Queen’s Speech

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 27th May 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

That this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone, and the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, on their speeches. They have continued the tradition of excellence by those moving and seconding the humble Address.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, has come a long way since her days studying sociology in the 1960s at the then revolutionary hotbed, the University of Essex, where she was described as,

“a very strong-willed student with left-wing sentiments”—

to which I have to say, what went wrong? However, the noble Baroness remains related to, among others, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton, and of course his son, the honourable Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. We have party membership forms in our office should she wish to arrange a family reunion at some point.

While it is often said that gentlemen prefer blondes, I note that one of the noble Baroness’s many middle names is Brunette. I have to say that I am very grateful that my parents did not name me Ginger. I must, however, congratulate the noble Baroness on her stellar career, both in government and in the world beyond. Notwithstanding her known commitment to the Church of England, she is a great example of the fact that in politics, too, there is an afterlife. So I may well be beating a path to her door in due course.

The Chancellor, George Osborne, has been reported as saying that he talks to the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, more than he does to his own wife—for which I am sure his wife is very grateful.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

On his ennoblement, the Guardian suggested that the noble Lord was a dead ringer for one Ron Weasley, the famous friend and close confidant of Harry Potter. I hope for reassurance from the Leader that the forthcoming schools Bill will not include any measures to force Hogwarts to take academy status. I know that as a Chelsea FC supporter, the noble Lord will have been celebrating two blue wins this month. Those who follow football tell me that there is no comparison between the two victories—one was headed by a hard-nosed, highly paid campaigner from overseas who will do anything to get a result; the other by Chelsea’s winning manager.

I am addressing your Lordships as Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition when I fervently hoped for the people of this country that we would be on the opposite side of the Chamber. I believe in the power of politics to change lives. So did the hundreds of candidates up and down the country who put their lives on hold, as well as their party organisers and the thousands of supporters who knocked on doors, delivered leaflets, ran phone banks, organised staker bases and provided much-needed sustenance. I had the pleasure and privilege of working with many, including three special young people in Gloucester: Chris, Emma and Tom.

The gracious Speech makes much of a one-nation approach but I fear that the state of the union, as the President of the United States might say, is sadly not strong, with tension between England and Scotland stirred up and all too successfully exploited by strategists on both sides, and the unionist centre ground squeezed. But despite this, I know that noble Lords on all sides agree that our union must be rebuilt. I hope that the many Scots among us will support the three remaining defenders of the union in the other place. Britain is a great country and we are better together. That said, such was the result north of the border that my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland has been considering changing her name. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has been thinking the same—and I must say that he has enough names to lose.

With respect to the Speech before us, if the proposals for a British Bill of Rights mean the scrapping of the Human Rights Act this will also Increase pressures on the union. The Commission on a Bill of Rights set up in 2011 found that the people in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland did not display the same hostility to the Act as those driving the debate. Mr Cameron should understand both the limitations of support for the scrapping of the HRA and the dangers to the bonds of the union. In doing so, he might recall the words of Edmund Burke, who wrote that,

“whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither is, in my opinion, safe”.

This is clearly not the Queen’s Speech that I had hoped for, with much-needed measures to attack the widening inequalities in our society, enabling all to grow their talents to the benefit of our country, and of course the abolition of the dreadful and pernicious bedroom tax. I would be grateful if the Leader could say which of the Bills announced in the Speech will begin in this House and how long the first parliamentary Session is likely to be. Noble Lords will have noticed the plethora of spending commitments, so I also have to ask: how will these be paid for?

It is welcome that more people are now employed in our country but I am concerned about the quality of many of the jobs created. Work brings dignity when someone earns enough to keep themselves and their family but too many working people continue to rely on in-work benefits and when a utility bill, or the need to replace a household appliance, tips them over the edge some have to turn to that hard-hearted symbol of the Cameron era: the food bank. As the Prime Minister’s former guru Steve Hilton remarked last week, it is,

“outrageous that people should work all hours of the week and still have to live on benefits because they don’t get paid enough”,

as well as being,

“a really big problem, both economically, socially and morally”.

