Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

We now debate the Government's draft legislative programme—the list of Bills that we are considering for the next Session. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to see, as part of his constitutional reform agenda, stronger accountability of the Government to Parliament and greater engagement between Parliament and the people. The change in the way that we plan to announce our legislative programme marks a step forward in those respects. Here in Parliament we spend most of our time legislating, so it is right that Parliament should have early sight of the Government's thinking on what we will be asking it to consider. That will allow hon. Members to look at the overall shape of our programme before it is set in stone and will help members of the public and interested parties to give their views to hon. Members. This debate is to enable hon. Members to give their preliminary views on the draft legislative programme, which has been sent to all hon. Members and is on the Government's websites.

Officially, the contents of our legislative programme have always remained secret until the Queen's Speech at the state opening of Parliament. However, because of the necessary discussion that has to go on between Government Departments and stakeholders, information does of course get into the public domain, but it does so in the worst way—unofficially and piecemeal. Lobbying firms and political consultancies get paid millions of pounds to guess for their clients what is likely to be in the Queen's Speech. However, while bits and pieces are glimpsed unofficially, the work of the Government in putting together their legislative programme has hitherto gone on behind closed doors, with no one outside Government able to see the overview of the legislative programme as a whole until the whole thing is ready to steam ahead into Parliament. Those outside, because they have not been allowed to know before the Queen's Speech what the Government are doing, cannot have sensible discussions with the Government. This time last year, I knew that the draft coroners Bill was not in the legislative programme. Those concerned—coroners, organisations of bereaved relatives, and lawyers who specialise in inquest work—were lobbying for changes to the Bill. They would have been better off lobbying for the Bill to be in the legislative programme, but I could not tell them that what mattered at that stage was not some amendments but the fact that it was not even in the programme. It makes sense for people to be able to see the work that is under way in Government before it is set in tablets of stone. This does not in any way change the state opening, the Queen's Speech and the role of Her Majesty the Queen in setting out the Government's concluded plans for the Session.

The publication of our draft programme builds on a number of steps that we have taken to improve the ability of this House to scrutinise legislation. We already publish some Bills in draft. To date, we have published 58 Bills in draft since 1997. During this Session we published four bills in draft: the regulatory enforcement and sanctions Bill, the human tissue and embryos Bill, the climate change Bill and the local transport Bill. I recognise that we would all like to see more Bills published in draft. During the next Session, we intend to publish in draft an equalities Bill, a marine Bill, a heritage protection Bill and a cultural property and armed conflicts Bill.

I can announce today that following the publication of the draft Coroners Bill and its plain English translation, I have asked parliamentary counsel to produce alongside the draft marine Bill a plain language version in time for its introduction. It is my intention that in publishing our draft programme, we should work towards publishing at least one plain language version per Session.

There has also been the Public Bill Committee procedure which, during the current Session, has meant that Government Bills starting in the Commons after Christmas have been subject to additional scrutiny. The UK Borders Bill and the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill have been considered in this way. From the start of the next Session, all Government Bills starting in the Commons will be subject to this procedure, which, by the taking of oral and written evidence from Ministers and other interested parties, as with the Select Committee process, means that there is more extensive scrutiny.

David Wright (PPS (Rt Hon Jane Kennedy, Financial Secretary), HM Treasury; Telford, Labour)

I very much welcome the Government's move to increase scrutiny prior to the publication of Bills and draft Bills. Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider opportunities to lay out at an early point the amount of time each Bill will take during a Session, and how much time will be made available on the Floor of the House? In particular, could we consider opportunities to have two-day debates for the Second Reading of Bills, particularly for important ones?

Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

The Modernisation Committee has considered the amount of time available for Back Benchers when important Bills are introduced, and one of the proposals under consideration is the limitation of Front Bench speeches, so I shall move on quickly with the rest of my comments.

The draft legislative programme before the House is not, of course, the final programme. There will be further careful consideration of the Bills that should form part of our legislative programme both by the Cabinet Committee and by Cabinet. It is always possible that new priorities will emerge, and it is always possible that some Bills will not get to the finishing line because there are problems with the policy or the cost. Constraints of parliamentary time mean that the Government are limited to about 28 Bills per Session, so some will have to wait for the next one. If a Bill is not in the draft programme, that does not mean it is a dead duck. It may still come forward either as a gap emerges in the current programme, or in the next programme.

Theresa May (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, Parliament; Maidenhead, Conservative)

I have listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Lady's answer to David Wright, and to what she has said since, and I hoped that she would be able to give a commitment to the principle that two days would be given to Second Reading of some important Bills, and that more time should be given to Report and Third Reading on some occasions—a point raised by the Modernisation Committee. Report stage in particular should be given this time because it is an opportunity for Back Benchers who do not serve on a Bill's Committee to raise issues in the House.

Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

As the right hon. Lady knows, it is important for us to see whether we can give enough time on the Floor of the House to Bills that a number of hon. Members want to speak about. From time to time, that has been done, but I understand that there are proposals that the process should be more systematic and routine. Obviously, those will have to be considered.

I said that if a Bill is not in the draft programme, that does not mean that it will not come forward in the future, and nor does the draft legislative programme substitute for, or cut across, more detailed consultations on Bills that will be led by the Departments concerned. I am a firm believer that the more open the debate, the better the final outcome, and it is in that spirit that we have published the draft legislative programme.

I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for agreeing to undertake detailed scrutiny of this legislative programme. I and the Secretary of State for Justice are to give evidence to it in October. There will be public consultation meetings in each region, facilitated by the Government office in the region, and the Cabinet Office will co-ordinate that consultation process.

Simon Hughes (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

If consultation is to be meaningful and not thought to be a gimmick—I welcome the idea of that—will the Leader of the House undertake to ensure that a summary of consultation results will be available to colleagues, and that the consultation will end in sufficient time for it to be able to influence the outcome? People would know that the consultation would end by the first week in October, or something, we would see the results, and there would be a real dialogue with the Government in the month running up to the Queen's Speech.

Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

Of course we will publish the results of the consultation. Next year, one of the things we should do is start this process earlier, but it started under the new Prime Minister, so there is not as much time for people to consider the draft legislative programme as there will be next year. This is a truncated version of the process; I hope that hon. Members will bear with us and recognise that.

Mark Lazarowicz (PPS (David Cairns, Minister of State), Scotland Office; Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour)

In the other nations of the UK, where there are no regional offices, will the Scotland Office, Wales Office and Northern Ireland Office ensure similar consultation?

Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

I am sure that that will be the case. Our officials have liaised with officials in the devolved Administrations and I have discussed the process with the First Ministers in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

Having set out the reasons behind, and the process of publishing, our draft legislative programme, I will deal with its content. I do that simply by reminding the House of the Prime Minister's words on 11 July. He said that the programme seeks to

"respond to the rising aspirations of the British people"

by delivering

"new and better opportunities in education, employment and the provision of housing and health care,"

and ensuring

"that in a fast-changing world there is opportunity and security not just for some people, but for all the British people."—[ Hansard, 11 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 1449.]

There will be an education and skills Bill to enable all young people to stay in education or training till 18. There will be a new pensions Bill to ensure that all working people have the right to a workplace pension, with a duty on every employer to contribute towards it. There will be a new housing and regeneration Bill, which will help put affordable housing within the reach of those who cannot afford to buy or rent.

The planning reform Bill will implement the Eddington and Barker reports. The climate change Bill will introduce a legal framework for reducing carbon emissions in each five-year period to 2050.

There will be a health and social care Bill to create a stronger health and social care regulator and ensure better access for patients to clean and safe services. There will be Bills on children in care, and the Government have already introduced the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill for carry-over into the next Session. The unclaimed assets Bill will allow money in dormant bank accounts to go towards improving our country's youth and community facilities.

The regulatory enforcement and sanctions Bill will support business by keeping regulation of compliant businesses to a minimum, while targeting and penalising those that deliberately disregard the law. The employment simplification Bill will deliver simpler and fairer enforcement of the national minimum wage.

Protecting the security and safety of the British people is paramount for every Government, so we have introduced the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which will be carried over into the next Session, and we stand ready to include provisions that come from the review of policing by Sir Ronald Flanagan.

Many of the proposals that the Prime Minister set out to the House in his speech on the governance of Britain will be included in a constitutional reform Bill.

Theresa May (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, Parliament; Maidenhead, Conservative)

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for her generosity in giving way to me a second time. Several Bills that she mentioned will have financial provisions. Last week, the Government exercised parliamentary privilege and prevented the other place from debating amendments to the Pensions Bill, claiming that they were financial provisions and should not be debated again in the Lords. They could not therefore be brought back to the Chamber. Will the right hon. and learned Lady set out her definition of a money Bill as opposed to a Bill with financial provisions?

Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

I will write to the right hon. Lady and refer her to the precedents that exist. I expect her to ensure, as I will, that we sustain and defend the supremacy of this House.

Hon. Members have read the proposed legislative programme in our Green Paper, so I will say no more about the detail but give them the opportunity to present their views in the debate. I look forward to hearing hon. Members' views on not only the content but the process.

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield, Labour)

I want to ask about the constitutional reform Bill and its relationship with other measures. Many of us welcome its proposed provisions, not only those to rebalance the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, but those on devolution to the regions. However, the devolution mechanisms in the Bill and the people power elements in, for example, the housing and regeneration Bill, should be tied together in the consultations that will take place in the regions. If reform is perceived as a dry constitutional matter, it will not fire people with the enthusiasm that it would engender if the two measures were related in the consultation.

Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

My hon. Friend is right. However, I emphasise that, this time round, it will not be a Rolls- Royce process of consultation because we are starting late. We are simply putting a window on the front of Government activities. A great deal of activity goes on in preparing and planning the legislative programme. That is important in the context of what the House ultimately has to consider in the Government's proposed legislation. For the first time, people will be able to see the process before it is set in tablets of stone.

Theresa May (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, Parliament; Maidenhead, Conservative)

I welcome the opportunity for the House to debate the draft legislative programme. I also welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Lady listened to hon. Members' concerns and staged this debate separately from tomorrow's summer recess Adjournment debate. As she mentioned, the publication of the draft legislative programme was one of the proposals contained in the Prime Minister's statement on "The Governance of Britain", which also leads to the constitutional reform Bill.

I wish that I could welcome the Prime Minister's new-found commitment to Parliament. If only it were genuine! Much has been made of his determination to make statements to the House before briefing the media. When he made his statement on the constitution to the House, everyone was impressed that he had not gone on the "Today" programme to talk about it there first. After the previous Prime Minister, who was so obsessed with spin, here was a new Prime Minister who put Parliament first—at least, so said his spin doctors.

The Prime Minister's statement included proposals to allow Parliament to vote on whether we go to war, to request the dissolution and recall of Parliament, to ratify international treaties, and to scrutinise public appointments, as well as proposals to remove the prime ministerial power to appoint bishops. That was in the statement made on 3 July, but on 2 July The Daily Telegraph reported:

"Gordon Brown will this week propose...giving up royal prerogatives traditionally exercised by the prime minister, such as the power to declare war without parliamentary approval or to appoint bishops to the Church of England. The House of Commons will be given new powers, including the right for MPs to recall Parliament during a recess if there is a national emergency, to hold American-style confirmation hearings...and to ratify international treaties."

I imagine The Daily Telegraph just made five lucky guesses. The same must be true of The Independent's coverage of the right to trigger legislation by petition on 28 February, The Guardian's prediction of citizens' juries on 27 February and the predictions by The Times of a new ministerial code on 16 May and of a new Bill of Rights on 1 July. Before I talk about the draft legislative programme, I want to make one thing clear. All the bluster about announcing things to Parliament first was just that: bluster. There is already a whole list of examples of how the Prime Minister has treated Parliament and hon. Members with disdain.

