Queen's Speech Debate
11th December 2000
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield):
Today, the Prime Minister said that the idea of an independent standing army
is nonsense. He also said that the idea of military planning being
undertaken independently by the European Union without co-operation with
NATO is nonsense. Finally, he boasted that we had secured our objectives in
Europe during the past few days. He did so with particular regard to
co-operation with NATO. The Prime Minister quoted from the presidential
report in an interesting manner, as he included some statements and excluded
others. It is worth repeating an important phrase that appears close to the
end of the report's annexe on the standing arrangements for consultation and
co-operation between the EU and NATO. The Prime Minister chose not to read
it out. The annexe states:
The entire chain of command must remain under the political control
and strategic direction of the EU throughout the operation.
Should we be surprised that Bill Cohen showed alarm and felt that the rapid
reaction force would act independently of NATO?
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who spoke briefly, for which I am
grateful, posed an interesting question. He asked why other countries would
wish to join the European Union if it was so bad. I think that he cited
Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and some other Visegrad countries. The reason why
they are so keen to join and why we have our doubts is that Britain and
Germany mainly pay for the European Union. Of course, the countries that
want to join will mainly benefit from the European Union.
For that reason, hon. Members have every right to be alarmed that the common
agricultural policy was not discussed. It is by far the biggest drain on
European Union funds. Let us be clear: if the European Union is to expand,
it cannot survive with the existing common agricultural policy. No country,
not even a European Union super-state, can afford the CAP if the eastern
European countries are absorbed. I believe that the European Union should
absorb those countries. Indeed, it was the policy of the former Prime
Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), to
broaden rather than deepen the European Union. Those fundamental changes
must be made.
In the few minutes that remain, I should like to deal with two issues that
concern my constituency. In the most Gracious Speech, the Queen said:
My Government will introduce legislation to modernise and improve
law enforcement by, for example, tackling disorderly conduct.
Such conduct has been called yob culture, and I do not believe that any hon.
Member would object to dealing with that.
Peter Gammon, president of the Police Superintendents Association of England
and Wales, said:
I think that yob culture is endemic and we need strong measures and
mechanisms to deal with it. We have to improve the quality of life for
people, remove the fear of crime. Part of this is brought about by yobbish
behaviour and minor crime but we need to use these measures to rebuild the
fabric of our community.
That is all well and good, but, as Ministers know, a member of the
Association of Chief Police Officers added:
We need to make sure that when the Bills come forward they are
workable. I refer in particular to the practicality of curfews.
Spin is not enough; there must be substance. For that, there must be enough
police officers on the ground for proper enforcement. PC David Stockport,
secretary of the North Yorkshire branch of the Police Federation, said:
It cannot keep going on like this.
He was referring to the cut in police officer numbers. He went on to say:
It is becoming impossible for police officers to cope. We have huge
problems with lack of back-up. You may be in Whitby and the nearest support
is in Scarborough. We are getting to the stage where it is putting us in
danger.
I contacted the chief constable of Staffordshire, Mr. John Giffard, who gave
me some interesting figures.
I do not wish to suggest that my constituents in Lichfield are yobbish, but
we are blessed with a wide variety of public houses, and on Friday and
Saturday nights, things get a little boisterous. As a consequence, police
will have to be available to enforce the yob culture legislation, if it is
enacted before Parliament is dissolved.
How many police officers do we have in Lichfield on a Friday or Saturday
night? Just three or four policemen, backed up, if we are lucky, by maybe
four or five special constables. What about the large metropolitan area of
Stoke-on-Trent? There is one sergeant, maybe four police constables and 10
special constables, although, apparently, 20 or 30 are available if they are
required to deal with a special event or riot. Of course, police officers
can be drafted in from other areas in an emergency. Under this Government,
there has been a huge cut in the number of police officers. In
Staffordshire, there was a drop of 68.1 men in one year alone, and in the
west midlands, more than 126 officers have been lost. In the three years
since the Government came to power, Staffordshire has lost 250 police
officers and civilians, and gained, from the Government's extra funding, a
mere 90. That is a net loss of 160 police officers from Staffordshire's
small force.
It is worth contrasting the situation with the record of the Conservative
party. If I do not do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you can bet your bottom
dollar that the Government Front Bench will, so I will get my word in first.
Under the Conservative Government between March 1979 and 1997, the force's
total strength increased by 15,400, from 109,653 to 125,051, an increase of
14 per cent. Under Labour, between March 1997 and September 1999, the total
force's strength fell by 2,001 from 125,051 to 123,050, a decrease of 1.6
per cent. Once again, a great deal of spin is involved--we hear about
legislation to deal with yobbish culture, but, sadly, there is no delivery.
Without police officers on the ground, we will not witness law enforcement
in this country.
The Government were also elected on a promise of better health care. In
Lichfield, Victoria hospital is under threat because of the abolition of
fundholding practices. Despite the fact that 15,149 Lichfieldians signed a
petition to save the hospital and its services, there is every reason to
believe that the maternity unit in the hospital will be disbanded, that the
dialysis unit in the hospital will be closed and that the minor injuries
unit in the hospital will be disbanded, if not the hospital itself.
A very expensive, and what is called an informal, consultation document has
been produced. The health authority said that the document's findings were
not what it wished to hear, namely, that people wanted to keep the maternity
unit in Lichfield. Surprise, surprise--the local health authority is now
being urged by the Department of Health to produce yet another consultation
document, which may take three, four or five months to complete. That is
purely a cynical act--the authority wants to delay the closure of the
maternity and dialysis units and of other services in Lichfield until after
the general election.
That is happening across the land, not just in Lichfield. Actions taken by
the Government show yet again that they are all spin, no substance and no
delivery. Until the Government are prepared to put their money where their
mouth is, to provide more police officers, more nurses and doctors and to
fight our corner in Europe, they will continue to fail the people of this
country.