It is one thing encouraging people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps but quite another to go around kicking down the pillars of support that have long helped those struggling to get by.

As with decent jobs and fair pay, good housing is a cornerstone of family life and society. Get it right and much else follows, including improved health and a much more positive approach to school, college and work. The commitment to build 275,000 affordable homes by 2020 fails to understand the scale of the problem and falls way short of the 1 million that Labour proposed. Ministers must do better to ensure a balance between houses for sale, homes for rent and affordable public housing. Instead, we have before us a half-baked plan to sell off housing association homes, which presents huge practical difficulties and sums that simply do not add up. It has also been met with much derision from across the housing sector.

Decentralisation was at the heart of Labour’s plans for growth and a more balanced country. New powers are being offered to some of our great city regions but rural areas should also play a similarly important role in driving our economy. Such devolution is a good thing but I have concerns about the Government’s rationale and fear that behind the apparent good intention sits a more hard-nosed agenda. Over the past five years, major funding reductions for local government, education, social security and policing, combined with the transfer of key NHS responsibilities on to councils, have left parts of our country feeling cast adrift and bereft of previous support. Imagine the consequences if the principles of the small state and an unfettered free market were injected into the bloodstream of our public services, with co-operation and collaboration falling by the wayside while competition runs rife, and public bodies meeting merely to sign off contracts while community and social ties unbind. No wonder local authority leaders from the now Conservative-led Local Government Association are warning that another round of cuts will devastate services and harm the most vulnerable. With the devolution of responsibility, government must will the means as well as the end.

The proposals announced on decentralisation, English votes for English laws and devolution to Wales and Scotland, the continuing demands to go beyond the measures agreed by the Smith commission and hints about boundary changes lead me to renew our calls on the Government to establish a constitutional convention. Such a convention could consider the future of this very Chamber and look at change in the round rather than in the piecemeal way that we are experiencing, with its profound implications for our country.

From concerns with the national and local, I turn to the global. We live in a great country, but our full potential cannot be realised in isolation. Such a position sadly looks set to continue apace as we seriously consider a possible exit from the European Union. The need to protect ourselves and our allies from terrorism is ever present, but we must also ensure that we safeguard our interests in business and in trade, play an influential role in matters concerning climate change and technological innovation, and help tackle the root causes of global poverty by taking a lead in international development. During the last Parliament, Mr Cameron’s failure to control the Eurosceptic wing of his party and the rise of UKIP began to dominate our country’s world view. But getting to this point has not just been a narrow political failure on the part of the Conservatives; those of us who believe that our future lies in the European Union must talk with, and not at, people and clearly demonstrate the wider benefits of membership.

I have two final points on the EU referendum—for today at least. We will vote for the Bill but we believe that younger people need a stronger voice in society and that the referendum would provide one opportunity, perhaps helping to deal with the sort of alienation that Georgia Gould, the daughter of my noble friend Lady Rebuck and our sadly departed colleague Philip, the Lord Gould of Brookwood, has identified in her excellent book, Wasted. We saw last year how young people in Scotland engaged in the run-up to the independence referendum. I hope that Mr Cameron will learn from that experience and offer 16 and 17 year-olds a say over whether their country should remain within the EU. Meanwhile, I am sure that all noble Lords would be grateful for confirmation from the noble Baroness that we in this House will be able to vote on what will be a critical decision about our future.

Notwithstanding the fact that I will no longer lead for my party on these Benches, I thought it worth recalling a few observations from more recent humble Address debates, when Labour was the majority party in the other place but in a political minority here. I hope your Lordships will indulge me a moment, as these observations might in fact jog a few memories, fond and otherwise. For example,

“we shall endeavour to act as a constructive but vigorous Opposition. We shall play our part in helping this House to fulfil its obligations as a second Chamber, to scrutinise and improve legislation and, when—and only when—judgment dictates, to ask another place to think again”.—[Official Report, 14/5/97; col. 17.]

