Budget Statement

Lord Graham of Edmonton Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Graham of Edmonton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity of speaking in this debate. Having asked the Minister to note that I intend to speak on my pet subject of mobile homes and the attention paid to it by the Government, I confess to him that I will not be able to stay here until the end of the debate because I am not well. But I am obligated to make one or two points.

I thought that there would be a fair bit in the Budget Statement on housing. Although the Government have lots of plans for housing, there is very little direct reference to it in the Statement. When I asked for the Treasury background papers, I found that a great deal has been put in train on housing by the Government, and that relaxed me a little bit.

In an earlier debate on mobile homes, I relied on information received that Mr Henry Morrison Junior had practised what was called “sales blocking” on his park at Welford-on-Avon, Warwickshire. This practice has disappeared, largely as a result of the 2013 Act. Mr Morrison wrote to me saying that he had never taken part in such actions. I immediately wrote to him, apologised and promised to express my withdrawal of any allegation of such a policy. He has my full approval to use this apology, and I reiterate my regrets and apologise unreservedly. I want to put that on the record.

Very often, parliamentarians are written to by interest groups with their point of view. There are one or two who do so in respect of park homes: Sonia McColl, who is very active in the JUSTICE campaign; Mr Tony Turner, who represents a group in Cornwall; and others. I rely completely on them. In the main, what they send to me has already been sent to the Minister. Therefore, all I want the Minister to do is give me an assurance that he will draw the attention of his parliamentary colleagues to what I have got to say.

The matter deserves attention. There was a phrase that was used by the Government some time ago: “We’re all in this together”. Well, some of us are more in it than others. I think that people who live in mobile homes are getting the short end of the stick. Most of them are aged; most of them are infirm; most of them rely on the good will of the site owner—and many of the site owners can be castigated. The mobile homes population is well looked after not only by the organisations that I have mentioned but by other people, too.

What strikes me is the gap between what the establishment says and what those representing residents experience. Let me illustrate that in the following way. From a small sample, the JUSTICE Campaign, so ably led by Sonia McColl, tells me that police were “wonderful” in Cornwall but that in Arun District Council they were not. The police were helpful in Bracknell, but action was not taken on complaints to the police in east Hertfordshire. No police action was taken in north Somerset, but it was taken in Maidstone. Police were helpful in Test Valley, but in Sevenoaks they said that it was a civil matter and not a criminal one.

That reminds me of a case that was investigated. Inspector Colquhoun of the West Mercia Police was instrumental in making inquiries. One night, a group of men deliberately set fire to two mobile homes on a site. They were caught and they were sentenced, eight of them, to 64 years in prison—so you can see the seriousness of the matter.

Sonia McColl provided a document known as the “name and shame” list—the Minister already has this information. Twenty site owners are on the list. One owner had 13 parks with 120 homes; another had three sites with 118 homes; another had four sites with 234 homes; another had eight sites with 417 homes; yet another had two sites with 67 homes; another had 17 sites with 1,000 homes; and yet another had 43 sites.

I have with me a newspaper cutting which draws attention to the fact that, in the matter of council house sales, a man and his wife in the Ashford area own 1,000 homes. They have bought them and are renting them out. They are thinking in terms of selling their portfolio, which is estimated to be worth millions of pounds. There is something wrong in the field of housing when that sort of situation can take place.

In the time that I have left, I will simply refer to what other councils are doing. In Cornwall, they issue a document to every resident of a park home. The Minister will know that there is a gap between the activities of the ministry concerned and the effective dissemination of the information to the residents. It is not easy, but it needs to be improved.

Last week, Sarah Wollaston, who is chair of the Health Committee in the other place, asked the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many local authorities had,

“revoked the licences of park home site owners who have breached their site licences more than three times in the last two years”.

The Minister had to say that the Government had no information about this activity. My point is that direct action needs to be taken against site owners who have been taken to court and dealt with, yet who refuse to comply. The written statement which governs these things lays down obligations and responsibilities for the site owner and the applicant. I see that the Whip on duty is smiling at me and he does not do that very often. I know what the smile means, so I will sit down.

