Birth of a son to Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, I warmly endorse the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord the Leader of the House to Her Majesty the Queen, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. This is a moment of real joy for the Duke and Duchess, and we send them our warmest congratulations on the birth of their son—an extraordinary event for any new parent. It is also a moment of real happiness for people right across Britain, who will think with special affection of the Duchess, as a new mother, and her son.

Especially since their wedding in 2011, their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess have given a great deal of happiness to the nation, and the occasion of the birth of their first-born child gives the nation the opportunity to make known its feelings in reply. It is clear that the nation is indeed doing so. I trust, however, that the nation will also allow them privacy to delight in their family life.

The fact that the Duke and Duchess’s first-born is a boy means that the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which your Lordships’ House and the other place passed earlier this year, will now not need to be applied in the way it would have been had their first-born been a girl. But even so, the Act is the right thing for Parliament to have done in the modern age. It is an historic change and a welcome one, and I am sure that it will be well used in future.

Britain will rejoice in what we know will be an added delight to Her Majesty the Queen in the year celebrating the 60th anniversary of Her succeeding to the Throne in 1953. We on these Benches wish the Duke and Duchess, and the new Prince, long life and lasting happiness.

European Council and Afghanistan

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement given earlier today in the other place by the Prime Minister on the recent EU Council meeting. I welcome the Statement.

Let me start with Afghanistan. I pay tribute to our troops for the extraordinary job that they have done over the past decade. I join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House in remembering all those who have lost their lives as well as their families and their loved ones. It is right that the Government have set a date for the withdrawal of our forces. However, it is also important that the international community, including the UK, continues to make a contribution to Afghanistan’s long-term security post-2014. The advances made in Afghanistan, outlined in the Statement, must be safeguarded.

I have some questions about post-2014 arrangements, political stability in Afghanistan and co-operation with Pakistan. Can the Leader provide more detail on the specific nature of the role of the UK Armed Forces after 2014 and what tasks they will have responsibility for, beyond officer training? What objectives will determine the length of stay of any residual UK force?

On political reconciliation in Afghanistan, I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of a proper political process. Will he tell your Lordships’ House what prospect there is of getting the political talks on track, including with the Taliban, and on what timetable?

Turning to relations with Pakistan, I join the Government in recognising the vital bilateral relationship between Pakistan and the United Kingdom. We join the Government in expressing the belief that the UK will also need to build strong working relations with the newly elected Pakistani Prime Minister, especially in regard to the future of Afghanistan. Across this House there is wide support not just for an inclusive political settlement within Afghanistan but also for a regional settlement involving Afghanistan’s neighbours. At the Chequers summit on Afghanistan and Pakistan five months ago, the communiqué committed to building,

“a peace settlement over the next six months”.

Will the noble Lord inform your Lordships’ House what progress there has been since then and what more can be done to achieve this goal?

I now turn to the European Council. I join the Leader in welcoming Croatia’s entry into the European Union and the start date for EU-Serbia accession negotiations and the association agreement with Kosovo. This is good for the peace and stability not just of the Balkans, but of our continent as a whole.

On the European Union budget, the other place was right to vote for a real-terms cut last October. We on these Benches support the recent agreement on the European Union budget and rebate, including the European Parliament’s agreement.

On the rebate, I quote the Prime Minister when he said:

“In this town you have to be ready for an ambush at any time and that means lock and load and have one up the spout”.

Is not the pattern of events slightly different from what he suggests? The Prime Minister said that he was “ambushed” and that there were attempts to unpick the rebate. Is it not the truth that it was he who put it on the agenda of the European Council and that Britain was in a position to veto a change at any stage? If that is the case, the Prime Minister was hardly “ambushed”.

I now turn to the discussions on youth unemployment. It was supposed to be the main subject of the summit but I notice that it was a very small part of the Statement. It is right that the European Union is now focusing proper attention on the plight of young unemployed people and the need to give them hope and work. I should point out that the catalyst for this initiative was not the centre-right Governments of the European Union but the left, led by President Hollande. There are 26 million young people looking for work in the European Union, and 6 million unemployed young people. Nearly 1 million of those young people are here in the UK. That is, shamefully, one in five young people looking for work. Targeting the extra resources to tackle youth unemployment is welcome. However, do the Government really believe that the response was equal to the scale of the challenge?

The Prime Minister said at the press conference after the summit—and again today in the Statement—that the Council agreed to take action,

“very much along the lines of Britain’s … youth contract”.

