David Amess

"Everyone will be excited by the legislation planned for next year."

I for one am not excited by the 23 Bills and seven draft measures. In fact, I am deeply depressed because we have heard it all before.

When the House listened to the Prime Minister, whose performance today was abysmal, I wondered for a moment which world he is living in. He took the American President to his constituency last week, but of course, he did not allow him to meet the real people. As ever, that visit was stage-managed. The real people in every constituency have a completely different experience of this dreadful Government's performance over the past seven years.

I note that the Government's annual report has vanished. In 1997, when the Government came to power telling everyone that things can only get better - yes, we will all remember that record - they decided that an annual report would be published every year. I asked at the Vote Office today for last year's annual report. Surprisingly, there was not one; nor was there one the year before. I have asked parliamentary questions on matter. Exactly who paid £2.99 to purchase that garbage?

The reality is that the Government no longer issue an annual report because the general public realise that everything that the Government tell us is completely fictitious, but I make an offer to the Minister: if the Government feel that they can no longer raise the cash to publish an annual report, I should very much like to be given the job of issuing an annual report on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and I promise the House that I will be absolutely fair.

Tom Levitt: As I recall it, for the first two or three years after the 1997 election, Opposition Members had nothing better to do than argue from time to time that the annual report should be scrapped. Surely the hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that a listening Government are engaging so positively with the Opposition.

Mr. Amess: For goodness' sake, does the hon. Gentleman think that that will wash? He knows only too well that Government Members do not listen to, or act on, anything that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition say or do. If only it were different. The Government have dumped their annual report very quietly but some of us will not let them forget that that report, which we were told was crucial, has disappeared. I repeat my offer to write an annual report on the Government. I would be only too delighted.

Brian White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons for the Government ending the annual report was the action taken by the Select Committee on Public Administration? It suggested to the Government that there were better ways of dealing with such issues.

Mr. Amess: I am delighted to hear that that is the reason, but I am surprised that the Prime Minister has not made a statement to the House to apologise to the House and the country for the waste of taxpayers' money. If it is true that the report was scrapped because of the Public Administration Committee's report, I will be only too happy to remind the Prime Minister of that fact should I be lucky enough to have an opportunity to do so.

The idea that the Prime Minister and the Government are again embarking on a nationwide consultation is crazy. Does he honestly think that the general public will be taken in yet again by one more consultation exercise? The idea that the Government consult and listen if they receive an answer that they do not like does not reflect what happens. He should save the Government a great deal of money by abandoning the consultation, because the British people will tell him that, over the past seven years, the Government have absolutely failed to deliver on their promises. The gut feeling of the British people is that they have no confidence whatever in anything that the Government do or say. Fundamental to that is the issue of law and order, to which I will come shortly.

The Gracious Speech tells us:

"Delivering a world class education system that enables individuals to achieve their full potential remains my Government's main priority for Britain's future success. Educational reform will continue to raise standards in all schools."

We all agree with that, but all hon. Members know from their visits to schools that teachers complain endlessly about the extra burdens of regulation and administration. Teachers can no longer do that which they are best at - teaching - because of the constant interference from this dreadful Government.

Two weeks ago, I and others met the Minister for School Standards. Among the group was Councillor Sally Carr, the chairman of the Southend education committee, and we had a good meeting in which we discussed in detail the authority's financial settlement. However, the next settlement has been announced and it will simply not provide enough money to offer the education that the children who live in Southend deserve.

Tuition fees, on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition brilliantly chided the Government, are fundamental to this issue.

The Gracious Speech tells us:

"A Bill will be introduced to enable more young people to benefit from higher education. Upfront tuition fees will be abolished for all full-time students and a new Office For Fair Access will assist those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Universities will be placed on a sound financial footing."

Labour Members will groan at this, but I am what is described as a working-class Conservative. I come from an entirely working-class background in the east end of London and was born within hearing of Bow bells. The reason why I am a Conservative is that, unlike Labour Members, who are so good at describing poverty and dreadful living conditions but doing nothing about them, it is the Conservatives who believe that every woman and man, regardless of race, creed and finances, should be given the opportunity to make the most of their God-given talents.

That is why what this dreadful Labour Government are now going to do about tuition fees is so hypocritical. When I was given the opportunity to go on to higher education, my parents did not earn enough to make any contribution to the grant. I was one of those lucky individuals on a full grant. [Interruption.] There is no doubt - this is why Labour Members are embarrassed - that once the tuition fees kick in, they will definitely be a penalty against children of working-class parents who want to go into higher education. [Interruption.] It is no good Labour Members shaking their heads. That is what will happen.