National Infrastructure

Lord Graham of Edmonton Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Graham of Edmonton (Lab)]

My Lords, I join many other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, on securing this debate. It is impossible to do in four minutes what one wants to do in a debate of this kind but I congratulate the staff of the House of Lords Library who have produced an excellent note, full of facts and figures. I do not intend to knock previous programmes but to remind the House of what has happened to some of them, such as the sale of council housing.

In 1979, there were 6,568,000 council homes. By 2012, this figure had shrunk to 2,096,000, and there one may find some of the seeds of the present problems. Of course it was a good policy to sell council houses—we backed it in this Chamber. But the problem was that the Government of the day, because of their political stance, did not allow councils to replace the houses that they had sold. As a consequence, we have the problems that we have today, and that is not very good.

On the disposal of national assets to allow private landlords to amass a portfolio, I should like to put on the record a recent piece from a national newspaper. When houses were allowed to be sold, one assumed that people would own them for the rest of their lives or that they would be inherited by their children. But what has happened? A number of private individuals have made it a business to buy council houses and to rent them. I know of a situation where a man is saying, “If you have more than two children; if you are on a zero hours contract; if granny moves in; or if you are on housing benefit, you will be evicted”. That is what that man is doing. The terrible problem is that nothing can be done about it. He is operating within the law. I should like to ask the Minister, if it is possible to do this in this very busy period, whether there is any move towards examining the manner in which previous assets have been distributed and are now working against us.

Housing is not the only issue. I look at the extent to which water, electricity and other public assets have been distributed. Noble Lords will know the slogan: “Tell Sid”. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon but the shares did not remain in the hands of the individuals. They were bought up by, among others, the Canadian Pension Plan, a consortium in Hong Kong, Australian and Canadian pension funds, Cheung asset management, the Norway central bank, and organisations in China, Malaysia and Singapore.

I am conscious of the time and I do not want the Whip, who is doing her job, to remind me. This has been said in the country and I have said sufficient to indicate that I am in favour of the plans ahead. However, we need to be very careful that the defence of this realm is not put in jeopardy by selling or allowing to be bought the assets that we have inherited from our predecessors. We should be very careful not to allow too much imbalance.

Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 2010 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2014

Lord Graham of Edmonton Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the regulations represent the latest step in the Government’s drive to deliver improved legislation for registered societies in Great Britain, by which I mean co-operatives and community benefit societies, hitherto known as industrial and provident societies, as well as credit unions. The regulations relate to how we refer to this group of businesses, and make the necessary changes in secondary legislation to enable new industrial and provident societies in Great Britain to register as either a co-operative society or a community benefit society.

Around 6,000 co-operatives and community benefit societies are registered across Great Britain. They come in all shapes and sizes and cover a diverse range of activities and industries. Their continued popularity is evidenced by growing numbers of members. Some of these mutually run businesses already refer to themselves as co-operatives or community benefit societies, and many industry stakeholders now regard the expression “industrial and provident society” as old fashioned.

The sector requested a formal change of description in legislation to modernise the language used to describe these businesses, which will enable them to become more relevant to members and the general public. I imagine that most people would have a sense of the terms “co-operative” and “community benefit society”, but many might struggle to describe quite what an “industrial and provident society” might be.

These regulations will make amendments to secondary legislation consequential upon the commencement of Section 1 of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 2010 as re-enacted in the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014, which lays down new registration requirements for societies in Great Britain, other than credit unions.

As well as requiring a new society to be registered as a co-operative society or a community benefit society, the 2014 Act refers to all societies registered under the 2014 Act or before 1 August 2014 under existing legislation—including credit unions—as “registered societies”. The consequential amendments reflect those changes for Great Britain, but will preserve references to industrial and provident societies in Northern Ireland legislation.

Any new societies registering under one of the new terms from 1 August will not face any additional costs. For existing societies, only those that choose to amend their description may incur minimal costs; for example, to replace stationery or to amend website information. In any case, the sector has indicated that any costs as a result of registering under a new description will be more than offset by the benefit of using language that is more transparent to the public and their members.