That was Viscount Cranborne in 1997, leading the Conservative response in the humble Address that followed Tony Blair’s first landslide victory.

“Good constructive opposition has a vital democratic role, and I do not wish to see this House cowed and controlled”.—[Official Report, 20/6/01; col.17.]

That of course was the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, four years later, following Labour’s second landslide victory.

“The Government have won a clear election victory … They are entitled to the fruits of that victory and I congratulate them on it. But they cannot ignore the warning signs and they should not evade or curtail the scrutiny of Parliament”.—[Official Report, 17/5/05; col.16.]

Your Lordships will have already guessed—that is the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, once again, in 2005, following our third election victory. Those were the days.

During those three Parliaments, politics in this House was a numbers game. In theory, no overall control; in practice, and with Labour not even the largest group until 2006, opposition parties could come together readily to defeat us. They did that more than 500 times, on more than 30% of Divisions. During the past five years, coalition government meant a majority here, with my party the lone political opposition. Given our numerical weakness we did amazingly well, thanks to the very strong team which contributed heavily towards a century-plus of formal defeats and secured many more concessions.

However, the situation now, thanks in part to the 1999 hereditary Peers Act, is historic for Labour. In some respects, there will be similarities with our period of government, although the Conservative group is already the largest and expected to increase. Could the Leader say what plans she has to deal with the size of this House beyond encouraging more retirements? Either way, it is most definitely the first time in opposition when it will not be difficult for us to join forces with other noble Lords to defeat the Government. That is a great power to have, and in this unelected place, a great responsibility too.

As a responsible Opposition, we will continue to stand by the broad principles of the Salisbury convention, as set out in the report of the Joint Committee agreed by this House in 2007. However, we will seek to challenge legislation in the usual ways, engaging constructively and making improvements where possible. Following amendments made to Bills in the last Parliament, we will also be on the lookout—BlueWatch, if you will—for attempts to introduce the substance or intent of those concessions via secondary legislation. Given that some of those concessions were made in response to internal tensions within the coalition, on the Labour Benches we look forward to those noble Lords recently freed from their five-year experience of Stockholm syndrome joining us more regularly in holding Ministers to account.

I acknowledge that Labour not only lost the election but lost it badly, in part because of the nationalist surge in Scotland but also because many people in England and Wales believed that we could not yet be trusted to run the economy. As the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, suggested in his reflections on the result, the non-shy, non-Tory supposedly shy Tories allowed Mr Cameron to achieve what for most commentators, pollsters and indeed bookmakers seemed an unlikely majority. However, if we consider how people voted in different places, including for second-place parties, we look, feel and indeed are a more divided country than ever before and in a way that is far more complex than the north/south binaries of the 1980s and 1990s. As Labour did then, our party will, during this Parliament, continue to fight to protect those institutions and ideals that we believe bring our country together and make it great: the NHS, the BBC, human rights, rights at work, legal aid, dignity for the disabled, the future of the union and our future inside the European Union. This is what I have sought to do during my time as Leader and then shadow Leader of this House. I know that whoever succeeds me will do the same.

On a personal note, if noble Lords will allow me, it has been a huge privilege to serve for nearly seven years. I am proud of my group. This House, albeit in need of reform, is an integral and important part of our nation’s constitutional make-up. I like the way in which we do politics in this place. I hear all too often from people up and down the country that they have lost faith in politics and politicians. One reason cited is that we are too shrill, too aggressive, too partisan and too ready to question not just the policies of our opponents—that is right and proper—but their very morality, as if our own tribe is somehow superior. I am pleased that political abuse is not our style. It would be ironic, would it not, if this House, so often derided as elderly, elitist and out of touch, were to show the British people that there is a better way for us to do politics—to disagree but not to be disagreeable, as my right honourable friend Ed Miliband put it just a couple of weeks ago. That is my firm wish for the future of our political system as a whole and I will continue to play my part from the Back Benches. I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.