PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

85 Debate on the Address
9 MAY 2012
Debate on the Address
86
In the relatively recent past, we have had the Jopling
proposals, in 1994 under John Major’s Government,
followed by the more rigid measure of timetabling,
which was introduced post 1997 and which, by the way,
I also voted against. Those two things—particularly the
Jopling proposals—have cemented a relationship between
this place and Whitehall which is entirely unbalanced
and needs to be brought back into balance.
That leads me on to an incident that occurred when
I was an MP previously, for Hornchurch, with Eric
Forth, the much missed, late Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst, who was a great parliamentarian and a
terrific speaker. He was speaking against everything
that had happened since 1994, against timetabling and
guillotining, and I pointed out from a sedentary position
on the Government Benches that he had actually supported
the Jopling proposals. I probably used some fairly Anglo-
Saxon language when doing so, but Eric’s response was,
“Well, I regret it now and wish I had voted against
them.” Funnily enough, he was in opposition at the
time.
I shall move on to two issues that do concern my
constituents. Like many in the Chamber, I have worn
myself out over the past few months knocking on
doors, and, as everybody else who has spoken today has
said, nobody on the doorstep or at street surgeries
mentioned House of Lords reform, but two issues that
were mentioned day in, day out were, first, housing and
the appalling state of accommodation—certainly in my
constituency and many others in England, Scotland
and Wales—and, secondly, economic insecurity. Those
two things were right at the top of the agenda day in,
day out during the campaign.
The Queen’s Speech mentions housing in passing,
I suppose. It states:
“My Government will strive to improve the lives of children
and families.”
The problem is that the lives of children and families in
my constituency are not being improved; they are going
in the opposite direction. In Leyton and, to some extent,
in Leytonstone, both of which are in my constituency,
we are seeing almost Victorian levels of overcrowding,
with appalling cowboy private landlords treating people
terribly, and the waiting list in Waltham Forest, which
makes up most of my constituency, is now more than
20,000.
Meg Hillier: I do not know whether my hon. Friend
has the same problem in his constituency as I have in
mine, but, with the housing benefit cap, many of my
constituents, including working families and those with
children, are being forced out of their homes and I am
not sure where in London they can go to find
accommodation at the right level in the private sector.
Surely this too is a concern and rather flies in the face of
his generous reading of that one line in the Queen’s
Speech.
John Cryer: I completely agree, and I see exactly the
same experience. Owing also to the acute shortage of
public housing in my constituency, people are being
told, “You’ll have to move to Walsall,” “You’ll have to
move to Derby,”—here, there, right across the country.
One woman who was in emergency accommodation
and had suffered a bereavement—her husband had died
and her daughter was in a terrible state—came to see
me, having been told, “You’ve got to move to Walsall,
and next Tuesday, by the way.” That was on a Thursday,
and she was being told that she had to move to Walsall
the following Tuesday. In a civilised society, that is a
pretty appalling way to treat somebody.
That brings me on to economic insecurity. Since the
general election alone, 70,000 to 80,000 construction
jobs have been lost in Britain, and in fact it is probably
more than that by now; those are the latest figures I
have. The stagnation of the economy is also an enormous
worry to an awful lot of my constituents.
On the eurozone, the Government, rather than helping
to prop up a currency that is clearly collapsing, should
encourage countries such as Greece to leave the euro
and get their economies moving again, because that is
the best way to stimulate our economy—through exports
to eurozone countries, which at the moment do not have
the cash or resources to buy goods from this country or
others, such as Germany and North America. The idea,
which the Prime Minister reiterated this afternoon, that
we are not bailing out the eurozone is simply a myth.
We are giving increasing amounts of money to the
International Monetary Fund, which then hands over
increasing amounts of money to the eurozone, so the
idea that we are not in one way or another bailing out
eurozone countries is an absolute myth. It simply is
happening.
There was also a line in the Queen’s Speech that quite
disturbed me. It stated:
“My Government will seek the approval of Parliament relating
to the agreed financial stability mechanism within the euro area.”
There must be elements of the fiscal compact within
that stability mechanism, and as sure as eggs is eggs the
fiscal compact will be included in the Bill that this place
and the other place will have to pass. In reality, that too
will go in the direction of the eurozone, meaning the
centralisation of power in Brussels, increased austerity
throughout Europe and increased poverty. I find it
extraordinary that Governments in western Europe will
do almost anything to prop up the euro.
Charlie Elphicke: The hon. Gentleman has long been
known in this place for his passion on the matter of
Europe. Does he believe that, with the elections in
Greece and France and the problems in Spain, the euro
is sustainable however much money is now pumped
into it?
John Cryer: My own view is that, no, the euro is not
sustainable, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rather
than helping to sustain what is effectively a broken
system, should encourage countries such as Greece and
Spain to find a way out and a way of exerting power
over their own economies, because that is how the
eurozone more disparately is going to move forward.
I remember listening to an interview with a European
Commissioner on the “Today” programme a few months
ago, just as Greece was being plunged into the crisis
that it is still in. The questioner said that there was
increasing unemployment and poverty in Greece—even
then, there were reports of malnutrition among Greek
children—and asked whether it was fair that the people
involved should pay the price for saving the euro. The
Commissioner said, “Well, life’s not fair.” That is
extraordinary. She expanded on the comment, because
she realised that she had made a mistake and let the cat