Ian Stewart (Eccles) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that keeping up a running commentary from a sedentary position is not assisting the debate.

Mr. Amess: I have five children. Although some Members of Parliament say that we are not particularly well paid, by and large, we are pretty well paid in comparison with the rest of the population. I am now experiencing trying to pay for some of my children to enjoy higher education. I tell the Government now that burdening youngsters later with high debt, in the very early years of their working careers, will be an absolute disaster.

The reason why I find the Prime Minister's position completely untenable is that he leads the party that grew out of Keir Hardie, in whose seat, which was a working-class area, I fought my first parliamentary election in 1979. He is now betraying the many Labour Members who, in their heart of hearts, are still working class and want to support working-class people. I hope that, when it comes to the vote on that dreadful measure, they will do the right thing and vote against it.

The Gracious Speech tells us:

"My Government will continue to reform the National Health Service by giving more choice to patients, more freedom to NHS staff and more control over hospitals to local communities."

I am a member of the Select Committee on Health, an excellent Committee led by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who is a very fair-minded Chairman. There is no doubt that the Health Committee has found wanting the Government's policies, which they tell us are intended to give

"more choice to patients, more freedom to NHS staff and more control over hospitals to local communities".

All the arguments from academics that we read in our papers and journals say that the Government's obsession with sticking to targets is undermining clinical priorities. As long as they continue with that obsession, our wonderful national health service will continue to struggle.

There was a moment when the Prime Minister shook his head in despair at the Leader of the Opposition because he did not like what my right hon. and learned Friend said about asylum seekers, especially their children. We will have to see what eventually happens but it would be shameful if Government Members, who believe in their heart of hearts that it would be dreadful for asylum seekers' children to be taken into care, stood by and did nothing. Many Labour Members know that when the Government say, "Oh, this is stuff that the media have got wrong", that is not the case. The Conservative party intends to watch the measure on asylum seekers' children carefully.

I draw hon. Members' attention to early-day motion 1695, which the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) and I tabled in the previous Session. It called on the Government to allow asylum seekers to work while their applications were being considered. My views on the subject are well known. The Prime Minister and the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer have had some amusement about asylum seekers, who, I believe, should be in secure units while their applications are being processed. As they are not, it behoves the House to seek an alternative, and allowing them to work is an obvious solution.

The Gracious Speech stated that the Government wanted to

"take forward ... an incremental approach to a national identity cards scheme"

and that they would

"publish a draft Bill in the new year."

I introduced a ten-minute Bill on 12 May 1993 for voluntary personal security cards. It was the first time that a Bill, albeit a ten-minute measure, went unopposed. My supporters were Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. James Hill, Lady Olga Maitland, Dame Jill Knight, Sir John Hunt, Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Angela Knight, Mr. Ralph Howell and Sir John Wheeler. Apart from me, only one remains a Member of Parliament. I hope that we shall both be here when we do not simply talk about identity cards but do something about them. A lot of nonsense is spoken in resisting the change. Every human being has a birth certificate and when we die, a death certificate. Why does the bit in the middle - our lives - have to be a secret? I am not bothered about whether the Home Secretary has fallen out with another member of the Cabinet. The British people want identity cards and if the Government are serious about law and order, they should introduce them.

We hear yet again that there will be more antisocial behaviour orders, that the laws on domestic violence will be modernised and that a commissioner will be established to speak for the interests of victims and witnesses. The British people are sick and tired of Government gimmicks on law and order. Since the Home Secretary was appointed, there have been 30 Acts. We all know that despite the wonderful technology that is available today, there are not enough policewomen and policemen. There might be in the rest of the country, but that does not apply to Southend or Essex where the numbers are way down. All Members of Parliament know that the general public's first concern is law and order. They say, "Oh David, there's no point in reporting crime anymore. You can't get through to the call centre." When police eventually come along and take the details of whatever has been stolen, they simply shrug their shoulders and nothing is done. "But", they add, "you might get caught by a speed camera."

People see the unfairness of that. Law-abiding citizens who do a wonderful job in their communities can be criminalised for driving at 32 mph, while the big criminals get away with everything scot-free because there are not enough policewomen and policemen.

Mr. Kevan Jones: I am sad to hear that Southend has been passed by. County Durham has been given an extra 100 police officers and an extra 25 community support officers since 1997, and crime in my constituency has fallen by 50 per cent. What is unique about Southend?

Mr. Amess: I am delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and extremely jealous. As his constituency is doing so well in crime reduction, perhaps he will be magnanimous and encourage some of those extra 100 police officers to relocate to Southend. We are losing officers to the Met because they are paid £6,000 a year more than they would receive in our area. We have a terrible problem. Our policewomen and policemen are working hard to control the situation, but they do not have the numbers to deal with it properly. That is the biggest complaint that we hear from the public.