These regulations form a small part of the Government’s wider commitment to support mutuality. Beyond this, a number of changes to mutuals legislation have been progressed during this Parliament. Those included a package of measures that came into force in April, which included: increasing the amount of withdrawable share capital an individual can invest in a society from £20,000 to £100,000, making it easier and cheaper for societies to raise capital; giving the FCA additional powers to investigate a society if suspected of unlawful or improper behaviour; making insolvency rescue procedures available to societies that previously would have had no alternative but to be wound up; and simplifying electronic registration for new societies.

Linked to the regulations we are discussing today, the Government also brought forward the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014, which was announced by the Prime Minister in January 2012. The Act has now gained Royal Assent and is due to come into force in August this year. It is a consolidation Act, which brings together and modernises the existing legislation for co-operatives, and was requested by the sector.

Today’s regulations are a necessary step in the work under way to strengthen the legislation for the co-operatives and community benefit societies. They form part of the wider package of measures implemented during this Parliament to strengthen and support the mutuals sector. The changes included in these regulations have received wide support from the sector.

[Lord Graham of Edmonton (Lab)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to welcome this stage of the legislation and the changes. In looking at my research, I am reminded of the efforts of John Roper—the noble Lord, Lord Roper—who played a large part in getting credit unions on to the agenda. Since then, Ed Balls in his ministerial capacity welcomed the issue and moved it forward. Of course, the present Minister, who I am delighted to see in his place, and his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Freud, have played a major part in keeping the issue alive.

I go back not to 1844 but to 1852 and the first industrial and provident societies Act. One of my studies has been co-operative law, and from 1852—certainly to 1863 and then into the 1890s and beyond—there have been genuine attempts to improve the raison d’être of co-operation as an economic form. There has been no objection. I am a Newcastle upon Tyne co-op society man, and one of my jobs for a period was to pay out the dividend accrued. That was the way in which many members of what I am still proud to call the working class saw an opportunity to save for the rainy day; it was marvellous. They would keep and take out of the dividend what they wanted, but they knew it was safe, secure, guaranteed and that it was their own.

We come to governance and changes, and of course this is not the place to go wider than the topic that we have here. That is why I was delighted to notice in a document from ABCUL, the association of British credit unions, that the ministry has already earmarked £38 million to be available for leadership training. It has been a great sadness to see something go catastrophically wrong for an organisation of this kind—there are thousands of credit unions and more than a million individual members—but one discovers that it was not the principle that was wrong, but the manner in which it was led or monitored. As a consequence, there have been blemishes in the credit union movement; I will not say more or less. However, I am delighted that one aspect of the legislation is to continue the good work that has already been done to ensure that those who have the temerity and courage to start a credit union will have the backing in due time of an organisation and of leadership. There must be nothing more catastrophic or devastating for a group of people, be it small or large, who have put their faith in a savings bank or whatever one likes to call it only to find that they have been let down by a lack of oversight and tightness. Having followed the development of legislation, I am certain that, in time, credit will be given to all three main parties in the House and many people will be rewarded by organisations which are sustainable and guaranteed.

I have nothing specific to talk about, because, being associated with the Co-operative movement even now, I am certain that if there were matters to be raised I would have been asked to raise them, and I have not been. I am not looking for trouble these days, so I do not write to somebody asking whether there are any points they want to make. If a point wanted to be made, they would have made it to me and other Members who have a close association with the Co-operative movement. I simply say to the Minister who has carried this legislation through that he will get no trouble from me, because I understand that a great deal of consultation has been done with the Co-operative Credit Union, Co-operatives UK and ABCUL, which plays a vital part in providing leadership. I believe that this is as big a step forward as was taken in 1844, when the Rochdale Pioneers took a leap forward. They were not the first co-operative in the country, but they are looked on as the founders of the modern Co-operative movement. After 180 years, who is to blame anybody for accepting that something that was relevant in 1844 and 1852 requires an overhaul, which is what it has had with this legislation? There has been no malice or agitation. I think that it is generally accepted in the country that small businesspeople are just as competent to run the affairs of a body such as a credit union as anybody else, provided that they have sound principles, that there is oversight and that, from time to time when required, the members will be faced with the fact that they will have do something drastic. To the Minister and anyone who is listening I say, on behalf of myself and others in the Co-operative movement, “Well done”.