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, promised in the previous Queen's Speech, will have its Second Reading in October, just a couple of weeks before the end of the Session. It is going to be a carry-over Bill, but the carry-over procedure was introduced for Bills that had nearly completed their parliamentary stages, not Bills at the very beginning. The Prime Minister has twice reversed policy—first on casinos, secondly on cannabis—in response to planted questions during Prime Minister's questions rather than in an oral statement, which would have given hon. Members the chance to ask questions of the Minister concerned. The Prime Minister has since insinuated to a press conference—not to Parliament—that he might reverse the liberalisation of licensing laws. Those proposals are not in the draft legislative programme.

As we discussed in a previous debate this evening, the Prime Minister has also confirmed that Parliamentary Private Secretaries will sit on Select Committees. They might not be formal members of the Government, but they work for Ministers. That is a conflict of interest, but the Prime Minister has ignored it. As I mentioned in my intervention on the right hon. and learned Lady, the Prime Minister also opted to use parliamentary privilege to override the other place, after it voted for a lifeboat fund to compensate properly the 125,000 people who have lost their pension savings. If the Prime Minister trusts Parliament, why has he completely ignored the wishes of the other place?

The Prime Minister is also ready to sign the latest EU treaty, as he made clear in Prime Minister's questions today, which would subjugate the Westminster Parliament to the institutions of the European Union. The conclusions of the previous European Council state:

"National parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union".

The Prime Minister, who supposedly believes in the sovereignty of Parliament, is therefore happy to sign a treaty that places upon Parliament an obligation to do whatever the European Court of Justice decides is for the "good functioning" of the European Union. No, the Prime Minister does not believe in putting Parliament first.

In relation to the proposed legislation in the draft legislative agenda, I said earlier that we had heard most of the statement on the constitution in the media before the Prime Minister made his statement. That was down to spin. However, we had heard most of the draft Queen's Speech many times over, throughout the Prime Minister's career. That was down to his failure to deliver. So why should people believe that he is going to deliver now, after all this time?

Furthermore, why should we believe that the Government will deliver what is in this legislative programme when they have failed to deliver several Bills in their previous legislative programme? According to the Leader of the House's website, the following Government Bills for 2006-07 have not yet had their First Reading: the Climate Change Bill, the counter-terrorism Bill, the protection of cultural property during armed conflict Bill, the House of Lords Bill, the Human Tissues and Embryos Bill, the local government regulation office Bill, the party funding Bill and the road transport Bill.

Three of those Bills are actually in this draft legislative programme, but that should not be a surprise, because every single one of the 23 Bills proposed in the Prime Minister's statement has been announced before. For the information of hon. Members, and for the record, here are the relevant dates: the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill, December 2006; the children in care Bill, June 2007; the Climate Change Bill, March 2007; the constitutional reform Bill, July 2007; the Coroners Bill, June 2006; the counter-terrorism Bill, June 2007; the criminal justice Bill, July 2006; the Crossrail Bill, February 2005; the education and skills Bill, March 2007; the employment simplification Bill, March 2007; the energy Bill, May 2007; the European Communities (Finance) Bill, June 2007; the health and social care Bill, February 2007; the housing and regeneration Bill, March 2004; the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, December 2006; the Local Transport Bill, May 2007; the national insurance contributions Bill, March 2007; the pensions Bill, May 2006; the planning reform Bill, May 2007; the planning gain supplement Bill, March 2007; the regulatory enforcement and sanctions Bill, May 2007; the sale of student loans Bill, March 2007; and the unclaimed assets Bill, May 2005. A total of 23 bills, and not a single one of them is new.

Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that he wanted more houses to be built. But he has said that before. He once said:

"What would a Labour Government do today? We will get Britain building homes again".

That was in 1994. Three weeks ago, he said that he wanted to develop long-term fixed-rate mortgages. But he has said that before, too. He once said that he wanted to

"develop a market for long-term fixed rate mortgages—something that is important to the UK".—[ Hansard, 9 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 279.]

That was in 2003. Three weeks ago, he said that he wanted to develop eco-towns, but he has said that before. His Housing Minister once said that the Government would

"create small scale eco-community developments rather than individual homes".

That was in 2006.

Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to use unclaimed assets to spend on youth and community centres, but he has said that before, too. He once said:

"Today I can announce an agreement with the banks and building societies that unclaimed assets held in bank accounts will be put to use to improve youth and community facilities".—[ Hansard, 5 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 613.]

That was in 2005. Three weeks ago, he said that he wanted to raise the school leaving age. But he has said that before. He once said:

"New proposals—universal education after sixteen".

That was in 1996.

So I do not know how the Prime Minister can claim that he is some kind of a new start. He is not a new start; he is a broken old record. And talking of records, the Prime Minister has missed this opportunity to put right his record. On his watch, 125,000 people have lost their pension savings. Where is the legislation to compensate them properly? On his watch, home ownership started to fall for the first time since records began. So why will people trust him to deliver more housing? On his watch, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has passed 1 million. So why will people trust him to create opportunities for young people? On his watch, the NHS has been plunged into deficit and forced to make swingeing cuts. Where is the action to stop the cuts? Where is the Bill to increase NHS autonomy and accountability? On his watch, violent prisoners have been released because there is not enough space for them in jail. Where is the legislation to ensure that criminals get what they deserve?

In 2004, the Government committed themselves to introducing a marine Bill. The 2005 Labour manifesto, on which the right hon. and learned Lady was elected, promised to introduce a marine Bill during this Parliament. Where is it? And what about women? Only last week, the right hon. and learned Lady came to the House to make a particularly vacuous statement on her agenda for women, yet there is nothing in this legislative programme specifically for women. Where is the action on equal pay? Where is the action on human trafficking? Where is the help for the families who use a relative or neighbour to care for a child?

As the legislative programme is rolled out, there will be Bills that we support and, where we do, we will engage constructively with Ministers. Indeed, we encouraged the Government to introduce a climate change Bill and I am pleased to see that they are doing so. As another example, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear today, we will work with the Prime Minister in making the country more secure against terrorists.

On the whole, however, the draft Queen's Speech is a massive disappointment. The public wanted a change from the Blair years, but this legislative programme is not the answer to the country's needs, because this Prime Minister is not the answer to the country's needs, because he is not the change that the people want. He is not a change. His disdain for Parliament, his lack of new ideas, his spin and stealth are no change. It is just the same old Labour.

Fraser Kemp (Houghton & Washington East, Labour)

I shall be brief. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on a unique parliamentary occasion: a discussion of the draft legislative programme. In the past, the programme has remained the preserve of a few people in the higher echelons of Government, but now the entire House has the opportunity to participate in it. Whatever disagreements hon. Members have with the programme, the fact that we can debate it here is a very welcome step forward indeed. I believe that most Members agree with it.

There is a great deal in the programme, but I shall mention three Bills that I believe will impact on my constituency and on others. Few Members, councillors or elected officials can help feeling a sense of hopelessness and anger when constituents approach them about problems with public transport services within their communities. I believe that the problem is particularly acute for Members who represent areas that are geographically isolated and have statistically low car usage. No one disagrees that bus operators should be able to make a profit, but we must ensure that they continue to provide an essential public service. They receive a substantial public subsidy, and with that should go a clear responsibility to ensure an effective public service. I hope that the draft Bill will have real teeth for elected local authorities to ensure effective public transport in their communities.

Members often present petitions before the House and we sometimes meet the managing directors of our bus companies. Occasionally, we have a little bit of success, but there is a major problem, as everyone's postbag over the last few months will confirm. When these problems are compounded, they can lead to genuine hardship and isolation. It is often the elderly, and, indeed, the young, trying to take advantage of employment opportunities, who live in these isolated areas and experience transport problems. I believe that the Local Transport Bill will be widely welcomed in the House and outside in the wider community.

Secondly, I would mention the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill. Much attention will rightly be focused on the question of child maintenance, but I shall make particular mention of the other payments side of it. The Bill includes a commitment to set up a scheme for lump-sum compensation for people suffering from asbestos-related diseases.

My constituency used to have a chemical works, owned by Turner and Newall, which made asbestos products for 80 years. The consequences were dire not just for the work force, but for their families as well. My grandfather worked there after he left the services after the first world war and my own aunt has asbestos-related disease. She has it because my grandmother washed my grandfather's overalls. That shows how insidious this disease is and how much hardship it creates. As I said, it is not just those workers who are affected, but their families and others who worked in shipyards, plumbing and a range of other industries.

It is brave and honourable to recognise what happened there. The people who suffer from this disease have pretty dreadful lives, with all the disadvantage and pain that goes with it. This lump-sum compensation may make a little bit of difference to however many years these people have left. The Government are acting wholly honourably by including this measure in the next legislative programme.

Finally, the education and skills Bill is more important than any other Bill for securing long-term economic prosperity and success for this nation. It offers an opportunity for a national crusade to engrain in the nation's psyche the importance of the skills and education agenda.

The impact of globalisation hits us all. Seven years ago, a group of women workers in my constituency who were in textiles and made garments for Marks and Spencer lost their jobs. Marks and Spencer made the commercial decision to source those goods from the far east and China. The argument then was all about low wages and low skills, and how we could compete with them. Over the next three years, by 2010, China will produce more PhDs than the whole of the United States. The argument is no longer about trying to compete on low wages and skills; it is about competing on skills alone. We need Ministers to sell the Bill. I hope that whatever specific disagreements we might have on different sides of the Chamber, we can have a form of national unity on the importance of developing the skills agenda.

I recently took part in a "state of the city" debate in the city that I represent—Sunderland. I was asked a question by a member of our local Youth Parliament: what sort of jobs did I think they, as young people, would have in 30 years' time? The question made me think. It was very perceptive. I thought about what the economy was like when I left school just over 30 years ago in my constituency and what we thought about the future. The economy was dominated by mining, shipbuilding and heavy and light engineering. That is what we did. In many ways, we thought that it would go on.

If I had predicted 30 years ago that we would lose shipbuilding, mining and other industries, while at the same time predicting that employment levels would be higher, people would not have believed it. If I had predicted that in 30 years' time my local area would produce 380,000 cars a year—remember the state of the British car industry and its reputation in the 1970s—and that some would be exported to Japan, not many people would have believed it. I would not have believed it. Yet that has been the pace of change in the past 30 years. Although it is difficult to predict the future, we can say that whatever the pace of change has been in the past 30 years, the pace of change in the next decade will be as quick.

David Wright (PPS (Rt Hon Jane Kennedy, Financial Secretary), HM Treasury; Telford, Labour)

Does my hon. Friend agree that small and medium-sized enterprises will be crucial in the crusade to upskill people in the UK economy? A key aspect of the Bill needs to be to provide support to small and medium-sized enterprises so that they can give young people time off to take advantage of training opportunities. That is crucial. I hope he agrees that we need a strong commitment to that. We need to ensure that we check up on employers to ensure that they are giving that time to young people in particular.

Fraser Kemp (Houghton & Washington East, Labour)

I certainly agree. When I talk to employers in the constituency, particularly in small and medium-sized firms, the one thing they constantly say is, "We need a work force that has constantly improving skills and levels of education." Employers recognise that if they are to be competitive within a global economy, they need a highly skilled work force. They realise that it is in their interests, to their benefit and for the profitability of their companies to ensure that we have that level of skills. Young people certainly need it.

I wanted to mention only those three Bills. We should grasp the challenges of the future. We have lived through a period of change over the past 30 years, but the speed of change will quicken in the future. The train is leaving the station and we have a choice: either we can get on it or it will leave us behind. It is crucial that education and skills are taken seriously. We must get out there and sell that message. We must convince everyone—young people who have not yet entered the job market and those who are already in work. Adaptability—the ability to change jobs—is important. The tradition of being in the same employment for many years will disappear. Only if we sell education and skills and convince people that they are important will we have a reasonable chance of securing this country's long-term economic future.

