels it appropriate to ensure that there is much more pre-legislative scrutiny during his time in No.10 Downing street than there has been hitherto. It is worth pointing out that during the past 10 years, there have been 382 Acts of Parliament, including 10 health Acts, 12 education Acts and 29 criminal justice Acts, and more than 3,000 new criminal offences have been created. The mantra might have been, ““Education, education, education””, but the reality has been, ““Legislation, legislation, legislation.””
I shall deal with some of the points raised in the Prime Minister’s statement. On the issue of education, he said that it is the Government’s intent to raise—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister has said that the Government intend to raise the school-leaving age to 18 years. How will the curriculum be made relevant to those who find themselves in school between the ages of 16 and 18, who might otherwise have anticipated leaving? What funding will be made available to ensure that that curriculum is worth while and constructive?
On housing, I state right at the outset that local planning gain should be locally located and controlled. I hope that in the consideration the Prime Minister is obviously willing to give to this issue, he will ensure that local authorities can reap the benefit of development within their areas, and determine in consultation with their citizens how that benefit should be supplied.
Since 1997, the number of families on social housing lists has risen by 50 per cent., from approximately 1 million to 1.5 million. That is a measure of the seriousness of the crisis, which is why I welcome the Prime Minister’s attention to the issue. I suggest that we probably need as many as 1 million socially rented houses by 2020. He would help the House if he gave a more detailed breakdown of how the 3 million target will be made up. I hope that he and the whole House are sympathetic to the fact that by 2020, less than 10 per cent. of the total housing stock will be carbon neutral. If we are serious about dealing with climate change, surely more has to be done in relation to housing.
We do not have to go very far in the national health service to meet doctors, nurses and health professionals who are demoralised and confused by constant reorganisation. Any legislation that the Government introduce must surely focus on standards, and not on yet another restructuring.
We will obviously consider with care any proposals that the Government make on terrorism. We, of course, have previously argued for the use of intercept evidence—phone-tap evidence—in court proceedings, and for the notion of questioning suspects after charge, subject to proper judicial protection.
On climate change, to which I already referred, I hope that the Government will look again at annual emission reduction targets. How will we know whether we are making progress unless we have some annual figure on precisely what is happening as a result of Government policies? Should not the aim be a carbon-neutral Britain? The Prime Minister must remember that green taxes fell as a percentage of national income during his period at the Treasury.
On climate change and the environment, will he categorically state today that there will be no open or, indeed, hidden public subsidy for the nuclear industry, bearing in mind the fact that we already have a liability of about £70 billion to clean up existing nuclear power stations?
Finally, I hope that the Government will embrace the idea that legislation, once passed, should not simply be allowed to lie on the statute book. It is time that we had a proper system of revision to repeal out-of-date, inept and ineffective legislation. If we are going to be better engaged with the quality of legislation through pre-legislative scrutiny, surely we should be equally conscientious in striking from the statute book provisions that have long since lost their use.
Draft Legislative Programme
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 11 July 2007.
It occurred during Ministerial statement on Draft Legislative Programme.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
462 c1455-6 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:25:03 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_410016
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_410016
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_410016