The best guarantee of an audience at the City Hall in Newcastle was when there was a fear that the dividend was in danger or that a general manager was going to be sacked. I was there on two occasions when those things were prospective. We have to avoid that situation. I speak as an ex-student of the Co-operative movement. There are a number of other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, who have a strong connection with it. I wish this legislation well and congratulate all three main parties on having done a very good job on behalf of millions of people.

Some reference was made to numbers. I have some figures, too. There is great co-operative movement in Ireland. It is strong on credit unions. The same goes for the West Indies. A number of people have come from there and established their lives here. Across the world, the principle of co-operation as an economic and social force is well founded and I am proud to stand here and say on behalf of all those people, “Thank you very much”.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, it is the duty of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to oppose, so I have worked on these regulations to see what I could oppose. The answer, frankly, is nothing. It is good of the Minister to review the general primary legislation connected with this statutory instrument. I thought that in general this was the privilege of the Opposition, but never mind. I congratulate him, and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for his complimentary speech. Together, their speeches are a gratifying review of this movement and the work that all parties have done to improve it. However, as I read these regulations, they do no more than change the name of “industrial or provident societies” to “co-operative or community benefit societies”. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that it does no more or less than that, because otherwise I have misread the paperwork.

The Explanatory Memorandum goes on to say that the change has been requested by the sector. Will the Minister outline how, because in the paragraph about consultation in the memorandum, it says it was carried out in 2007? I know this has been going on for a long time, but is the sector’s request to change the name more recent, and through what mechanism has that request been made? Finally, I think it is clear, but will the Minister confirm this? As I understand it, it is a matter of choice for societies that are already registered or who register before 1 August whether they change status. I am curious how they will exercise that choice. Will the FCA communicate with all industrial and provident societies to see if they want to change their former registration? With those really trivial questions, I indicate our support for this instrument.

Health and Social Care in England

Lord Graham of Edmonton Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Graham of Edmonton]

My Lords, it is a joy and a pleasure to be able to take part in this debate. I am a consumer, more so than those who have made speeches today who have impressed me with their foresight, warnings and good sense, and I am deeply grateful.

I rise today to refer to an incident. An 88 year-old man who was partially disabled and partly immobile fell in his kitchen, and rang 999. That was at 5.30, but an hour later there was no sign so he rang again. At 7.30 he rang yet again and received no assistance. This old man then rang a care line that he subscribed to locally, and within the hour two ambulance men came along and looked after him.

That old man was me. I lay on the floor of my kitchen for three hours until assistance came. Although I was not badly injured, I just could not get up from the floor and I needed assistance. When the ambulance men came, they looked after me. They were superb and kind, so I thought to myself, “Well now, this is what it’s all about”.

My family have had great access to the National Health Service all their lives. I pay tribute through the Minister to what that service is and does. Of course the problems that have to be solved have been laid before him. Not many of them will be new, but he will be well aware, first, that the House holds him in high regard and, secondly, that he does what he can. What he did when I wrote to him was to tell me that he was not the person responsible for the ambulance service and that there was a different arrangement, which I did not know about, for which I apologise. He told me that I needed to write to the East of England Ambulance Service in the NHS, which I did. The Minister may or may not be aware of this—I am not trying to tie him down—but when he asked me to write to this organisation, I did. I was told that their procedure allowed 25 working days for a response. They guaranteed that I would get some response. I have counted 49 days since the date of the letter. I have had no action from them.

It is little things like that which spoil the image of the National Health Service. During the war, I lay on a hillside with gunshot wounds and my life was saved. Ever since, especially as my health has deteriorated of late, I have been grateful for the service that I have got. Does the Minister recognise that all I ever wanted was an explanation for why I had to lie on the floor for three hours? The answer is simple: resources. That is in the title of the debate today.