That is worrying indeed. Last year, the Prime Minister launched the youth contract, which he said,

“is going to do enormous amounts on youth unemployment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/12; col. 24]

Will the Leader of the House explain why, according to a survey of 200 employers last week, not a single one has used the youth contract to hire a young person? How many people have been helped into work through the youth contract.

Frankly, this summit did not mark the recognition, long overdue, that the current economic approach in the European Union is leaving millions of young people without employment or prospects and fearing for their future. Of course we should look at EU regulation as the Government propose, but does the Leader of the House really believe that this is the solution to youth unemployment, including in Britain? The European economy is struggling and the British economy has not grown as the Government have been promising it would since they came to office. There are nearly 1 million young people still looking for work here in Britain. Long-term youth unemployment is up by 158% since the Government took office and the Government’s youth contract is failing. It is clear that this Government can hardly argue effectively for action in Europe on youth unemployment when they are so transparently failing on the issue here at home.

G8 Summit

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement given earlier today in the other place by the Prime Minister on this week’s G8 summit.

I commend the Prime Minister and the Government for holding the summit in Northern Ireland. Fifteen years ago, even at the moment when the Good Friday agreement was being signed, holding a G8 summit in Enniskillen would have been unimaginable. Peace has transformed Enniskillen, and the location of this summit alone is testament to what can be achieved through politics and dialogue, and is a credit to the people of Northern Ireland.

I shall take the G8 issues in turn. On hunger and nutrition, it is completely unacceptable that there is enough food in the world for everyone, yet 1 billion people still go hungry and 2.3 million children die every year from malnutrition. We therefore welcome the agreements and commitments made during the hunger summit. The task now must be to ensure that these commitments will be delivered. Does the Leader of the House agree that we are right to stick by our pledge of 0.7% for aid as a proportion of national income? Does he further agree that we should be using all the moral force that we gain from that position to urge others to follow suit?

On trade, we welcome and support the launch of negotiations on a free trade agreement between Europe and the United States. The prize here is enormous. Can the Leader confirm that the Prime Minister will tell his colleagues that this is a timely reminder of the importance for jobs and prosperity of Britain staying in the European Union?

The Government were right to put tax and transparency on the agenda. The question is now how to translate good intentions into action. On tax havens, the Prime Minister has said that one of his goals was to make sure that there will be public knowledge of who owns companies and trusts. What blocked getting agreement on this at the G8? What progress was made on ensuring that information that is being shared between rich countries is also being shared with developing countries? Does the Leader agree with these Benches that, given the importance of this issue for developing countries, it cannot be justified that rich countries agree to share this information with each other but not with the poorest countries of the world?

I turn to the devastating situation in Syria. According to the UN, more than 93,000 people have now died in this brutal conflict. It was right for the Government to prioritise this and make it the focus of this week’s talks. We welcome the announcements of additional humanitarian aid, particularly the doubling of UK aid. However, the answer to this humanitarian crisis is a political solution. We all recognise the scale of the challenge of bringing together an international community that has been divided for over two years. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the summit’s outcome on this issue was,

“a strong and purposeful statement on Syria”.

The centrepiece of that statement was a commitment to the Geneva II conference. Could the Leader therefore explain why there was no agreement on a starting date for the conference? Indeed, it is being suggested that the conference is now being pushed back from June to July, and now even to August. Based on this week’s talks, when does the Leader expect the conference to take place?

I turn to the substance of that conference. The Prime Minister has spoken today about the importance of the agreement in Enniskillen on a transitional government, including the maintenance of government institutions and an inclusive political settlement for Syria. This we welcome; but do the Government accept that every one of those commitments featured in the Geneva I conference back in June 2012? The Government talk of this providing a moment of clarity on Syria, but how in concrete terms does this communiqué move us closer to that political settlement? Based on discussions at the G8 on securing access for weapons inspectors, securing access for humanitarian agencies and tackling terrorism, can the Leader set out how these laudable and very welcome goals will be achieved?

The Prime Minister went into the summit having allowed speculation to build that Britain was in favour of arming the rebels as a means to encourage diplomatic progress. Given the limited progress achieved, do the Government still maintain that focusing so much time and effort preceding the summit on lifting the arms embargo was the right approach?

The Prime Minister now says that it is not his policy to arm the rebels. Given that the Geneva conference has already been delayed, can the Leader envisage any circumstances in which the Government would seek to arm the rebels before the conference takes place? The reality is that we did not witness the long hoped-for breakthrough on Syria at the G8 summit, a hope that noble Lords on all Benches share.