Simon Hughes (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

We welcome the opportunity to discuss the programme for the coming year. As my right hon. and learned Friend Sir Menzies Campbell said on 11 July when the Prime Minister made his statement, it is right that we should move from legislation being cooked up in secret and announced on one day with a fanfare of trumpets—albeit that it had usually been leaked beforehand, with everyone pretending one thing was happening when it was not—to a system of honest and open discussion in which the Government say at the outset, "This is what we are thinking," and at the end say, "This is our final view." That is a much better process. We welcome it, and will co-operate on it.

We also welcome the honesty of the Leader of the House. This parliamentary year will operate from the arrival of the new Prime Minister at the end of June, so time is inevitably foreshortened. We understand and accept that. However, I made the point in an intervention that that should not mean that consultations should not be considered, and it will not be helpful if ideas are not taken on board. Flexibility will be required, as will hard work in October by civil servants and others employed in Departments, and Ministers must be honest about any good ideas that are suggested. We look forward to that.

My position and that of my fellow Liberal Democrat Members can be summarised by saying— [Interruption.] Although none of them is present, as I have been their colleague for so many weeks, months and years, they trust me to speak for them. Our position is that Governments have often legislated in haste and introduced measures that we subsequently regret. Legislation, legislation, legislation is no substitute for good administration, but it has often been used as a substitute for it.

I checked up on three Departments. In the past 10 years, we have had 11 Health Bills, four Health White Papers and seven Health Green Papers. We have had 11 Education Bills, nine Education White Papers and 11 Green Papers. We have also had 60 Home Office Bills. Much of that proposed legislation has not been thought through; much of it has been undone, as the Government have returned and said, "We want to change it"; and much of it has never been implemented—we pass it, but it never takes effect. My strongest plea to the Leader of the House and her colleagues is, please do not introduce any Bill that we do not absolutely need. Legislation should be the last resort, not the first resort. Usually, what is needed is administration—not new laws, but other steps.

As the Leader of the House knows, one of the results of all the laws we have passed is that there are more than 3,000 new offences. That is not a healthy route to go down. The test I always apply is whether legislation increases liberty or authority. We have experienced 10 years in which the trend has been towards authority—by and large, although not without exception—and away from liberty. We need the trend to be in the other direction.

My second test is whether legislation increases individual people's power and local power, rather than central power. There have been some very centralising proposals. The national health service is still one of the most centralised services in the world, and real devolution to local people and communities is desperately needed. One of the measures by which we will judge any legislative proposal is whether it gives local government a real opportunity to be influential and powerful—as opposed to its being said that something will happen but its not being the case. The same test applies to the devolved Administrations. The Government need to understand that in devolving government to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, they must actually devolve it. There are bits that they still hang on to, and so far they have not been willing to go down the road of a federal United Kingdom in which its four countries can have real autonomy in many of their own affairs.

Stewart Hosie (Spokesperson (Economy; Home Affairs; Treasury; Women); Dundee East, Scottish National Party)

The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting point that fits in with much of what the Government have said in the past few weeks about transparency and opening matters up. How far would his party go in devolving more power? How far would he go down the route of fiscal autonomy? Would he support a call from other parties for the devolution of corporation tax to the devolved Administrations?

Simon Hughes (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

The honest answer is that we want to go much further. At our autumn party conference, we will debate a proposal for the same form of constitutional convention for the UK as in Scotland—involving not just politicians but business, the unions and faith groups, among others—so that we can achieve such devolution. That would include thinking through the financial settlement across the United Kingdom. If one believes in a federal United Kingdom, as I have all my years, that must be the consequence.

Alex Salmond (Parliamentary Leader (Westminster); Banff & Buchan, Scottish National Party)

The hon. Gentleman is on to an interesting train of thought. Given that the Scottish Parliament was established by a referendum, does he think that that proposal, once thought through, would have to be put to a referendum of the Scottish people?

Simon Hughes (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I have a very clear view about that, too, which is that if a constitutional convention for the United Kingdom comes up with proposed changes to the constitutional structure of the relationship between the four countries—including, in my view, the way in which we elect our Parliament and what we do in this building—then, yes, that needs to be endorsed by a vote not just in Scotland but across the United Kingdom. One clearly cannot alter the constitutional relationship in a big way without that change. That is why we supported, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, what happened after the constitutional conventions in Scotland, and in Wales and Northern Ireland when they moved, with the assent of their populations, to that conclusion.

On the constitutional reform Bill, the Government need to go further. So far, we have seen proposals for a welcome transfer of powers, but as our previous debates have indicated, there is still a lot further to go. Pursuant to the point made earlier by Sir Nicholas Winterton and others, I hope that we will see the day when the business of Parliament is fixed by Parliament in consultation with Government, not by Government in consultation with Parliament. The agenda should be set here—it should of course accommodate what the Government came to power to implement—rather than the Government by grace and favour allowing Parliament opportunities to do other things.

I observe that in the list of the other 22 Bills, the Government have made provision literally from the cradle to the grave. Indeed, in the words of a joke one might think of, they have made provision from the womb to the tomb. There is a Human Tissue and Embryos Bill at one end of the life cycle and a coroners Bill at the other, so all the seven stages of man—and woman—are catered for. To that extent, the list is certainly comprehensive. Mrs. May made the good point, however, that none of this is new. I will not repeat the litany that she gave, but it is absolutely true that if ever we wanted evidence that this is a continuing Government, not a new one—with a Prime Minister who, although a new individual, is continuing the agenda—the evidence is here in front of us.

I want to pick out one or two important implications. There are five Bills relating to the children, young people and education agenda, which is important. I share the view expressed a moment ago by Mr. Kemp that unless we have a child maintenance and other payments system that means that parents pay what they are meant to pay, all the shouting over the past 10 years about the Child Support Agency will have been in vain. That system has failed, and it needs to work. We all have constituents who are the victims of the system not working.

Children in care, which is still a hugely important issue, is also on the agenda. Ministers will know that many of the people who end up in prison have been in care at some stage in their lives; there is a sad link. Many people are still waiting for adoption. We do not have adequate fostering or enough people to foster. We need to ensure that those children who, through no fault of their own, end up in care get a much better quality of care, so that the risk that they will go wrong later in life is much reduced.

In relation to education and skills, the borough that the Leader of the House and I represent—like the area represented by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East—had a tradition, certainly on its northern side, of people working in the docks, but the docks are no longer there and the education needs have changed. However, I hope that we do not go blindly in the direction of academic education for everyone until the age of 18. Many of my constituents want vocational education, and they can benefit from experience of the workplace at the top end of primary school. They benefit from doing paid work at weekends when they are in their middle years of secondary school. They want to be able to understand the world of work, and some of them have never had the experience of anybody in their home working. It is therefore important that education and skills are not seen as being solely about academic attainment. We need skills upgrades, but we also need to train people for practical things, such as constructing buildings so that we do not have to import people—as London is doing now—to do it. We could use our own young people to do the construction work not only for the Olympics, but all over Britain.

I know that the Leader of the House has always been vocal about youth services and I am glad that the Government have been able to find more money for youth services through the unclaimed assets Bill. We will have to check whether it is entirely compatible with human rights legislation, given that someone else left that money in the bank, but we need more investment in youth services. Everybody now recognises that, and if the Bill is a quick-fix way to do that, in partnership with local communities, it will be a good thing to do.

On housing and planning, there will be three Bills. One is, sadly, insufficient and the other two on planning are controversial. On the Housing and Regeneration Bill, we do not yet see the mechanisms for delivering the social housing, at a cost people can afford, to rescue Britain from the shortage of housing, terrible debts, high mortgages and crippling rents outside the social housing sector. My borough is not untypical and we have waiting lists of thousands for social housing. We had a statement on housing the other day and there was an almost deafening silence from Ministers on council housing, which appears to be still off the agenda. Many people believe that council housing is a good thing. Many people like living in council housing and believe that councils can be more responsive than housing associations, housing trusts, arm's length management organisations or tenant management organisations. I hope that the Government have heard the message loud and clear from authorities and parties around the country that what is now called the fourth option—the right of councils to say, as mine is doing, that they will not sell off their housing stock or set up an ALMO—should be an option for every council, certainly in England.

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is giving a considered view of housing policy, but I can tell him that as far as the vast majority of the parliamentary Labour party is concerned, council housing is back on the agenda. I have a question for him. What will he do to stop Liberal Democrat councillors running opportunistic campaigns against housing schemes wherever they are suggested?

Simon Hughes (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I believe in devolution, and local people have to judge what is appropriate for their area. It is not for us in the centre to say what is right for Reading, Washington or Maidenhead. It is a matter for community debate and decision. It is necessary to respond to needs, but they differ around the country. Decisions on how to meet need—be it through council housing or selling off housing stock—should be taken locally, without force or bribery. The Labour party conference has made it clear that it wants councils to be able to build and let housing. The Leader of the House is also deputy leader of the Labour party and she knows that too, but my point is that we did not hear much about that we when had exchanges on the subject here the other day. I want to make sure that the matter is kept on the agenda. We will not let up on our efforts to make sure that it is, and I hope that colleagues on the Labour Back Benches will do the same.

Mark Todd (South Derbyshire, Labour)

If we are to permit local councils to construct homes again, and if we are to provide the resources for them to do so, would the hon. Gentleman concede that there should be some sort of quality test on their ability to perform that function adequately? My instinct is very strongly in favour of what my hon. Friend Martin Salter has said, but we have an obligation to prevent councils that have struggled with their existing management function from extending their housing stock.

Simon Hughes (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

We certainly do not want to build poor-quality housing, and the old Parker Morris standards were good. I applaud the fact that the Government want a decent homes initiative to make sure that standards are upgraded, and I am not arguing that councils should build frequently and build cheap. On the contrary, I am arguing that they should build to last, and the really good housing that people like to live in is housing that is built to last. We must adopt that approach again.

I absolutely understand that we must not compromise on standards, but the big question is whether there is a real commitment to putting in the finance and giving councils the power of general competence. That freedom would mean that they are not told what to do by central Government.

Mark Todd (South Derbyshire, Labour)

I think that the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood my question, which was whether he thought that some sort of quality test should be applied to a council's governance and management of housing, and to its ability to provide decent housing stock. However, I accept everything that he said about the stock itself.

Simon Hughes (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I am sorry: I did hear that question, but did not deal with it. In the end, the quality test is applied by the electorate, with the help of the district auditor and all the performance standards tests for local government that are now carried out regularly. Much better peer-group analysis is available, but the quality test that the hon. Gentleman seeks comes when local people decide whether their council is good or bad, and whether it is run well or badly.

I turn now to the planning gain supplement Bill and the planning reform Bill. The idea that big planning decisions will be taken by a quango and not by accountable councils or Ministers is not one that I favour. The quango can advise, if that is what the Government want, but big planning decisions must come with political accountability and they cannot be taken out of the political forum.

In addition, the current system works well. The proposal means that large portions of the planning gain money—section 106 money—can be hoovered to central Government for redistribution. That is very problematic and, although the Prime Minister has said that it is to go out for consultation, I hope that the Bill that is eventually considered by this House will contain a different approach that respects local autonomy.

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, but I want to press him on this matter. Some major strategic decisions have to be made. They may involve airports, or ports, or even the third Thames bridge for the Reading area that Mrs. May and I have advocated tirelessly. However, it is the devil's own job to get four or five councils to agree to do anything in a strategic way. Does he accept that sometimes, and for the good of a region, central Government must take the tough decisions?

Simon Hughes (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

That is exactly what I was arguing. The summary of the Government's draft legislative programme states that the purpose of the planning reform Bill is to

"Streamline and improve planning including introducing a single consents regime for major infrastructure projects, establishing an independent infrastructure planning commission".