I express deep gratitude for all that I and my family have received, but I was particularly taken by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that now is the time to reassess what the health service is and how we proceed. That was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, whom I have known for a very long time. I can also see, sitting in her place, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, who stood on a platform with me 61 years ago—

[Baroness Boothroyd]

Fifty?

[Lord Graham of Edmonton]

Sixty-one years ago. I may have just given away the age of the noble Baroness. Well, the noble Baroness is just younger than me and I am now 88 years old, so I have not given it away too much.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, before the noble Lord embarrasses the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, further—

[Lord Newby]

I remind the noble Lord that there is a time limit of five minutes on the speeches.

[Lord Graham of Edmonton]

I have watched a number of five minutes’ being put up for the past hour, but no one has said anything to me. Thank you very much.

Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Bill [HL]

Lord Graham of Edmonton Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, first I want to say a word about the document that the noble Lord, Lord Myners, received yesterday morning in the Printed Paper Office. Your Lordships will remember that in the original Explanatory Notes issued by the Government in connection with this Bill, there was reference to an Appendix C, which I came across in the course of my preparation for Second Reading. When I drew this to my noble friend’s attention, the immediate reaction was that this would be published the next day, which was a very generous and ready response. It is 100 per cent obvious, I think, that this document was not intended to be published and that the reference to Appendix C in the Explanatory Notes was a mistake—and which of us has not made a mistake? When you see the document, it demonstrates quite plainly that it was not intended to be published. However, my noble friend on the Front Bench had no reason whatever to seek to suppress a document to which reference had been made, so that we could see it for what it is.

I also emphasise, as my noble friend did at Second Reading, that the Government were not emphasising that an economic case had been established for this particular Bill and that it depended on more general considerations, which he gave. However, this document does contain some figures, and the £61 million is referred to in it. I would not wish to analyse it as it does not have the polish that you would expect from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills if it were intended for publication. The mysterious passive comes into it quite a number of times: “it is to be considered”, or, “are considered as”, and so on. It does not say who the subject of the consideration is or who actually reached that point of view. Again and again, it mentions that any detriment would be time-limited, which seems a glimpse of the obvious since a suspension is only for a limited period. On the other hand, it repeatedly refers to Great Britain being open for business. The obvious conclusion is that that also is time-limited and is therefore not much of a point, to my mind. I have to say, in fairness to my noble friend, that he did not really make that point as part of his submissions in support of this Bill.

We are concerned today only with the amendments, and I am not going to take up time in dealing with any other matters. However, I will just say what my approach to the amendments is. First, under the present law, a shop worker is entitled, if he or she is working for one of these large stores as defined in the Bill, to opt out of Sunday work. The statutory requirements are very clear and are, as my noble friend has explained, a statutory back-up. A good number of retail businesses operate within that system, but with much less requirement for notice than the statutory requirement of three months. The point that I find difficult in trying to deal with the alternative amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, is that, in the ordinary course of events, workers in this industry who have not opted out would expect to be working on the days to which this suspension applies. Therefore, if they did not wish to work on these days in any event, they would have already opted out.

The only problem is that because this Bill has come rather late, Royal Assent will be too close to the first day of suspension for the ordinary provisions of the Act to apply. Therefore, the Government have sought to deal with that point in their amendment. They provide for two months to be the proper limit for notice in that case. That seems reasonable, in the sense it will be more than two months from Royal Assent to the first day on which the suspension operates. However, I do not see that two months is particularly sacrosanct, and if that is all there is between the two amendments, I hope that by the time we get to Report later in the afternoon, it will be possible to reach an agreement. The old arbitrators’ agreement is the one that might work. Between one month and two months, six weeks would be a reasonable compromise.

It seems that this matter can readily be compromised and I see no necessity for workers to be told that they are expected to work on these Sundays. They would have to do that anyway if they had not opted out under the ordinary regime. They may have better arrangements within the retail business than statute requires, but we are concerned only with the statutory safeguards. All that is really required is that there should be a reasonable notice period for a worker who has not already given their notice but who wants not to work on the suspended Sundays for reasons connected with that. So long as a reasonable period of notice is given to him or her, that seems sufficient. I hope it will be possible to compromise on this point and forget the question of the employer having to give written notice that the employer expects the worker to work on these Sundays, because that would happen in the ordinary course of events anyway. The only difference between these Sundays and ordinary Sundays is that the hours are a bit longer. I see no need for notice and therefore, so far as I am concerned, it should be possible to reach a reasonable period of notice as a matter of compromise between the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and the one proposed by my noble friend.