None of us should doubt the difficulties of the choices that confront the Government. The Government know that on the steps agreed this week to tackle terrorism and on the issues of Afghanistan and, indeed, Libya in particular, we gave the Government our full support. On these Benches we urge the Government in the months ahead to proceed with the greatest possible clarity as to their strategy, and to seek to build the greatest possible consensus across Parliament. I trust that the noble Lord the Leader will continue to keep the House informed.

Woolwich and the EU Council

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 3rd June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement given earlier in the other place by the Prime Minister. I welcome the Statement he has given.

I start where the Statement did, with the EU summit and the conclusions on tax avoidance. We need international agreement on transparency, transfer pricing, tax havens and other issues, so we welcome the steps forward on transparency. However, do the Government agree that we need proposals for fundamental reform of the corporate tax system to prevent profits being shifted from one country to another? Seeking international agreement is clearly the right way forward but there are measures, including measures on transparency, which could still be introduced if agreement were not reached. Will the Leader of the House confirm that Britain will act if we cannot get international consensus?

I turn next to the devastating violence in Syria, which continues unabated. I share the deep concern set out in the Statement about what is happening. The number of Syrian refugees who have fled the conflict has now reached 1.5 million, half of whom are children. As so often happens, the most vulnerable continue to pay the price for war. This is a situation where there are no good options. The question is: which is the least worst option? Despite the enormous obstacles, we believe that a comprehensive peace deal still remains Syria’s best chance of ending the two years of violence, and support American and Russian efforts to bring Syria’s warring parties around the negotiating table this month in Geneva. The peace conference is due to take place in the coming weeks but the Statement did not refer to it. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could explain why, or perhaps give a few more details.

As the conference remains the best—indeed, at present, the only—immediate hope of limiting the violence and achieving an inclusive political settlement, its success must not be put at risk. In light of this, can the Leader of the House explain the Government’s view of the risks that lifting the EU arms embargo may pose to the prospect of any peace talks? The Government say that there are safeguards on the use of those weapons. Can the noble Lord therefore set out to the House what those safeguards are? However well motivated, is not the danger of this course of action that it will lead to further escalation, as has been illustrated by Russia’s response?

The Government are right: the international community cannot continue to stand by while innocent lives are lost. However, I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that in the action we must take, our primary aim must be to ensure a reduction in the violence. The Government tell us that the lifting of the arms embargo has provided flexibility. Given the concern in this House and beyond, can he assure us that he will come back to this House before any decision by the British Government is made to arm the opposition in Syria?

I turn to the vile murder of Drummer Lee Rigby. I join the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister, this House and, I believe, the whole country in expressing our total revulsion at this appalling act. Lee Rigby served his country with the utmost bravery and was killed in an act of the utmost cowardice. All of our thoughts are with his family and friends, and with our troops who serve with incredible courage all around the world and have seen one of their own murdered. I join the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister in singling out for special praise members of the public, and I would include Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, who intervened so bravely to try to protect Lee Rigby. We should also praise the quiet determination of local leaders and residents in Woolwich who are not allowing their community to be consumed by division and hate.

Over the past 10 days we have seen attempts by some to use this evil crime as justification to further their own hate-filled agenda, as the Leader of the House said, attempting to ignite violence by pitting community against community. However, they will fail because the British people know that this attack did not represent the true values of any community, including Muslim communities who contribute so much to our country.

Governments must do three things after such an attack, and we will support the Government on all three. The first is to bring the perpetrators to justice. We welcome the swift court appearance of the suspects. The second is to seek to bring people together in the face of attempts to divide us. The third is to learn the lessons of this attack. We welcome the Intelligence and Security Committee investigation.

We also welcome the task force on extremism. I agree with the Government that the task force should look again at issues around radicalisation and helping communities to take a stand against extremism—issues covered in the original Prevent strategy. Can the Leader of the House confirm whether the task force will be looking into earlier intervention to prevent young people being radicalised? Will he also confirm whether the task force will heed the calls from youth workers to look more carefully at the links between violent extremism and gang-related activity—something which was raised with my party by community leaders in Woolwich last week? Specifically on legislation, and in the light of recent events, can the Leader of the House update the House on the Government’s current view on the need for legislation on communications data?

Whatever the origin, and whatever the motive of the terrorists, our response will and must be the same: the British people will never be intimidated. Across every faith, across every community, this is a country united, not divided, in abhorrence at the murder of Lee Rigby. We have seen people try to divide us with acts like this before. They have failed, and they will always fail.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

That this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I wish on behalf of the Opposition to give my thanks to Her Majesty the Queen for delivering the gracious Speech. However, I am not so sure that I can extend the same courtesy for the content of the gracious Speech to the Government Benches that produced it.