That is a quango, not a Minister. I am in favour of big schemes being decided by Ministers. Yesterday, for example, the Secretary of State for Transport gave her approval to Thameslink. I do not like some of the implications for my patch, but I can have a go at her, question her and call her to account. We need to have that sort of system for planning.

On local transport, we are concerned that the Government are forcing local councils to run road pricing pilots as a sort of bribe to get the schemes that they want, whereas we believe that a national pricing scheme would be a better way forward. We would also like a national pricing scheme to be introduced for lorries. Other countries operate that system, and it seems to work well.

Moreover, greater powers over bus regulation must have the local accountability for which the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East called. That is not as huge an issue in London as it is in rural and suburban Britain. Public services may be contracted out to private tenderers, but they must be subject to democracy. For that to work, we need an accountability that really works, rather than leaving everyone involved to say, "Nothing to do with me, guv."

On work and pensions, there is a proposal for an employment simplification Bill. In parenthesis, I welcome simpler text in legislation and I seriously hope that eventually all Bills will be readable and understandable by the public. As Ministers know, in Committee, I regularly make the plea that Bills be written in a logical order, so that definitions are not followed by the substance; the Bill should start with a statement of what it is about and then amplify it. The issue is serious. If what we do is to be understood, Bills should not be readable only by lawyers who are paid to do the job.

On employment simplification, there is one grievance that I hope will be addressed. At present, someone with an exemplary record—perhaps for 25 years—can be summarily dismissed after one breach of good conduct, which does not have to be violence or dishonesty. We need to consider restoring a yellow and red card system in employment that does not give such great powers to employers.

I could highlight many of the proposals, but my final selection is the measure on health and social care provision. I welcome the general proposals to integrate the various regulatory and supervisory bodies. My constituency experience, like that of other Members, is that in this rich country we do not yet provide an adequate standard of care for our old and our vulnerable. Too often, the local and national press describe how people are abused and exploited. We need well-qualified staff, effective regulation and effective action when things go wrong, so that there are not repeated occasions when we say, "Oh that was terrible, those people were treated so badly."

Today, there were statements about counter-terrorism and emergency powers and I shall not repeat our arguments about them. The draft legislation process is a good one and we shall take part in it constructively, but the test of whether it enhances the credibility of the Government and Parliament is whether the Government listen, respond and, to return to my starting point, legislate only when nothing else will do—when the general mood in the House is that legislation is the right way to proceed after showing us the draft, listening to our answers and eventually agreeing the best and shortest text.

Mark Lazarowicz (PPS (David Cairns, Minister of State), Scotland Office; Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour)

I, too, welcome the fact that we are having this debate on the Government's draft programme, not just because it gives Back-Bench MPs and even the tiniest of minority Opposition parties a chance to comment on the Government's proposals, but also because, as we have heard, it allows the public to be involved in the process. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will understand from my earlier intervention how keen I am to ensure that consultation takes place in all the nations of the UK.

The announcement of the draft programme is also welcome because it deals with one of the most striking anomalies in our constitution, whereby every year the monarch is made to read a speech that she has not written, and with which she may disagree heartily, and has to pretend that it is her programme, which she is bringing as a surprise to Parliament. We all know that is not the reality, so the announcement of the draft programme makes it clear that political responsibility for the programme lies with the Government, while recognising the monarch's role as Head of State in the formal ceremony. It is a welcome element of modernisation in our proceedings at Westminster.

I shall speak briefly about four specific aspects of the measures outlined in the draft programme. I hope the Government will take my comments on board. The first issue is housing, on which the draft programme makes a number of legislative proposals, reflecting the commitment made by the new Prime Minister to meet housing need, especially for first-time buyers. That is particularly important in many parts of the country, not least in my constituency.

Housing legislation is, as it should be, devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but decisions at UK level can have as important an impact on housing provision in Scotland as in England or Wales. If changes were made to VAT and stamp duty—I have no idea whether that is in anyone's mind—such matters would certainly be decided at UK level. The Government's welcome proposals to encourage more long-term fixed-rate mortgages would benefit house buyers in all parts of the UK. Similarly, the proposals to make Government land available for housing also have relevance for Scotland, particularly given the opportunities for the development of Ministry of Defence property.

Mark Todd (South Derbyshire, Labour)

I wonder whether my hon. Friend noted in the smaller print a reference to dealing with Travellers' housing needs. I hope that any such Bill will attempt to provide greater certainty both in the planning of appropriate sites for Travellers to occupy and to develop for their own housing purposes, and in greater guidance on the role of local authorities in providing accommodation and sites for them in the future. Certainty has been lost through past legislative decisions made by the Conservative party.

Mark Lazarowicz (PPS (David Cairns, Minister of State), Scotland Office; Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour)

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will have heard what my hon. Friend has just said and will take on board his helpful comments.

The Government have announced proposals that will have beneficial consequences for housing provision in Scotland, as well as in the rest of the UK. There are other ways in which the UK Government can help my constituents and people elsewhere in Scotland to get on to the housing ladder, not least by using the influence that the Government have with the big banks and financial institutions to find funds at favourable rates to build new houses for first-time buyers and affordable housing. A lot can by done by the financial institutions themselves—for example, by promoting shared equity, which can certainly be encouraged in Scotland, as much as elsewhere in the UK, by the Government's actions.

I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity when she replies to the debate to make it clear that the Government's decision, and the Prime Minister's announcement, that they will make housing a top priority applies to the whole UK, not just to England and Wales. I want the Government and the Scottish Executive to work together constructively to ensure that housing is a priority throughout all the nations of the UK.

I hope that the Scottish Executive will make as radical a commitment to affordable housing in areas such as mine in Edinburgh as the UK Government have made for England. I also hope that the Scottish Executive will take advantage of the new measures announced by the UK Government, to which I have just referred, to ensure that my constituents can benefit from the same type of ambitious programme that I am pleased to say the Government have announced for the rest of the UK.

Mention was also made by colleagues in the earlier discussions of the planning gain proposals in the draft programme. Again, as my hon. Friend the Minister will know, that legislation will be taken forward on a UK basis. There is some debate in England and Wales about the degree to which the funds raised by the planning gain supplement, if it is introduced, will be applied locally, as opposed to centrally. It is clear that, in England at least, by far the biggest proportion of any funds raised under the planning gain supplement will be spent locally to provide for local housing and infrastructure needs.

Although things may have moved forward, the proposals last year provided that in Scotland, the funds would be allocated directly to the Scottish Executive, with no provision to allocate them to the areas in which they were raised. When we have an Administration in Scotland who have proposed lots of spending plans without the means of paying for them, we have an Administration who are certainly very ready to take any extra finances made available to them, although those finances would be raised from local communities. I hope that a similar commitment to ensure that funds raised from local communities will be applied for their benefit will apply to Scotland as well. I hope that that Minister will take on board that point in the discussions on the planning gain supplement proposal.

Stewart Hosie (Spokesperson (Economy; Home Affairs; Treasury; Women); Dundee East, Scottish National Party)

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman may not be aware that when we debated the matter previously I opposed the planning gain supplement process for Scotland, precisely because every penny went to the Scottish Government and not one penny was guaranteed to return to the locales from which it came—as he wants it to. I am sure that—given that the First Minister is present—the Scottish Government will take on board everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying, but having a little dig like that, when he is unfamiliar with the arguments that have been made in the House previously, was slightly inappropriate.

Mark Lazarowicz (PPS (David Cairns, Minister of State), Scotland Office; Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour)

I am very much aware of the arguments that were made in the House. In fact, I think—although my recollection may be wrong—that I was in the House for that debate at the same time as the hon. Gentleman. I think that we might even have intervened on each other. At this stage I do not want to argue for or against the planning gain supplement. I just want to make sure that the same principle as will apply in England—that the purpose of any planning gain tax is to assist local communities to develop their infrastructure—will also apply in Scotland. If the intervention from the hon. Gentleman, who seemed to be getting the endorsement of Mr. Salmond, means that that is also the policy of the Scottish Executive, I welcome that commitment and I am sure that colleagues in Scotland will take that on board in debates in the Scottish Parliament.

Flooding is an issue that has been at the forefront of all our minds over the last few days. The flooding reminds us that new housing has to take account of changes in the environment and should be constructed so as to ensure that it is energy-efficient and that the building sector can contribute to the reduction of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions.

That brings me to another issue: energy consumption by households and fuel poverty—an issue of particular relevance to parts of the UK where the climate is not always as warm as it is elsewhere. Whatever else happens, it is likely that energy prices are, in the long run, going to continue to go up—as a result of market trends and perhaps also of packages of measures designed to encourage reduced energy use. We all know that for some householders, rises in energy prices have led to more fuel poverty. Although there has been a drop in energy prices this year, the overall trend in energy prices has been, and will no doubt continue to be, upwards.

The Government have done a lot to tackle fuel poverty, but it is essential that vulnerable consumers are protected against the effects of the increases, both through financial measures and by helping to make their homes more energy-efficient. In the energy White Paper, the Government said, in effect, that they expected energy companies to do more to protect vulnerable consumers and that if they did not, the Government would consider making them do so by bringing forward legislation—for example, to promote the wider use of social tariffs by energy companies.

Some energy companies have risen to the challenge of recognising the social needs of more vulnerable consumers, but not all have done so. I hope that when the Government come to assess the degree to which the energy companies as a whole have responded to the call set out in the energy White Paper, they will decide whether there is a case for introducing in the energy Bill that we are promised later in the year proposals to ensure that all energy companies meet the needs of consumers who have suffered from the effects of rising energy prices.

I want to turn to two other areas of policy related to the environment. I was delighted to understand from the comments made by the Leader of the House that the marine Bill will be brought forward in draft form as part of the legislative programme. A long-running campaign, launched by WWF in particular, has had a lot of support. It highlights the fact that both wildlife and our citizens rely on a healthy and productive marine environment for their future well-being. There is a need for marine legislation. I know that marine legislation is a complex area, and the UK Government and the devolved Administrations have important issues to resolve between themselves, but I hope that draft legislation is brought forward at an early stage, so that the definitive Bill can be introduced soon after that.

Another environmental issue that is moving higher and higher up the political agenda is the Government's proposal for a Climate Change Bill. I am glad that it has been confirmed that the Bill will be in next year's legislative programme, and I hope that it will be brought forward at an early date. The Joint Committee on the Draft Climate Change Bill had a thorough discussion on the proposals in the draft Bill. My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and I have been members of the Committee, so she knows that there has been thorough consultation, and because of that, there is an opportunity to bring forward the Bill at an early stage; I hope that that will happen.

When the Joint Committee examined the draft Bill, two things came home to me: first, I realised the overwhelming importance of taking action, and secondly I realised how pioneering the Bill is. In the Committee's public sessions, comments from people in China, California and the European Union made it clear that our Climate Change Bill is likely to encourage other countries to follow suit. The Bill is a good example of the Government showing real international leadership, and I certainly welcome that. That is why I hope that the Bill will be introduced at an early stage in the Government's programme for the coming year.

The Joint Committee's public discussions underlined how potentially radical the draft Bill is as a driver for influencing and changing Government policy, and ensuring action across all areas of Government to make sure that we really succeed in cutting greenhouse gas emissions in this country. Even now, I am not sure whether everyone who supported the introduction of the Bill realises its potential power; it is an important measure. All credit should go to Friends of the Earth, Christian Aid and the other organisations that campaigned last year for Bill to be introduced. The Bill could be a powerful driver of change to Government policy and to the way in which we organise government and society. It is important to underline that it is not just the Bill that should be brought forward at an early date; the climate change committee envisaged in the draft Bill should be established as early as possible, too.