[Lord Graham of Edmonton]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I have form to the extent that during the 1980s I took a prominent part from this side of the House in putting forward primarily the views of the Co-operative movement. My noble friend Lord Davies of Coity referred to the victory in 1986, when the Bill brought forward by the Conservative Government was defeated. What we now have in law is, to put it crudely, a compromise that tries to meet the aims and objectives of a number of points of view. That, of course, like all compromises, needs to be worked on. It took some years. In 1994, we had the Bill. I am a registered compromiser, if compromising will make progress.

Many people have assumed that this was the end of the argument and that what was produced and is in law was going to stand, but we should not underestimate the durability and tenacity of the major retailers in this country. They would never accept the original proposal and are unhappy with the present law. I know, because of my connections on this matter, that they have been at it all the time, quite rightly, lobbying, discussing, and producing arrangements.

My question is who the Bill seeks to serve. One argument is that a number of people from all over the world will expect to be able to shop not merely for six hours on a Sunday but for 12. I asked the Library to let me have a piece of paper, which told me of the experience in those countries now. In Austria, shops are closed on a Sunday except at railway stations and airports. In Denmark, opening on a Sunday is generally prohibited, although most shops are open on eight Sundays before Christmas. In France, it is limited to selected retailers; in Northern Ireland, shops are open on Sundays from 12 till six o’clock; in Italy, shops are permitted to open for 12 Sundays per year in exceptional tourist areas; in Norway, shops are open on Sundays in December; in Portugal, high streets generally have no trading on a Sunday; and in Spain, shops on high streets are open from 10 till two o’clock on a Sunday once a month.

So when we try to anticipate whether the British people are satisfied with the existing law on a Sunday, who are we trying to appease or serve? Although I am a great supporter of retailing in general and have taken a part in various positions, we must not underestimate the fact that this can be the thin edge of the wedge in future. If it is proved afterwards that no harm has been done, those who want complete opening on Sundays, as they have always wanted, will take that as a green light. So while I appreciate what the Minister has said and done—and he has been very fair and not tried to bamboozle us—my word of caution is that we need to watch this situation like a hawk, and the major retailers, which have a great stake in this, with their business and profits. We have to be very careful that we do not go down the slippery slope and find distress.

There was an organisation in the 1980s that is still going strong, called Keep Sunday Special. The case that is made for Sunday being special, especially for shop workers, need not be stated again. It is a danger. I do not oppose the Bill, because I believe that it has good intentions, but we need to be very careful that we do not start something and finish up with less than we want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Graham of Edmonton]

I may help the Minister by quoting from a document given to me by the Library called The Economic Costs and Benefits of Easing Sunday Shopping Restrictions on Large Stores in England and Wales, a report for the Department of Trade and Industry in May 2006. On Germany, it says that shops are closed,

“except convenience and travel goods at railway stations and airports. Local authorities may grant permission for retailers to open on Sundays (maximum 4 per year)”.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, that makes the point that Germany had a much more restrictive regime than the UK, and that country freed it up much more significantly compared with the normal regime for the 2006 World Cup to give everyone the sort of experience that we want for the Olympics here. Then it reverted to what it was before. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing up that point.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Lord Graham of Edmonton Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Graham of Edmonton]

My Lords, at the end of such a long debate, one tends to hear phrases such as, “Everything that can be said, has been said”. However, if you listen carefully, you hear a small voice, which is mine, saying, “Yes, but not by everybody”. I intend to make a contribution not relying remotely on the forensic way in which my colleagues have dealt with the case put forward by the Minister. They were brilliant. When I heard the noble Lords, Lord Myners, Lord Peston, Lord Haskel and Lord Watson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Hughes, among others, quite frankly I thought that they had done my job for me. They have all collectively made this old man very happy. We have on the Labour Benches now—we have had this before, but it has been renewed since the election—a bevy of politicians who I can sense are going to make a great impression here.