Before I turn to the Government’s legislative programme, as set out in the gracious Speech, it is a great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Lang of Monkton and Lord German, on their speeches this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Lang, of course has a distinguished record, not just as a member of SOCs—an organisation whose membership I certainly aspire to—but as a former senior MP and Cabinet Minister. His membership of the Commons neatly coincided with the entire period of the previous Conservative Administration; he won his seat in May 1979 and lost it in May 1997. He rose through the ministerial ranks to be Secretary of State for Scotland—never the easiest job in government, especially not when succeeded in office by the now noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. He then became President of the Board of Trade, which is also not the easiest job in government, particularly not when succeeding in that office the now noble Lord, Lord Heseltine.

However, navigating his way through such highly dangerous, shark-infested Tory waters meant that the noble Lord, Lord Lang, was a natural to play a central role in John Major’s “Back me or sack me” re-election campaign as leader of the Conservative Party in July 1995. The then Prime Minister was trying to rid himself of those in the Conservative Party who were on one side of the Tories’ fundamental divisions over Europe from the late 1980s and early 1990s onwards. I will not use in your Lordships’ House the term that the then Prime Minister used for them, but your Lordships may recall that it seemed to closely question their parentage.

The experience of the noble Lord, Lord Lang, in helping to handle that kind of thing means, I suspect, that he knows a thing or two about divisions. So it is probably of no comfort to him to be seeing something of a replay of those years in interventions such as that yesterday from one of the noble Lord’s then colleagues: the former Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby. However, it is a replay with a difference. Last time, it was just the Conservative Party ripping itself apart. This time, with the prospect of an in-out referendum on our membership of the EU, the stakes are so much higher. The noble Lord, Lord Lang, has been a distinguished Member of your Lordships’ House for many years, and I take this opportunity to pay particular thanks and tribute to him for his role as the chair of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.

On behalf of the whole House, I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his speech in celebration of the coalition Government, or in celebration of coalition in general. When I worked, as at one point I did, for the European Commission in Wales I knew Mike German. I think lots of people, especially in Wales, will know him better as that. We worked well together on the enlargement of the European Union and I am of course pleased to see him as a Member of your Lordships’ House, even as a Liberal Democrat. Mike is a former leader of the Liberal Democrats in Wales—yet again, not the easiest job in the world—and his lifelong involvement and interest in education has led him inevitably to see all the ups and downs of public life.

As a Welshman, the noble Lord, Lord German, will, I know, be interested in the Government’s attitude towards the Silk commission on fiscal devolution and the powers of the Welsh Assembly, but as a loyal Liberal Democrat I noticed that he was far too polite to mention its omission from today’s gracious Speech. As a former Deputy First Minister in a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition Administration in Wales who is now serving on the coalition Benches in Westminster, we can only speculate as to which coalition partner he has felt more comfortable with.

We now have before us the legislative programme from the Government for this new, coming Session of Parliament. It is such a thin programme that it was relegated to second position on the lunchtime news by the resignation of Sir Alex Ferguson, a great manager and a great Labour man. Little of the programme is new because so much of it has been very kindly leaked in advance by the Government. As the Government have found, however, briefing out policies in advance does not always work to their advantage.

The Government might expect the Guardian columnist, the ever excellent Polly Toynbee, to summarise the legislative programme in today’s gracious Speech as a collection of “dismal offerings”, but they might well not have expected similar flak from rather different parts of the political spectrum. So only this week, the normally Conservative-cheerleading Daily Mail newspaper described today’s legislative programme in the following terms:

“It’s a shame there’s so little to commend the rest of the speech’s predicted contents, which are largely measures we already knew about”.

The Daily Mail went on to describe the measures in today’s speech as “gimmicks”, and despite apparently hoping against hope that the Prime Minister would have a “few surprises” up his sleeve today, it summed up the Government’s legislative programme as: “Must do better.” Today the Daily Telegraph, in its online edition, goes even further. Commenting after the gracious Speech had been delivered, the Daily Telegraph’s view was that the Government have passed their “High Noon”. It concludes:

“The sun is setting on the Coalition.”

I pray the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph in aid not because they are supporters of my party, but for precisely the opposite point: with friends like these does the legislative programme we have before us today need enemies?