As well as undertaking an important advisory role, the climate change committee will need to help to make the case for the radical measures that will undoubtedly be necessary if we are to meet the objectives of the Climate Change Bill. I hope that that committee will be set up quickly once the Bill becomes law, and I hope that the shadow committee, which the previous Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggested would be set up soon, will be established very quickly. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House gave some indication, today or later, of the possible timetable for the establishment of that shadow committee.

In the coming year, I would like the Government to make sure that the objective of tackling climate change is a theme that is reflected not just in the Climate Change Bill, important though that is, but throughout the entire legislative programme, the entire Queen's Speech, and everything that the Government do. That needs to be done, because the challenge of climate change not only requires action across Government, but requires us to send a message that it is a theme running through all that the Government do. We need to send the public the clear message that we politicians are serious when we say that tackling climate change is a top priority. That is essential, because we all know that tackling climate change requires action not just by Governments—both ours and those of other countries—but by individuals. If we are to persuade the public to make their own personal contribution to tackling climate change, we have to show them that we parliamentarians, and the Government, mean what we say when we bring forward our policies, legislation and measures.

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

It is a great pleasure to follow Mark Lazarowicz. I shall focus my remarks tonight on issues that will be of particular concern to more than half the population—to women.

It is thoroughly timely that the House should have the opportunity, thanks to the legislative programme, to review the arrangements for assisted reproduction and embryo research. That opportunity will be provided by the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill. That is good news. There will be different opinions, as properly there should be, and those opinions should be given expression in the debates in the House.

I make no secret of the fact that I have always been on the side of what I call the progressives, in the sense that I reject the notion of a doctrinal opposition to embryo research. I take a pragmatic view, an instrumental view, an empiricist view, that if benefits can flow from such research, the effect of which can be to mitigate the effects of congenital diseases or disorders or to remove them altogether, we should welcome that. In the deliberations that lie ahead on the Bill, I hope that the Government and right hon. and hon. Members will be significantly influenced and informed in their consideration by the body of expert scientific and in some cases medical evidence that will be presented.

However, it is an open secret that there are many people who believe that the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill is an appropriate vehicle for another review by the House—a review of the law relating to abortion. I am not a lawyer—I say that as a matter of some considerable pride—and I am certainly not a Government lawyer, but my understanding is that the Government lawyers have advised Ministers that they would not be able safely to resist amendments on the subject of abortion in the context of the Bill. To seek to remove them or prevent their discussion or debate on grounds of scope would almost certainly fail in legal terms.

I have heard it floated that the Government are prepared to consider such matters, and that they recognise that legally they would not be able, in parliamentary terms, to resist the discussion of such matters. What I have not heard is a confirmation of that highly salient point on the Floor of the House. If the Leader of the House—or the Deputy Leader of the House—can confirm when she winds up the debate, that what I have read in the popular prints is correct, I would greatly welcome that. There are differences of opinion on the matter, but it is right that if there is a legislative vehicle in the programme, an opportunity to consider these issues should be provided.

For my own part, I believe that the vast disparity in the availability of abortion services across the country between one area and another is a source of concern and an occasion for protest. In the latest year for which reliable figures are available, 2001, there appears to have been something of a lottery in terms both of the funding of abortion and of the waiting times to secure it. In 2001 in Coventry, 96 per cent. of abortions were funded by the national health service—lucky people in need of or making a request for an abortion in that part of the west midlands. If, however, a woman were so relatively unfortunate as to live in Kingston or Richmond, the chance of securing a publicly funded abortion in that year would have been only 50 per cent.

If we are to have a national health service, despite the avowed religion of localism that seems too frequently to be professed by members of all parties these days, I hope it would be conceded and, indeed, proudly proclaimed that there should be a commonality of provision across the country. Either we believe in the availability of an abortion service to women, on certain terms and conditions, or we do not. If we believe in it, as I confess that I passionately do and always have done, these marked differences—this postcode lottery, in effect—should not exist. I want that state of affairs to change.

I referred to the differential in funding, but there are also marked differences in how long people have to wait to secure an abortion. In 2001, someone who lived in north-east Lincolnshire might be quite impressed by the figures, because in that part of the country 79 per cent. of abortions were undertaken before 10 weeks had elapsed, whereas someone who lived in Great Yarmouth might be considerably disappointed, not to say horrified, by the fact that the figure was as low as 26 per cent. That simply is not right. We must make a public policy judgment in this House of Commons as to what we think appropriate.

I am not, as the House will be relieved to learn and you will be pleased to discover, Mr. Deputy Speaker, inclined to dilate tonight on all the issues relating to the potential amendment of the law on abortion. That titillating opportunity will doubtless present itself at a later stage in the course of the consideration of the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill. I would, however, like to say something specifically about a crucial challenge for the Government and the House concerning early abortion.

The vast majority of abortions in this country are, and should be, undertaken early, but we need to do a great deal more to improve access to early and safe abortion for women who have decided that that is what they want. I put it to the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House that it is vital, in terms of the scope of the Bill and the time allowed for debate on potential amendments when it is forthcoming, that we should have a chance to consider all the germane issues.

For example, I cannot for the life of me see any justification, in 2007, for the arcane—dare I say it, almost antediluvian—requirement that a woman who seeks an abortion should have to obtain the signatures of two doctors. That might sound like a prosaic requirement that can be easily fulfilled, but that is often not so. Doctors will sometimes say, "No, you'd better go elsewhere; it's not convenient for me to see you at the moment," or "There's quite a long waiting list in this area." All sorts of difficulties can arise. If the basic will of Parliament is that women should be able to access abortion, they should not be put in the invidious position of having to traipse around, possibly in a condition of considerable personal and even physical distress, to access what should be their legal entitlement and what is certainly—I believe that right hon. and hon. Members would judge—their moral due. The "two doctors" requirement should be removed, and we should at least have a chance to table, debate and vote on an amendment to that effect when the legislation is considered.

Similarly, there should not be long delays. If we are to have targets in other fields, why not in this case? I would suggest a target of 72 hours from the time that the woman makes the approach to request the abortion to the time that the procedure is undertaken. At the very least, it should not be more than a week. We should not in a modern, decent, civilised democratic society entertain the idea that women faced with a very difficult situation, and possibly having to make a harrowing decision, should then have to wait for week after week, and possibly longer, before they can give effect to the decision that they have made perfectly properly, honourably and in all good conscience.

There are other oddities about the current fusty law, one of which is the requirement that the procedure take place in rather prescriptively specified locations. I believe that modern law should be rather more flexible than that. The principle that should govern the amendment of the law to localise provision and provide for a range of community settings in which abortion can take place should simply be this: clinical governance and quality assurance procedures should be comparable to those that apply to any other medical procedure that an individual might undertake within the national health service. I do not see why abortion should be set as a class apart—much more difficult to obtain than other operations and far more difficult to access, logistically or possibly even geographically.

Such considerations must be looked at in the context of the law, as should the suggestion, which I think is sound, that we widen the range of people who can undertake the procedure. I see no good reason why qualified nurses who are perfectly capable of undertaking the abortion procedure should not be empowered to do so in law.

Whatever hon. or right hon. Members listening to this debate think about my views on the subject, I hope that people feel it right that the House of Commons should consider such matters—a very long time after it last did so. I have been in the House since May 1997. To my knowledge, there have been no debates on substantive legislation on this subject during the 10 years and two months I have been here. There have been ten-minute rule motions put forward on the issue, but that is a wholly unsatisfactory basis on which to seek to determine the future of public policy on this subject.

I hope that the Government will be open-minded on the matter. They might not want to whip their own side; I rather imagine that on the Conservative Benches there will be a free vote. As far as I am concerned, all votes are free and I tend to do what I want anyway. I am not overly preoccupied with what any Whip might think about these matters. I hope, however, that there will be votes, and an opportunity for decent debate leading up to them.

Secondly, and very much more briefly, I did not expect a single equality Bill in the draft legislative programme, but I confess that I think that there is a compelling case for one. After all, we have had the discrimination law review, and we have a single equality body. Many people—not all—think that a logical corollary of the creation of a single equality body is the creation of a single equality Act, the purpose and effect of which would be to simplify, synthesise and distil all other anti-discrimination legislation into a single corpus of law that would be easier for citizens to access and more readily understandable by the public and private agencies responsible for adhering to it.

Simon Hughes (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we need to do much better at consolidating law, not just in the equality field. One of the remaining problems is that we do not have a codified system of laws, and often people have to look in lots of places in order to find information, whether it is about equality or any other range of similar issues.

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman and I can join forces in a campaign for simplification. I say three cheers to that.

Let me make it clear that a duty on the private sector to attack the principal causes of the pay gap between men and women would be a good feature of the Bill for which I am calling. I have pontificated on that issue many a time and oft during the past few years in debates in Westminster Hall and in questions to the Minister for Women. A duty has been placed on public authorities, and that is important, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is persistent and, in some cases, severe discrimination in the private sector as well. Of course, we have to be careful not to overload the system, not to achieve a counter-productive result and not to frighten business, but if we know that there is serious discrimination, we have a responsibility to face up to it and be prepared to do something about it.

That discrimination takes several forms: in pay; on the ground of pregnancy; through occupational segregation; and—whether deliberate or inadvertent—against people who have caring responsibilities. The insertion in such a Bill of a positive duty on the private sector, suitably calibrated to take account of what private companies can bear in the short, medium and long term, would make a great deal of sense and create equality between the public and private sectors.

The final issue that I wish to consider—simplification—will again warm the cockles of the heart of Simon Hughes. The Government have championed their employment simplification Bill. My understanding is that at least part of its purpose is to bolster the machinery for enforcing the national minimum wage. I said at the outset that I wanted to focus on subjects of particular interest to women. Let us not forget that, in 2006, 870,000 women benefited from the increase in the national minimum wage. Nevertheless, it is striking and salutary that no fewer than 202,000 women did not get the national minimum wage to which they were entitled. That is profoundly unsatisfactory. It is not only unfair to those women but corrodes the principle of the rule of law and the effect of the will of Parliament. In 2004, approximately 1,798 cases demonstrated that people did not get their entitlement, but only 62 enforcement notices and no penalty notices were issued. It is important that several criteria be fulfilled if the employment simplification Bill is to deliver effectively for women.

First, we need to publicise much more widely people's exact entitlements. Many people, especially those who operate in the twilight zone of low-paid and high-pressure jobs, will not know what is their due. Secondly, there needs to be a much more proactive enforcement policy if people are to get their due rather than be denied it. Thirdly, we need a robust regime of penalties to discourage rogue employers and encourage good practice.

All the matters that I have mentioned are potentially valuable, on an industrial scale, to more than half the population of this country. I reserve judgment on the last item, because I do not know whether the employment simplification Bill will work as the Government intend, and as I hope that it would operate. If they take account of the sort of points that I am making, I hope that the measure will command support from all parties, because it would make a great difference to the lives of many highly vulnerable people in this country.

The three issues are important and I hope that they will be tackled to the benefit of the country.

Lyn Brown (PPS (Rt Hon John Denham, Secretary of State), Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills; West Ham, Labour)

It is a pleasure to follow John Bercow. He is always eloquent and I concurred with much of what he said, especially about reproductive health.

It is a great privilege to speak in the debate. We are considering a welcome and positive process. I agree with Simon Hughes that it has the potential to be excellent and I hope that I can use it today, and in years to come, on behalf of my constituents.

I want to talk about three things. The first is the housing and regeneration Bill, about which I am especially excited because the pressure on housing in London is extreme and my borough is no exception. In Newham, housing benefit spending is currently £245 million a year. Nearly one third—£67 million—is spent on keeping homeless people in temporary accommodation. It will be a measure of our success when that is reduced through the provision of affordable housing.