Given that the Prime Minister made his name with "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", it is about time he did something rather than continuing with these gimmicks. We have seen the introduction of curfews for children, for goodness' sake. I do not think one has ever been imposed anywhere - and it seems that we are to have yet more gimmicks. I ask the Government to do at least one sensible thing, and introduce identity cards.

The Queen's Speech tells us

"A Bill will also be brought forward to improve the delivery of fire and rescue services, ensuring that they can respond to the changing demands placed on them in the modern world."

I have the honour to be joint chairman of the all-party parliamentary fire safety group, which will examine that measure very carefully. While we welcome changes, it is of paramount importance that the professionalism of our firefighters is not undermined in any circumstances.

We are also told that the House of Lords will be reformed. The Government

"will remove hereditary peers and establish an independent Appointments Commission to select non-party members of the Upper House".

I am afraid that when I heard that I had to be scraped off the floor. The idea of the Government appointing non-political people in larger numbers than those who were truly independent is crazy.

The Prime Minister quoted an Ofsted report. Of course things are marvellous now, but the Government did not retain the last chief inspector of schools because he did not have so many good things to say about the Prime Minister. I am not in the least confident that the Government would appoint independent people to the House of Lords.

I am sorry that the House of Lords was sabotaged in the first place. The idea that there was always a Conservative majority there is nonsense. During 18 years of Conservative government, the House of Lords rejected Bills time after time. As the Labour Government have introduced more and more of their own appointees to the Lords, more and more have resisted their Bills. It has done the Government no good at all.

The Gracious Speech tells us that there will be a Bill

"to enable a referendum to be held on the adoption of the single currency subject to the Government's five economic tests being met".

Along with other Members I was in Rome yesterday, where we had interesting meetings on the single currency with Italian politicians. We were intrigued to learn that the Prime Minister was being feted by the left in Italy. The Italian experience was, "Do not, under any circumstances, enter the single currency at the moment." We should be very, very cautious, but we all know that the Government do not have the slightest intention of having a referendum on the single currency - this is yet another gimmick from them.

The Gracious Speech tells us that the Government

"is committed to improving the quality of people's day to day lives."

Wonderful, but when is that going to happen? We are told:

"Legislation will also be brought forward to improve traffic flows and manage road works more effectively."

Marvellous, but how on earth is that going to happen? I expect that we will have yet more gimmicks. I welcome the draft Bill on charities, which I understand will be published shortly and will

"modernise charity law and better enable charities to prosper."

I end with some brief remarks on what is not in the Gracious Speech. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) referred to an issue on which I feel very strongly - mobile phones.

Mrs. Caltonindicated dissent.

Mr. Amess: The hon. Lady, I thought, talked about the particular height of a mast.

Mrs. Calton: I was referring to Network Rail's telecommunication masts, not mobile phones generally.

Mr. Amess: I was going to make the same point about the nearness of a mast to properties. The situation whereby planning matters involving mobile phones are pushed from local authorities to the Government, backwards and forwards, is ridiculous. We have had many public meetings in Southend on the issue, but we have been told:

"That mast has been designed so that it looks like a flagpole ... it is Permitted Development under Par 24 of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995."

That is crazy. The Government are saying that they are introducing an important planning measure, but if a mobile phone mast is disguised as a flagpole it can go ahead.

Mobile phones are overused and what is happening is out of all proportion. I welcome the Government criminalising people using mobile phones as they drive along in cars. That will be unlawful from this month and I look forward to the Government enforcing it.

I am disappointed that there is no animal welfare Bill in the Queen's Speech - we had expected one. I introduced a ten-minute Bill on stray animals, which is a matter on which the Canine Defence League feels strongly as it tries to re-home animals. Later, when the so-called owner turns up, there could be civil litigation. I am also disappointed that there is no mental health Bill. The number of people who feel helpless because they cannot get the support they require for their mental health difficulties is a serious matter.

The private Member's Bill on fireworks introduced by a Labour Member was a step forward, but the Government will have to look at the issue again as we need to deal with the suppliers.

Is it any wonder that the Queen faltered when she uttered the words "national hunt" rather than "national health"? I suspect that her mind was wandering at that time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member long enough to know that he must not invoke Her Majesty in debate in the House.

Mr. Amess: I simply say that, for seven years, we have had a failing Government. I look forward to the time when I will be able to make a speech in favour of the Gracious Speech, but I feel that that will not happen until we have a Conservative Government re-elected. Judging by today's performance by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Leader of the Opposition, the Conservatives are coming home and we will once again have a Conservative Government.