The main point that I want to deal with is that the case that the Minister and other colleagues on his side of the House have made is based on an untruth. That untruth is that the situation economically rests wholly at the door of the Labour Government. In my view, that cannot be sustained. The case that was made devastatingly in a wonderful maiden speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, indicated quite clearly the genesis of the matter. Having been in both Houses for more than 30 years, I can read very well the tactics of the Government. A noble Baroness said to us that there has been a bout of amnesia on this side of the Chamber. Well, I think that I know where we got it from; it came wafting from the Benches over there. It does not do the House any good when we are seen to be so one-sided and so tardy in recognising the past that it is completely ignored. What has been said is not true.

When we look at the economic situation that was inherited by this Government, or left by the last Government, we are led to believe that the stewardship of this economy was unique. What about Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Germany, France and Italy—all European countries and all victims of the global collapse in financial support? If one is going to point to anyone in this country who had a share in the demolition of financial support in this country due to the subprime mortgage fiasco, one should not point at the people whom I represented, or my family, or the community that I work in. It was the financial sector, especially the banks. They were greedy, all right? Lax regulations might have allowed them to act as they did and no doubt we will hear ever more that it is the intention of this Government to tackle the greed of the banks. I will believe that when I see it. I will believe it when the banks squeal—not the pips—that they are being unfairly treated. If any one sector in our community carries responsibility for landing us in this trouble, it was the banks. Completely forgotten by the other side are the activities of Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling in persuading the rest of Europe to get behind economic policies to such an extent, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, said, that they rescued not just the banks but the people whose money was in them. They were saved then, so the Government have a difficult job in trying to persuade us that they are on the right lines.

The Labour Party admits, as I certainly do, that we did not win the election. The Conservatives did not win the election and the Liberal Democrats did not win it. We are where we are with this situation. Quite frankly, it is not my job to thrash about and try to pick points in that way. When a professor was asked what he thought the effects of the French Revolution would be, he said, “Well, it’s too soon to say”. That is my comment on the coalition. I wish it well, sincerely, in solving the economic problems of the country because I have as big a stake in it under this Government as I did under the last, but it will have to go some in order to get out of this. The phrase was used earlier, “We have to keep our fingers crossed”. That is right. I believe that the Government, with the best of intentions, are going about this in the wrong way.

I do not have the time to deal with or duplicate the arguments that have been made, but I make the point that people are looking forward—not with relish—to the economic situation of the country. Because of my age, I can remember back to the 1920s and 1930s. For nine years—most of the 1930s—my dad was on the dole and in 1937 my mum and dad had 37 shillings a week to feed seven of us. Children at that time were worth two shillings a week; there were five of us, so 10 shillings came into the house. When I left school at the age of 14, I was the head boy and had passed my secondary exams but could not go on because, like many children, although I had the ability and had earned it, my circumstances were such that the cost of having to buy boots, shoes, PT kit and other things was beyond us. I had to wait until 50 later for the Open University. I am not looking at him now but I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will be pleased at the reference: I got my degree from the Open University and an honorary degree thereafter. When Harold Wilson was asked, “What would you like to be remembered by?” he said, “The Open University”—that was the one thing. If I was looking at the one thing out of many from the Labour Government that I would be proud to be associated with, it could be equality, the minimum wage or a number of things. It is a canard to say that all we are concerned about now is the economic situation that we inherited.

Yesterday was a red letter day for me, because Newcastle beat Sunderland 5-1. I sang, as I always do. My boys think that it is not on, but whenever Newcastle is on I join in with the crowd and sing the “Blaydon Races”:

“Gannin’ alang the Scotswood Road”.

I was born on Scotswood Road. The Geordies will be as resilient as other communities throughout the country. They will be able to survive, come what may. All I say to the Minister and his colleagues is: I give you a fair offer. If you stop telling lies about us, we will stop telling the truth about you.