The expansion of affordable housing will provide an opportunity for my local council—a good local council—to ensure that much-needed social homes are built. I further welcome the commitment to increase the provision of affordable housing in east London and the UK as a whole, to ensure that young people who are not fortunate enough to inherit property can afford to buy their first home. There are so many young people in my constituency who see homes priced out of their reach and for whom the opportunity to buy is a vague dream for some time in the future. I hope that adequate levels of social housing will also dampen down the inflationary tendencies that have, I fear, made London the European capital for housing inequality.

I remind the House that the waiting time in my area for a four-bedroom property is more than 13 years. There are families on waiting lists who will never receive that home, because they will have grown and family members will have flown before it becomes a possibility. Let us not misunderstand what that means to those families. They are often shunted from home to home, as the lease finishes. That means that they do not have the stability that comes from making a community where they live, and that the children might have to move schools or travel large distances, with long journey times, to get to school. That does not make for a community.

Moving home is also an expensive business, as many of us in the House know. When people are poor and in temporary accommodation, often paying their rent out of their wages, which do not meet those needs, the moving costs on top of that add costs, problems and stresses to families already under pressure. The waiting list in my community in 2006 was 29,574, which is equivalent to the entire population of San Marino—I thank my researchers for that one.

There is also something to be said for not putting all our faith in supply. I would certainly welcome measures, which might be under consideration, to cool the overheated buy-to-let market, which has helped both to ratchet up the cost of temporary accommodation, at such an extreme cost to the Exchequer, and to decrease the affordability of housing for ordinary working families, above all in the capital. That is without mentioning the concurrent social difficulties experienced through unsuitably located households in multiple occupancy. I come from an Olympic borough, where we now have a population of migrant workers, who often live in small homes, with many to a room. That is causing stresses in local communities, as buy-to-let properties are inhabited in such a highly multiple-occupancy fashion—if that makes sense and is good English.

I have lost count of the number of complaints from constituents about absentee landlords, which stems from the huge increase in buy-to-let properties in Newham over the past decade. The high cost of rents in the private rented sector and the resulting overcrowding of properties by tenants often compounds those problems. More importantly, in the long term it might prove difficult to maintain West Ham's strong sense of community cohesion, of which I am immensely proud. Although I accept that the private rented sector provides much-needed flexibility and choice for those who cannot purchase a home or do not wish to, I would welcome moves to ensure that our dream of building mixed sustainable communities is not hampered by the sheer extent of buy-to-let properties in particular areas.

With a significant prospect of housing gain as a consequence of the Olympics, my constituents need rock-solid assurances that our expectation of more affordable housing as a result of the regeneration of the Olympic boroughs meets the needs of the families currently on the waiting list. There is a real fear that the properties that will be built in Stratford and along the regeneration belt in the Lea valley will be one and two-bedroom properties, which will not meet the needs of our growing families, particularly those who have been waiting on the housing list for more than 13 years for a four-bedroom property in the area.

A second theme of great importance for the people in my local community relates to the proposed counter-terrorism Bill, which includes a number of new proposals aimed at tackling the continuing threat from criminals bent on causing indiscriminate damage and death. When we strive to engage our communities in tackling this threat, however, it is vital that a meaningful consultation be undertaken in all our communities on proposals such as stop and question, and the extension of the limit of detention without charge, to ensure that alienation and disillusionment are not the unintended result of such moves.

The wonderfully diverse communities of West Ham want to work together to defeat this threat and to contribute constructively towards its defeat. They will therefore strongly welcome the consultation on the new security and anti-terrorism measures, and it is my genuine belief that, through honest and open consultation on the legislation, we can help to avoid community isolation and alienation and build stronger cohesive communities in the UK. I am sure that the many diverse communities in my constituency will be keen to play as constructive a role as possible in this important debate, and I welcome the Government's decision to give them the opportunity to do so.

My third theme, like the others, seeks to strengthen the sustainability of the communities in my constituency. The Green Paper, "In work, better off: next steps to full employment", has already appeared and attracted some comment. I applaud the commitment to encourage long-term benefit claimants to sustain and make progress in employment, particularly through strengthening the skills base of people who have not worked for some time. Despite recent falls in the probability of leaving work, lone parents are still almost twice as likely as non-lone parents to leave their jobs. One in five lone parents who leave income support return to it within six months, and more than a quarter do so within a year. One third do so within two years, and almost two fifths within three years.

I fear that one of the reasons for that is that, when women are encouraged to go into work, the costs that they will face—including travel and child care costs—along with the reduction in their benefits are not properly assessed before they make the move. I have conducted a focus group—for want of a better term—with local communities on these issues, and it has become clear that, when women leave employment in those circumstances, they feel demoralised because they have not been able to sustain a job. That is bad enough, but they also leave with heavy debts. They have often been forced out of employment because they could no longer afford to work and to live. That is particularly an issue in London, where it is related to the housing and child care costs. We need to ensure that such women receive the very best assistance before they take the step of leaving benefit in order to obtain work.

Lisa Harker's report into child poverty at the end of last year projected that, if the rate of job exits among lone parents was reduced to that of non-lone parents, the Government's target of 70 per cent. employment could be met without any increase in the number of lone parents entering work. While skills and support are vital, messages from the Government also play an important part. Once additional skills have been achieved, with real effort and at some personal cost, the pay rise can be gained and the lone parent is ready to enjoy the fruits of their hard work. However, for some of those women, the loss of help with child care costs, rent and tax credits can mean that they face what I would call a marginal tax rate as high as 96 per cent.

At the centre of the marginal tax rate is housing benefit. I am bombarded with evidence about how it combines with other sources of income to create a poverty trap for those already in low-paid work. At the centre of that is a 65p in the pound withdrawal rate of housing benefit as income increases. As the Hills report stated, a couple with two children paying a typical private rent of £120 a week—frankly, if £120 a week was the price people were paying for their rent in West Ham, they would think that all their Christmases had come at once, but let us stay with the Hills report—would, as a result of reduced benefit and tax credits and a higher rate of national insurance, gain only £23 if their earnings rose from £100 to £400. For those in temporary accommodation with high rents paid through housing benefit—in my constituency, two-bedroom flats can go for more than £1,000 a month—those effects extend to even higher levels. If we are to make serious progress with making aspiration pay in the UK, I believe that the housing benefit regime merits further and urgent investigation.

Let me reiterate, as I draw to my conclusion, that this legislative programme is ambitious and forward looking. It proposes measures to tackle the most pressing issues facing Britain as a society, as an economy and as a nation. Such measures can only be improved by this inaugural opportunity to debate the draft legislative programme in advance.

Alex Salmond (Parliamentary Leader (Westminster); Banff & Buchan, Scottish National Party)

Lyn Brown said that it was a privilege to speak in such a debate. She is, of course, right, but it is not a privilege of which many Members have wanted to avail themselves. It is an innovation and I welcome the opportunity to influence the Government's entire legislative programme. Clearly, though, that has not attracted an enormous number of Members to the House. That might be to do with the hour—it is 9.52—and we are also on the very cusp of the recess. I suspect, however, that it is more than that. I suspect rather that the Government have a credibility gap as wide as the Clyde. I do not think that hon. Members truly believe that by turning up at this debate they can influence the legislative programme.

If the massed ranks of the Scottish Liberal Democrats really felt that they could influence the Government's programme—if they thought they had the potential to influence all the things that they bang on about week after week in the local papers—they would have been here all evening, rather than turning up a mere four minutes ago— [Interruption.] Yes, and on his own!

Mark Lazarowicz (PPS (David Cairns, Minister of State), Scotland Office; Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour)

rose—

Alex Salmond (Parliamentary Leader (Westminster); Banff & Buchan, Scottish National Party)

Let me develop my points for a few seconds before I give way to my old university friend from Edinburgh.

I was saying that if Members thought that they could influence the Government's legislative programme, they would be crammed into these Benches. The fact that that has not happened suggests to me that, as yet, the Government have not persuaded people that this innovation is meaningful in respect of influencing the Government programme. This debate compares very poorly with a debate on the Gracious Speech, for example, which we would expect to be conducted at a sensible time. Perhaps the Government would like to follow the innovation of the Scottish Parliament and time such a debate, if they truly believe that it is important, at a sensible hour. The Government are going to have to do a great deal more if they are to convince Members that this process is meaningful, as opposed to some early window dressing on the part of the new Administration.

Mark Lazarowicz (PPS (David Cairns, Minister of State), Scotland Office; Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour)

The right hon. Gentleman's comments about the numbers here today would be slightly more impressive if he had more than one of his own colleagues in their place for this debate. Leaving that aside, I am disappointed at the cynical manner in which he has started his speech. This is a new procedure. We would all accept that it has to develop and improve in the future, but I hope that, after such a cynical start, the right hon. Gentleman will see the benefits of this process of consultation and join all of us in a spirit of co-operation across Parliaments to ensure that as many people as possible participate and get involved in the Government's programme. We would all like to see that.

Alex Salmond (Parliamentary Leader (Westminster); Banff & Buchan, Scottish National Party)

I welcome the innovation, but to note the poor attendance at the debate is no more than a fact. There is 33 per cent. of the Scottish National party's representation in the Chamber this evening. If there were 33 per cent. of the hon. Gentleman's party's representation, they would be flooding across the Benches. If there were 33 per cent. of the Scottish Liberal party's representation, it would have at least another one or perhaps two. Statistics are useful when we all know—and each one of us does know—that if Members of this House thought that this was an important constitutional innovation, they would be here to influence the Government.

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Given that the right hon. Gentleman is legendarily provocative and a noted crowd-puller, does he think that if hon. Members had been aware in advance that he was intending to seek to catch the eye of the Chair, the attendance would have been dramatically greater?

Alex Salmond (Parliamentary Leader (Westminster); Banff & Buchan, Scottish National Party)

Unfortunately, it is down to timing. If only the hon. Gentleman had not been called before me then perhaps more Members might have flooded into the Chamber to hear this climax of the debate. To be called provocative by him is one of the great phrases that makes me miss this place. It is the pot calling the kettle black, and it is extraordinary to hear it from the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have such enormous affection.

The Government say that the constitutional reform Bill will be a centrepiece of their legislative programme. It will not surprise the Minister to learn that I want to devote a few remarks to that Bill and the Green Paper, and to say how it could be substantially improved. Last week, I was sitting at the British-Irish Council. Some 20 people were around the table representing two sovereign Governments, three devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, and three island groups. Out of those 20, two were members of the Labour party—the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. There were no members of the Conservative party, although the Secretary of State used to be one of those. There were also no members of the Liberal Democrats. That was the result of a self-denying ordinance, as it were, because, uniquely, the Liberal Democrats have turned down Administration in three Parliaments in the space of the past two months. They turned down the chance of sharing government and sharing power in Scotland. They then turned down the chance of sharing power in Wales, and I understand—at least I read in the papers—that they turned down a role in Government in this place as well. That has resulted in the unique phenomenon of a political party denying itself a role in the British-Irish Council.

None the less, the point remains that out of 20 people representing the various Governments around these islands, only two were members of the governing party in this place; none were members of the Conservative party, and none were members of the Liberal Democrats—in other words, the three parties that dominate this Chamber are in a tiny minority in terms of the configuration of the political geography that has arrived around these islands. [Interruption.] I know that it is difficult for some hon. Members in this place to understand, but there have been changes in government: in Northern Ireland, where a Government have come into being; in Scotland, where simultaneously I am in government and in opposition, which is an interesting process; and in Wales, where there has been a fundamental change in the configuration of the Government. That is a huge change in the political geography of these islands, and I saw nothing in the Government's Green Paper which persuaded me that they have caught up with that reality.

