Queen’s Speech

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

That this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow. I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, on their speeches. They have continued the tradition of excellence by those moving and seconding the humble Address, and they were, if I may say so, a very fine choice by the noble Lord the Leader.

I am tempted to call the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, my noble friend, because he has done and said so many things over the years with which I have agreed, from seatbelts to sex—that is to say, same-sex marriage—but I recognise that by doing so I might be damaging both his and my reputation, and it would certainly not help his advancement.

The world will be grateful to him for the campaign he introduced on HIV/AIDS, when Secretary of State for Health, to provide information and reduce stigma, a cause which he continues to champion. In this House, he has always been willing to speak up for what he believes to be right, irrespective of party line: for example, on Leveson. I am not too sure that Baroness Thatcher would have approved of this independence of mind. In his diaries, he refers to a conversation on the then Mrs Thatcher’s reaction to the prospect of a change to the poll tax legislation:

“If this takes place then we will have to change the House of Lords. She particularly does not like the position where former Conservative ministers transfer to the House of Lords and then take on a new independence”.

Another diary entry reads:

“We have been defeated in the Lords on football identity cards, leading Mrs Thatcher to ask more or less rhetorically: ‘What’s happened to all those peers I have made?’”.

I guess that Mr Cameron might well be saying the same. However, his response is usually practical not rhetorical in that he just creates a few more Peers. In 2008 the noble Lord published a book entitled A Political Suicide: The Conservatives’ Voyage into the Wilderness—a great read if I might say so. I was wondering whether the next book might be a sequel, but clearly it is not.

The up-and-coming noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, has a distinguished record as a local and county councillor in Suffolk and brought that experience to the Lords. She was probably glad not to be fighting a Lib Dem seat in the recent council elections. She is a board member of Wings of Hope—not, I should add, an organisation that is looking to save her party from oblivion but one with the rather more laudable aim of a world in which every child has the right to a free education. In 2008, the noble Baroness stood against Lembit Öpik to be Lib Dem president, and won. I remember thinking that was an excellent step forward for her party, and indeed it was. I also warm to the noble Baroness for having a blog called “Because Baronesses are People Too”. Indeed, we are.

It is always an honour and a privilege to speak at the beginning of the debate on the gracious Speech, but I have a confession to make: I would so much prefer to be doing it from other side of the Chamber. This is not a matter of personal ambition; it is a desire for power to bring about the changes that our country and people need and deserve. We on these Benches will be doing everything possible to ensure that this time next year I will be leaning on that Dispatch Box.

Shortly before the Recess, the Benches opposite were beginning to get overconfident, but I think that last month’s elections may have restored a sense of reality and recognition of the challenges that we all face; especially in terms of the trust that must be restored in politics and our political system. Despite the impression given by the media, we should not forget that although UKIP won 27% of the vote it had the support of only 9% of the electorate, and while I respect those who exercised their democratic right to vote for UKIP I do not respect that party’s simplistic policies, which offer little more than a return to some rose-tinted past that did not exist.

William E Simon was perhaps wise when he said:

“Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don’t vote”.

The fact that 64% of our electors did not see the point of voting and that some of those who put their cross on the ballot paper did so in the spirit of “a plague on all your houses” shows that we as national politicians have failed in many ways. We have failed to listen and to take action to address concerns. We have overpromised and underdelivered, and our parties have failed to respond to the myriad changes that we face. Too many people simply do not think that they have a voice. That is not so much in places such as London and the other great cities, such as Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Exeter, Norwich and Sunderland—places where most people rejected UKIP outright—but in smaller market and coastal towns where people are crying out for help in a fast-changing world that they feel has been foisted upon them and that they can do nothing to stop. They think that those who run our country live on a different planet and they warm to UKIP’s easy but false answers to complex problems.

The Hansard Society’s 2014 Audit of Political Engagement found that 67% of the people polled said that politicians,

“don’t understand the daily lives of people like me”.

