PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

75 Debate on the Address
9 MAY 2012
Debate on the Address
76
[Meg Hillier]
and the energy Bill might have offered opportunities for
some mutual solutions, as would, of course, the banking
Bill. We need new measures on demutualisation and we
have already missed an opportunity through the selling
off to the highest bidder, rather than remutualisation,
of Northern Rock. If the House is united on the need
for banking reform, why not join that up with the idea
of the mutual model and ensure that businesses as well
as individuals are supported by mutuals?
Another element missing from the Bill that is a concern
to my constituents and to me is the antisocial behaviour
legislation that we had hoped might be introduced. The
message is very confused. One whole year ago, the
Government’s consultation on antisocial behaviour finished.
They have done the work, yet 12 months on there is no
Bill in the Gracious Speech to deal with those issues. A
year ago, the Government all but announced their
intention to end antisocial behaviour orders, but there is
no Bill to do that and the police and residents are left
confused about where they stand.
The Government regularly pass the buck to local
police forces when challenged on crime issues, but they
are robbing them of the tools to do the job. We know
that ASBOs require better enforcement and we accept
that they are not perfect in every way, but they could be
strengthened to deal better with the problem of repeat
victimisation. The Government should be trying to
build on what is in place and on what has been shown to
work, rather than starting again from scratch. We hear
that the Government has a plan for a community trigger,
which would only guarantee action if five different
households reported the same incident. For me, if one
person complains that incident of antisocial behaviour
needs to be tackled. It should be taken seriously and
investigated.
We also have an alphabet soup of other proposals.
The crime prevention injunction and criminal behaviour
orders do not do what they say on the tin. I know from
experience with gang injunctions in Hackney that it can
take a very long time for agencies on the ground to get
used to the new powers, for the Crown Prosecution
Service to deal with them properly, for courts to understand
them and for them to embed. ASBOs might not have
been perfect, but they were in the language of my
constituents and of constituents up and down the country.
People understood them and so did the system. To
throw them out without having proper plans in place to
replace them is a big mistake.
My constituency has a number of challenges. We
have heard from others about youth unemployment. In
my constituency, one in four young people under the
age of 24 is out of work. Our overall unemployment
rate is 12.7%. Those challenges have a major impact on
child poverty. There are still children in my constituency
who turn up to school after a long summer holiday
malnourished in September because their parents have
chaotic lifestyles and have been unable to get them fed.
We all support measures to get people into work, but to
have a whole generation of young people who are
unable to get work or work experience will, I fear, lead
to greater challenges for their children.
I do not have time to go into the figures for the ethnic
breakdown of unemployment, but let us just take the
example of young black men. About 55% of young
black men are out of work, which is a staggering figure
and much higher than the general norm. It risks becoming
a real divide in this country if it is not tackled. It might
not be an issue for every hon. Member in this House—as
the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi)
said, his is not a kaleidoscope county—but let me tell
hon. Members that my constituency is a kaleidoscope
constituency, as are many others. It is a great strength of
our area, but we must not have one group of people so
badly affected by Government policy.
Other issues have not been tackled. Housing benefit
levels have been cut, rents have continued to rise by a
great deal in my constituency and house prices have
risen, too. That means that my constituents face a real
challenge on housing and homes and nothing in this
Queen’s Speech will tackle that, which is a serious
mistake. It demonstrates again how the Government
are very much out of touch with what really matters to
people. Families want to be in a position to support
themselves and my constituents’ requirements are very
limited in many respects. They are not as demanding as
they should be, I believe, but they want a job, a good
school for their child, a health service that will work
and to know that they can afford a roof over their
heads. The job and the roof over their heads are particular
challenges at the moment, so although we have these
esoteric debates in the Westminster village about House
of Lords reform—an issue not once raised on the
doorstep—and as much as I think we need to reform
the House of Lords, right now the energy of this place
should be focused on how to move this country forward,
invest in jobs and growth and ensure that we create job
opportunities and homes for constituents in my constituency
and up and down the country.
6.59 pm
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con): I congratulate
the Government on the Gracious Speech and the measures
in it. There are two proposals about which I am
concerned—House of Lords reform and the televising
of court proceedings—which I shall address in a moment.
First, however, I have to say how lucky we are to have a
monarchy in this country. We tried a presidency under
Tony Blair, and what a disaster it was: indeed, we are
still suffering the consequences of that presidency, which
took us into an illegal war with Iraq, destroying the
United Kingdom. How I wish that I and the other
17 Members of the House who wished to impeach him
at that time had been successful. Now, he is going
around not only our country but the rest of the world
still earning money at our expense.
Charlie Elphicke: Has my hon. Friend noticed that as
well as earning money at our expense Tony Blair does
not seem to pay an awful lot of tax either?
Mr Amess: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of
course, Tony Blair gave evidence at the inquiry last year
and I hope that when the report comes out, the matter
will be dealt with. To have him as a special peace envoy
in the middle east is absolutely ridiculous.
So, I rejoice in the fact that we have a monarchy. I
always think that Conservative Queen’s Speeches are
better than Labour Queen’s Speeches and today is no
exception. I am delighted that we heard today that the
Prime Minister is determined to reduce the deficit and