For example, way back in 1999 it was envisaged that there would be an organisation of joint ministerial committees to enable the Westminster Government, Ministers and Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and, hopefully, the Assembly in Northern Ireland to engage in dialogue on issues of mutual concern. Those joint ministerial committees, certainly in plenary session, have not met since 2002. In terms of the sub-committees, which are part of that process, only one strand of four sub-committees has met over the past five years, and that is the sub-committee on Europe. An arrangement that was brought into being—presumably, I suppose, because it envisaged a situation in which the same party would not be in government in Westminster as was in government in Scotland or Wales—has fallen into total disrepair. It is important that that instrument, or something like it, be brought back into being very quickly. It is disappointing that the Government Green Paper does not address the nature and evolution of the constitutional changes that have already happened and the mechanisms to cope with them.

Other matters, too, are not addressed in the Green Paper. There is no mention of the British-Irish Council and its potential development. There is no mention of the Act of Settlement, despite the Green Paper's explicit desire to break down barriers to inclusion within "British society". There is no mention of the repeal of that Act, which has institutionalised discrimination against many sections of our current society—incidentally, the Scottish Parliament on one occasion unanimously suggested that that Act should be consigned to the dustbin of history. The Green Paper is also almost silent on the West Lothian question and the disquiet felt by many English MPs and a considerable number of people in England at the absence of a forum in which to address specifically English matters and legislation. I do not think that that will be adequately coped with by a system of regional Select Committees. As I have said, there is nothing on the practical mechanisms for improving the functioning of devolved arrangements. It appears that the UK Government want a new relationship between Government and citizen, but one that that does not extend to examining the relationships between central and devolved Government.

There is a huge constitutional conservatism in the Green Paper. Let me illustrate that by quoting a few phrases. It is stated in paragraph 122:

"Parliament stands at the apex of the political system, the supreme legislative body of the United Kingdom...a major symbol of what it means to be British".

The principle that

"devolution does not cede sovereignty"

is also restated.

Yet only recently a quite different view was held by many concerned people in Scotland. A statement of 30 March 1989 declares:

"We, gathered...do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all of our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount".

That was signed by every Labour MP with one exception: Tam Dalyell. It was signed by the current Prime Minister. Since then, there has almost been a retrenchment into a constitutional conservatism with the window-dressing of change.

Regardless of where Members stand on the future of the constitution, it is absurd that the UK Government wish to have a "national conversation" when they alone are seen as having total and complete certainty that the current constitutional position is the right one, maintained as

"the apex of the political system, the supreme legislative body of the United Kingdom...a major symbol of what it means to be British".

It is odd that measures which are presumably designed to empower the citizen make an assumption about the attitudes of those citizens and almost ignore the substantial political changes that are taking place. That is exemplified by the configuration of the British-Irish Council.

There is throughout the Green Paper an obsession with forging a sense of Britishness as a conceptual framework for legislative changes to follow. That is highlighted as a key objective. That concept is fundamentally out of date. It more reflects a sense of confusion in respect of what might be politically advantageous for a Scottish Prime Minister seeking electoral success in England than the reality of modern Scotland and modern Wales—and even, to some extent, modern Northern Ireland.

I do not agree that the Prime Minister should try to mask his Scottishness in order to convince England of his worth. I have a much higher view of English voters. I think that the Prime Minister will win or lose the next UK general election not on his nationality, but on his policies. The difficulty he faces is in getting to grips with the fact that we now have a multi-identity state. In Scotland, there is a resurgent Scottish identity and, crucially, that identity includes diversity.

A very interesting study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation last year, conducted by the universities of St. Andrews and Stirling, surveyed attitudes towards Scottishness of young Asian Scots. The study showed that young Asian Scots felt more Scottish than their white counterparts, because they felt that Scottishness was an inclusive identity. I doubt whether another society in western Europe could make that claim at the present moment. It is an important finding, which got relatively little publicity in the Scottish press. I am certain that if the finding had been otherwise, it would have got major publicity. It is a finding that makes me proud to be Scottish, and which should give the UK Government cause to reflect on the dangers of looking for identity that does not allow reflective diversity. Some of what is in the Green Paper seems to suggest that the Government are moving down that road.

The Prime Minister's attempt to contrive a new-found sense of Britishness is deeply misguided. The only thing that is absolutely clear is that, after some time of trying, he has been unsuccessful thus far in his attempt. I have no doubt that if anyone in these islands is able to buck the trends that have been taking place in Scotland and elsewhere for a generation and more, it is the current Prime Minister. However, this quest for Britishness—at the very time when Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are moving on a perhaps different path and exploring new avenues of expression, government and society—seems to me backward-looking and misguided.

I want to draw a contrast between the approach of the Green Paper—which should have been consultative, as Green Papers usually are—and that of the Scottish Government's forthcoming White Paper. Rather than dictating the answers, my Government will champion the natural evolution of Scottish democracy, and consider sincerely and openly the spectrum of powers that will inevitably flow from this place to the Scottish Parliament. Let me welcome in particular the indication from Simon Hughes this evening that he is in favour of a referendum at some point to advance such arguments. I do not know whether that was inadvertent, but it is substantial progress in terms of the dialogue taking place in Scotland. So we will approach our White Paper on the constitution with the conviction that our case for an independent Scotland is the right one, but that the process will also involve genuinely listening to other people's ideas.

The Prime Minister has fundamentally misunderstood the situation. Much of Scotland is relaxed about its identity and its future. It is a country comfortable with the inevitability of further constitutional change—change that is bound to repatriate further powers to Scotland. My submission this evening is that Scotland has moved on, Wales is moving on, and Northern Ireland is moving on; it is time that England moved on, as well.

Shailesh Vara (Deputy Shadow Leader, Parliament; North West Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Leader of the House referred to the fact that all Members had been sent a copy of the booklet. It is important to put it on the record that I received a letter from her this morning, dated 20 July, enclosing the booklet. The same is true of a number of colleagues to whom I have spoken. The letter says:

"I am keen that Members have the fullest possible chance to consider the Government's proposals in advance of the debate on Wednesday 25 July. I therefore enclose the Command Paper, 'The Governance of Britain—The Government's Draft Legislative Programme'."

All present will agree that in order to have had a proper debate today, it would have been much more helpful to have received the letter and enclosed booklet several days earlier.

This is not the first time that the office of the Leader of the House has given information for debate at the very last minute. Last week, there was a discussion in Committee of the remit of the Leader of the House, and Committee members did not receive the information that was to be discussed until the morning of that Committee's sitting. I respectfully suggest that the Leader of the House take note and, in the interests of protecting the welfare and concerns of all hon. Members, rectify the situation in future.

The distinguishing feature of the debate is the sheer audacity of the Government in pretending that they are presenting new policies in their draft legislative programme, when they clearly are not. I suggest that the Government take note of the words of the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Edward Miliband, who will write Labour's next election manifesto. Earlier this week, in an interview with The Guardian, he said with reference to the new Prime Minister taking over:

"It requires being very candid about what has gone wrong".

As the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have shown a reluctance towards such candour, let me assist them.

The brutal truth is that the Government have had a decade to deal with the issues that they speak of in the draft legislative programme, and they have failed to do so. The programme gives new meaning to the word recycling. It is a programme of recycled material. My right hon. Friend Mrs. May eloquently made that point when she listed all 23 Bills that have been previously mentioned in the public domain.

When the Prime Minister spoke of his new measures for building more houses, he should have qualified his words by saying, "As I have previously mentioned, in 1994, 1998, 2005 and 2006." On education, with reference to young people staying on in education and training, the Prime Minister should have started by saying, "As I said more than a decade ago, in 1996." Mr. Kemp emphasised the importance of education, especially in a global market, but in the past 10 years we have seen a rise of 1 million in the number of young people who are not in education, training or work. On fixed-interest mortgages for 20 or 25 years, the Prime Minister should have started by saying, "As I said four years ago, in 2003."

The Bills on those issues, and others in the programme, are nothing more than repetition from the past, with a huge dose of spin added to them. This programme is the result of failure, not success, in the past decade. Let us consider some of the specific issues.

Alex Salmond (Parliamentary Leader (Westminster); Banff & Buchan, Scottish National Party)

I have some sympathy with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, but does he agree that what is really at stake is the process? The issue is whether hon. Members believe that they can influence the Government in this debate. If they thought that, this would be, for obvious reasons, a hugely important parliamentary occasion. It is one thing to say that the Government's record is abysmal, but what is it about the process in which we are engaged that has not convinced hon. Members?

Shailesh Vara (Deputy Shadow Leader, Parliament; North West Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, to which I shall refer later. He makes a good point when he says that if Members genuinely believed that they had the opportunity to influence the Government, they might have turned up in greater numbers than they have done tonight.

Mark Lazarowicz (PPS (David Cairns, Minister of State), Scotland Office; Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour)

Are not the hon. Gentleman's remarks somewhat inconsistent with the welcome that Mrs. May gave to the process?

Shailesh Vara (Deputy Shadow Leader, Parliament; North West Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

We welcome the process, but we criticise the end product, which will mean that the views of hon. Members will not be taken into account. If the hon. Gentleman would care to listen further, I will come to that point a little later in my speech.

Simon Hughes (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

As encouragement for Mr. Salmond I wanted to point out that we started without any prospect of a separate debate. We had to battle for that and we got it. Clearly, it has not been at an ideal time of day, because other business got in the way and the Government did not organise it very well. The Government have a lot of learning to do, and our view is that a good start has been made in theory, but that the practice leaves a lot for delivery.

Shailesh Vara (Deputy Shadow Leader, Parliament; North West Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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. 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 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 units 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."—[ Hansard, 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 to 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 Mr. Salmond.

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. 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 they 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.

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Bishop Auckland, Labour)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to reply to this important debate. The benefits of the decision to publish the legislative programme in draft and to give Parliament an opportunity to discuss the draft proposals have been vindicated by the debate. I point out to Mr. Salmond that it is not a question of quantity; it is the quality that counts.

As Mrs. May said, the special debate on the draft programme was requested by the Opposition following the Prime Minister's statement. It was a request to which we were happy to accede.

Theresa May (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, Parliament; Maidenhead, Conservative)

People might think that greater importance was attached to the debate if the Leader of the House was actually present for the wind-ups.

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Bishop Auckland, Labour)

I have just been informed that the Leader of the House is on her way here—which has nothing to do with the criticism the right hon. Lady makes.

The debate demonstrates that Parliament has a role in considering the direction and content—

Rob Marris (PPS (Rt Hon Shaun Woodward, Secretary of State), Northern Ireland Office; Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why the Leader of the House may have been caught slightly short is that the debate has gone short? The Opposition demanded the debate, yet they cannot even fill the time.

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Bishop Auckland, Labour)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

I promise Members who have taken part in the debate that we shall ensure that their detailed and specific points about particular pieces of legislation will be drawn to the attention of the relevant Ministers and Departments.

Alex Salmond (Parliamentary Leader (Westminster); Banff & Buchan, Scottish National Party)

Which of the various suggestions that the hon. Lady heard this evening was she most attracted to move into the Government's programme? Perhaps it was the joint ministerial Committee proposal. Is that one of the things that attracted the hon. Lady?

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Bishop Auckland, Labour)

If the right hon. Gentleman will be a little more patient, I shall come to that very issue.

I believe that the more open and participative process helps to make the Executive more accountable. Publishing the draft legislative programme is part of our wider proposals on constitutional reform, which will strengthen Parliament's effectiveness and authority and help to reinvigorate our democracy.

The right hon. Member for Maidenhead was particularly critical of the fact that a number of the items in the draft legislative programme were already known to her, because they had been in draft Bills, White Papers and Green Papers or because of various consultations. She totally fails to realise that that is not a criticism; it is, in fact, a strength. It shows that the Government are more open and that we are providing opportunities for pre-legislative scrutiny that never existed in the years before we came to power.