That is why those of us engaged in politics have to do more to connect with people and make meaningful offers in terms of policies. That is why it is crucial for national government, local government and businesses of all types and at all levels to work together to help revive struggling economies, to give people in our country hope for the future and to ensure that nobody gets left behind. Politics should be about hope, not fear.

This is a speech that in many ways should not have been; I have no doubt that it would not have been but for the gerrymandering of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Instead, while the country was aching for change and an election, for months we had days of debates without legislation and days of holidays when we should have been holding the Government to account. We cannot forget earlier legislation whose impact is now being felt and that has actually made things worse for many people: for example, the bedroom tax—as the noble Lord, Lord Freud, often calls it—the scope of which has now widened with both sides of the coalition equally culpable. I look forward to being part of a Government who will abolish what has ultimately been a pernicious attack on vulnerable people.

That impact is made worse by the housing crisis affecting millions in our country, including young people who have no prospect of buying a home and who should pay fair rents and not be exploited by rogue landlords and letting agents. Where is the legislation to address this? The fundamental problem is the lack of housing stock. The Bill that will enable a garden city to be built at Ebbsfleet is welcome, but the building of 15,000 new homes is a pitiful response to the crisis, so where is the legislation that would realise the aspirations of thousands of people who want and need a home?

The 2012-13 Session understandably had a huge hole in it because of the House of Lords Bill. That was bad political management, but last year we suffered from bad business management. Sometimes, a sitting after 10 pm was followed by days with little or no business. I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House for an assurance that there will be no repeat of the disgraceful handling of the European Union (Referendum) Bill—government legislation masquerading as a Private Member’s Bill—when party politics took precedence over procedure.

I trust that the Bills mentioned today will be well drafted and complete. It has been a feature of this Government that Bills begin their legislative process while consultations are still under way and that sometimes agreements on policy have not been reached by the coalition partners. That begs the question: when will the “conscious uncoupling” end in divorce? The joyful union in the sunshine seems a lifetime away, since when we have had bickering followed by more upfront disputes. One has to wonder when the now joyless relationship will finally break down so that each partner can blame the other for unfulfilled promises before the phoney war ends and the real election campaign begins in earnest.

Goodness knows what changes we will see over the coming year in this Chamber, let alone the country. Surely the Prime Minister cannot be intending to create yet more Peers to further swell the Benches opposite in order to rubber-stamp his programme? This harms not only the Government’s reputation but the reputation of the whole House. Following the local and European election results, the coalition must have ditched at last its objective of creating a second Chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election. More Lib Dem Peers? I think not. Indeed, if there are any more Iagos with plots of deep malice on their Benches, we might see their numbers diminish.

Like the noble Baroness, we were sad in many ways to see the departure of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, from the Front Bench, but are delighted that he became chair of the Youth Justice Board, which, thanks to the efforts of Cross-Bench and Labour Peers, was saved from abolition at the hands of some unwise, unthinking Minister.

There has been much discussion about the number of Bills mentioned in the gracious Speech. The real question should be whether these Bills address the real challenges before our country. One has to wonder whether the speech had been finalised before the Government knew the results of the elections on 22 May. We will never know, but it really does not answer the big questions that we all faced on the doorstep about insecurity, unfairness and instability.

The media briefings have made the reduction in the use of plastic bags a key measure—all very important, but the fact that plastic bags take centre stage when there is no mention of the NHS and social care says it all about the coalition’s priorities for our country. Where is the Bill to put right the mistakes made in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which has made a complete shambles of the NHS at a time when it is facing the worst crisis in its history? We need more than the measures to limit excessive redundancy payments across the public sector, which are a direct consequence of that wasteful £3 billion restructuring of our health service. Could the noble Lord the Leader confirm that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny of any health regulation Bill?

We welcome the small business Bill, which is a direct response to Labour’s policies but does not go far enough. The same can be said of legislation to improve the fairness of contracts for low-paid workers and legislation to impose higher penalties on employers who fail to pay their staff the minimum wage—again very welcome, but these are only part of the package we have advocated to ensure that work pays and workers are not exploited.

We strongly support the introduction of the modern slavery Bill and are proud of the long-term work and advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, which was the catalyst for the Bill.

The re-announcements on childcare are to be welcomed, as they were when they were first announced, but if the Government really believe that investment in childcare is critical, why will the measures not be introduced until 2015? Parents need improved childcare now.

Where is the Bill on forestry that was promised after the excellent report by the independent panel, published two years ago? The report provided a blueprint for safeguarding the future of our public forests and the Government welcomed the recommendations, promising to bring forward the necessary legislation.

As the Government take forward their programme, I hope that Ministers will take more care in assessing the impact of legislation: for example, on people’s ability to feed their families. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for visiting a food bank. He said:

“There was a systematic approach to uncovering the deeper problems which had brought people to the point where they simply did not have enough money to buy adequate food”.

One family every 35 seconds is now receiving a food parcel, and the Scottish Parliament’s recent report highlighted the fact that a growing number of people who use food banks are low-paid. So where is the Bill that will address these problems?

Food banks are one very visible sign of the inequalities now growing in our society, where wealth is increasingly accumulated by the few at the top. The gracious Speech says:

“My Government will continue to … build a fairer society”.

However, I would ask: when will they begin to build a fairer society? The Governor of the Bank of England said last week that inequality is “demonstrably” growing and risks undermining the basic social contract of fairness. So where are the measures to ensure that the “sense of society” mentioned by Mr Carney is restored?

Last week Save the Children published an excellent report, A Fair Start for Every Child, which examines the underlying drivers of poverty such as low wages, high prices and pressure on social security. It concludes that there is a very real risk as the economy moves into recovery that the poorest children will be left behind. Will the measures mentioned today ensure that these children are taken out of poverty? How will the Government bring about the bold and radical changes necessary to transform these children’s lives?

Over the coming year, the general election aside, the most important political event in our country will be the referendum in Scotland. I am a passionate believer in the union, and fervently hope that on 18 September the people of Scotland will confirm that they are too. Proposals for the future of devolution in Scotland in the event of a no vote have now been put forward by all the major political parties, including my own. More powers for the Scottish Parliament are guaranteed in the event of a no vote. I hope that the Scottish people choose to continue with the best of both worlds: a strong Scottish Parliament backed up by the strength and security of the United Kingdom.

Next Thursday will see the beginning of the World Cup, when I am sure that all Members of this House, including our Scottish colleagues, will be backing our boys. On this side of the House, we hope and believe that England could go far, contrary to the Home Office’s pessimistic assessment, which was recently flushed out by my noble friend Lord Rosser. To win games they have to be fit and work as a team in order to meet the challenges of their competitors.

Likewise in the globalised world of the 21st century, where competition from the developing and the developed world is getting stronger, each and every part of our country needs to be fit, with economic growth and sustainable quality jobs, and each and every member of our society needs to have the opportunity to realise their potential for their own well-being and that of their community. It is clear from the recent election results that too many people do not feel a sense of personal or community well-being; they feel insecure, ill equipped to deal with change, and a deep sense of unfairness. With this Queen’s Speech the Government had an opportunity to respond to some of these challenges, but I fear that that they have failed to do so.

We on these Benches look forward to the year ahead, when we will scrutinise the legislative programme and seek to amend where necessary and appropriate. We will do so in the knowledge that by this time next year the people of this country will have had the opportunity not just to give a verdict on this Government but to change the direction of our country. I hope that through our work in this Chamber and outside, all noble Lords from all parties and none will help to ensure that more of our citizens have greater trust in politicians and their ability to bring about change that is relevant to, and will improve, their lives. In this way they might feel that it is important for them to exercise their democratic right to vote. I certainly hope so. I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.