My hon. Friend Mr. Kemp spoke about how the programme will benefit his constituency. In particular, he talked about the Local Transport Bill and the importance of having high-quality public transport and giving local authorities power and control over the planning of local transport. The powers that will be given to local authorities will improve the quality of transport and enable them to pull together planning for land and for transport. That will make a significant difference to the quality of local transport.

My hon. Friend spoke about his constituents' problems. His constituency obviously has a significant legacy of heavy industry. He spoke movingly about his constituents' problems with asbestos-related diseases, which the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill will address. It is absolutely clear that only a Labour Government would have taken steps to address that important problem.

My hon. Friend also spoke about the education and skills Bill, the importance of taking a long-term, strategic approach and the difficulty of predicting the way that the economy will develop and therefore the importance of giving people a broad, flexible education as they go through life. I will draw all those points to the attention of the relevant Ministers.

Simon Hughes welcomed the new process, although he said that the timetable was a bit short. It might be appropriate for me also to comment now on the points made by Mr. Vara on the timetable, which he felt was slightly truncated, and on the difficulty of responding to the process. I should like to tell hon. Members that, far from being limited to 1,000 characters on the website, any member of the public who wishes to respond to the legislative programme is free to e-mail the Leader of the House or myself. In fact, this afternoon I received a seven-page e-mail on the draft legislative programme from the Royal National Institute of Blind People.

Shailesh Vara (Deputy Shadow Leader, Parliament; North West Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Bishop Auckland, Labour)

Let me just describe to the hon. Gentleman what has been going on, as he seems to be so sceptical.

The RNIB's e-mail describes in detail its response to the whole legislative programme. It does not focus on health matters. It looks at transport in particular. Publishing the draft programme now gives it the opportunity to develop that kind of cross-cutting, wide-ranging approach.

Shailesh Vara (Deputy Shadow Leader, Parliament; North West Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

May I refer the hon. Lady to a copy of the page that I have from the Cabinet Office, which specifically refers to 1,000 characters? Nowhere on it do I see a reference to the fact that people can write in separately. Does she agree that if the public can write in separately, it makes sense to advise them of that, rather giving a one-way direction asking for no more than 1,000 characters?

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Bishop Auckland, Labour)

The website makes it perfectly clear that members of the public can e-mail the Leader of the House or the Deputy Leader of the House. Were it not clear, we would not have received the submission this afternoon.

Stephen O'Brien (Shadow Minister, Health; Eddisbury, Conservative)

I am conscious of the fact that it is eight minutes since the hon. Lady started speaking and the Leader of the House has still not appeared. Does the hon. Lady happen to know where the Leader of the House is, and where she is on her way from? It seems rather a long time to be leaving the hon. Lady on her own. [ Interruption. ]

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Bishop Auckland, Labour)

The Leader of the House has just arrived. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is now totally satisfied.

There was also a complaint that there were many Bills on the same subject. I would like to point out that it is this Government who introduced pre-legislative scrutiny, and who doubled the level of resources for parliamentary counsel to ensure that drafting was done properly. The constant complaints from Opposition Members about the clarity of legislation are a slur on the professionalism of parliamentary counsel.

Shailesh Vara (Deputy Shadow Leader, Parliament; North West Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Bishop Auckland, Labour)

No, I have already given way twice to the hon. Gentleman.

Shailesh Vara (Deputy Shadow Leader, Parliament; North West Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Once.

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Bishop Auckland, Labour)

Twice.

Furthermore, situations change—and when they do, it would be foolish not to look again at the legislative framework. Finally, we are going to consider the proposals from the Law Commission on post-legislative scrutiny. I hope that that, in particular, will meet some of the concerns that were expressed.

Simon Hughes (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

Will the hon. Lady give way—once?

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Is that a promise?

Simon Hughes (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

Yes, it is a promise.

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Bishop Auckland, Labour)

Yes, I will.

Simon Hughes (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I am very grateful. The hon. Lady knows that, as I have acknowledged, all the things that she has said are welcome. One thing that would lessen the burden on parliamentary counsel, as well as on everybody else, would be not to introduce in October a Bill that the Government propose to amend substantially in November. Will she and her colleague think again about taking the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill out until it is ready to be put in, so that everybody will be better off and less under pressure?

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Bishop Auckland, Labour)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

The hon. Gentleman said in his speech that the key criterion that he used for judging the quality of legislation was whether it increased liberty and whether it devolved decisions. It was this Government who introduced the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In the current Session, we have introduced the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, which does precisely what he is calling for.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about the possible benefits, as he sees it, of having a business committee of the whole House. In this Chamber, the risk with having a business committee is that it would simply be used to obstruct the legislative programme that people have voted for, and which was in the Government's manifesto. What he is suggesting is really rather impractical.

The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the importance of children in care. He is absolutely right: we are concerned, which is why the legislation that we will introduce will enable the voice of the child to be heard, and will improve the quality and stability of placements. The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to see more Bills in plain English, and that is precisely what we are going to do with the marine Bill.

The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members said that they wanted us to put forward only necessary legislation. That is rather like the position that Opposition parties take on spending cuts and tax cuts. It is very easy to say in general, "Oh yes, we don't want that piece of legislation," but not one hon. Member in the whole debate made a single suggestion about what particular measures they did not want to see.

Fraser Kemp (Houghton & Washington East, Labour)

On that point, in the interests of cross-party consensus, does my hon. Friend think that it would be a good idea to invite Her Majesty's official Opposition to publish an alternative Queen's Speech, so that we could see what ideological direction the Tory party would take?

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Bishop Auckland, Labour)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent suggestion.

My hon. Friend Mark Lazarowicz made a typically thoughtful and wide-ranging speech. In particular, he discussed housing need in his constituency. He pointed out that housing is a devolved matter, and it was disappointing that Mr. Salmond did not take the opportunity to set out the housing policy that—

Alex Salmond (Parliamentary Leader (Westminster); Banff & Buchan, Scottish National Party)

I know that I serve in two Chambers, and these days I am a model of consensual government and patience—that patience is being rewarded—but I can only be in government in one Chamber at a time. If Mark Lazarowicz wants to transport himself to the Scottish Parliament, I am sure that I will be able to answer all his questions even better than the Deputy Leader of the House is managing to answer them.

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Bishop Auckland, Labour)

At one point in our discussion on housing, I felt that we were about to move into a full-scale debate on housing policy. The needs of Travellers were raised, and I assure hon. Members that we will introduce legislation to address the security of tenure issues that are of particular concern to that community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith made a point about planning gain supplement revenues generated in areas covered by a devolved Administration. Let me make it absolutely clear that those revenues will be returned to the country in which they are generated, but their use will be determined by the relevant Administration. He also spoke about the importance of tackling fuel poverty, and I am sure that the energy Bill will help to ensure that energy supply companies focus their efforts much more tightly than they have done hitherto.

Mark Lazarowicz (PPS (David Cairns, Minister of State), Scotland Office; Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour)

I would like to go back to my hon. Friend's previous point; I was not sure whether she was going to say any more about it. My problem is not about whether the money raised by the planning gain supplement will return to the devolved Administrations; it is clearly right that it should. My problem is about ensuring that once it returns to a devolved Administration, it goes a bit further and is passed down to the communities from which it originated. I know that that is a matter for the devolved Parliaments to discuss, and that is fine, but I hope that my hon. Friend will give me an assurance that it is for the majorities in the devolved Parliaments to decide on the matter, and that the decision will not be left to a minority Government with minority support.

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Bishop Auckland, Labour)

That issue will have to be taken up elsewhere. My hon. Friend also talked about the importance of having a marine Bill. Through our manifesto, we are committed to introducing a marine Bill, and we will do so in the coming Parliament. We will publish a draft in the coming year, to ensure full pre-legislative scrutiny. He also spoke about the important pre-legislative scrutiny that has just been undertaken on the Climate Change Bill.

John Bercow spoke about issues that related particularly to women. He considered the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill and asked whether it would present an opportunity for amendments on abortion to be made. He described his views on abortion, which were typically subtle and nuanced. Obviously, whether hon. Members will be able to make amendments is a matter for the House authorities. There has been pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, and I do not at this stage know whether the report from the Joint Committee on the Draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill will address that question. By chance, the report is being published tomorrow, so the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait long to find out the answer. I caution the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is an extremely important piece of legislation about balancing the ethical and the scientific issues. Abortion is also an extremely important issue, but it may not be entirely helpful for either piece of law to handle them together.

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I appreciate that nuanced, calibrated and subtle response to my earlier point. If the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for a discussion of potential reform of the abortion law, I hope the Government will provide an alternative vehicle. The matter needs to be addressed, and sooner rather than later.

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Bishop Auckland, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman made it plain earlier that that was his view. He also spoke about the importance of a single equalities Bill. Again, that is a matter on which Labour made a manifesto commitment, and we will produce a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny over the coming year, so that we have a thorough and well-grounded piece of legislation to introduce at a later stage, as time allows. It is particularly pleasant to listen to the hon. Member for Buckingham, who always gives such positive endorsement of the Labour Government.

My hon. Friend Lyn Brown spoke in her usual sensitive but energetic way about the needs of her constituents. She spoke about the problems of housing and homelessness and suggested a number of practical solutions. I know that since she was elected she has been concerned about the structure of housing benefit. We will ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions reads her speech so that it can consider the matter further. My hon. Friend also spoke about counter-terrorism and the importance of making progress on that. I hope she will be satisfied with the way in which the Prime Minister set out in his statement this afternoon how future consultation will work.

Mr. Salmond made a somewhat predictable speech dealing with constitutional reform, the West Lothian question, and the state of the devolved Administrations. At no point in his speech did he acknowledge that the devolved Administrations were the creation of a Labour Government. He raised the matter of a joint ministerial committee. The Government are well aware of his calls for the joint ministerial committee to meet, and will consider the proposal.

Alex Salmond (Parliamentary Leader (Westminster); Banff & Buchan, Scottish National Party)

The Scottish Parliament was established by the Scottish people in a referendum. As for the joint ministerial committee, that was a Labour Government proposal. It was a Labour Government measure, but has fallen into disuse since 2002. What could be the argument for that mechanism not to be working, instead of falling into disuse? Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House could think about the argument and give me a little more comfort that, having read my speech in advance, she has considered the point closely enough to be able to give me an answer.

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Bishop Auckland, Labour)

I must disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. He will appreciate that I will not be the person taking a decision on the meetings of the joint ministerial committee, but he should rest assured that it is under active consideration.

Mr. Vara asked about the publication. It was available in the Vote Office on 11 July. There has been such a run on the document that we have had to reprint it.

Shailesh Vara (Deputy Shadow Leader, Parliament; North West Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I think it relevant to repeat the words of the Leader of the House in the letter sent to colleagues:

"I am keen that Members have the fullest possible chance to consider the Government's proposals in advance of the debate on Wednesday 25 July."

There was no point in sending that letter if the hon. Lady is going to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the document was available in the Vote Office.

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Bishop Auckland, Labour)

My right hon. and learned Friend was enthusiastic that all this should be brought to the attention of all Members of the House; that is why she adopted that supererogatory approach.

Six months ago, Conservative Members were saying that we could not renew in Government, but we have shown that we can. For us, renewal is not simply an exercise in PR and spin. We are reforming the way that we do politics. As a first step in our wider constitutional reform programme, we are introducing a new process that strengthens parliamentary accountability and public openness. We are able to renew and reform because we understand the challenges of the modern world; that is why we have the groundbreaking and far-sighted Climate Change Bill, and why we are going to have a new scientific and ethical framework through the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill. We are able to renew and reform because our policies are rooted in the values of social justice; that is why we are addressing child maintenance and the needs of children in care. We are able to renew and reform because our policies are rooted in our communities. We understand people's aspirations; that is why we are proposing flagship Bills on education and skills, housing and regeneration. I commend the publication and its contents to the House.