Today’s gracious Speech is important because it puts before both your Lordships’ House and the people of this country the final serious remaining legislative programme of this coalition Government. Final because this time next year the coalition Government—if they are still in place by then as a single entity—will be bringing forward a legislative programme which will come to its conclusion in a wash-up ahead of the general election due in May 2015.

So what do we have in this year’s programme? Well, it is difficult to tell because we do not actually know what will happen to the measures announced today in the Queen’s Speech. Take, as an example, last year’s legislative programme. The centrepiece of the programme, as set out in the gracious Speech in May 2012, was reform of this, your Lordships’ House, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lang. The gracious Speech could not have been clearer:

“A Bill will be brought forward to reform the composition of the House of Lords”.

As we know, a Bill was brought forward, but within months, the House of Lords Reform Bill was in trouble. The Bill was voted against by 91 rebelling Conservative MPs, and so much of a rebellion it was that the Conservative MP leading the supposed rebellion has now very particularly been favoured by the Prime Minister by being appointed to the Prime Minister’s principal policy review committee. Finally, it was abandoned and withdrawn by the Government. The Bill moved, within months, from being the flagship of the gracious Speech this time last year to not being a Bill at all. So we have little idea whether, as with last year’s flagship measure, any of the measures in today’s legislative programme will survive the huge fissures of difference between the component elements of the coalition. They might, but they might not. We just do not know.

Even when we get Bills, we do not really know what is in them because of the way the Government deal with the legislative process. So we have the Government making significant amendments at the last minute, often in your Lordships’ House, when Bills have already passed through the other place. The Government’s pernicious abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board in the last Session was a clear example of a poor way of making policy. We have no idea, for instance, whether more Bills will come forward as a result of the spending review due next month.

To be fair to this coalition Government, they are trying to learn from experience. Rather than bringing forward measures which will fall apart because the coalition cannot agree them, this year the coalition has adopted an exciting new strategy of simply not including in its legislative programme measures which it knows it will be divided over. So, no legislation, shamefully, to put into statute the coalition’s explicit commitment to earmark 0.7% of gross domestic product on overseas aid. I am, however, delighted that the gracious Speech included the commitment that the Government will work to prevent sexual violence in conflict world wide.

Neither is there any legislation on establishing a register of lobbyists: what the Prime Minister once described, ahead of the general election in 2010, as,

“the next big scandal waiting to happen”.

Why not? We saw an appalling example of outrageous lobbying by News Corporation over its bid for BSkyB, for instance. The Government’s current proposals on lobbying are inadequate. They need to get serious about lobbying transparency. This Queen’s Speech was an opportunity to do so—an opportunity missed.

Neither is there any legislation on the sale of cigarettes in plain packaging—again, a commitment promised and abandoned because of the efforts of the tobacco lobby. It was also abandoned in the face of a political challenger, the leader of UKIP, who was seen in interview after interview last week, after so many Conservatives had defected to his party, celebrating that success with a pint in one hand and a fag in the other. One wonders about the influence of Mr Crosby, who lobbied so hard on the issue in Australia. Neither is there any legislation as floated on public health, or on minimum alcohol pricing. Those are just the measures which have been floated in advance of the Queen’s Speech, but which are not in the programme. What about anything on this Government’s other proud boasts?

Where is anything, for example, on the environment, from a Government who bragged that they would be the greenest ever? Where is anything on media plurality and ownership, or anything to help housing in this country—to help people who need social housing, as well as those aspiring to own their own home? We know that building houses rebuilds Britain and provides jobs.

Where is anything on child poverty? There is nothing, despite the coalition’s pledge to maintain Labour’s goal of ending child poverty in the UK by 2020, and today’s report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which says that one in four children in this country will still be living in poverty by 2020, and that this Government’s tax and benefit reforms, introduced since the last election, are responsible.

So what do we have? We have a gracious Speech which actually mentions 15 specific new Bills, as the Health Secretary, Mr Hunt, very helpfully told us on the “Today” programme this morning—insultingly, four hours before the gracious Speech was actually given. Mind you, given that the Prime Minister himself was out on Twitter this morning about the legislative programme, mentioning various Bills—again, well before the gracious Speech was given—I suppose that Mr Hunt’s behaviour, for this Government, is nothing special.

We have legislation promised in government briefings on social care, anti-social behaviour, dangerous dogs, local audit, pub management, consumer rights and asbestos-related cancer—all of which we, as a constructive Opposition, will look at and to which we will determine our response.

The proposed legislation on social care and carers, outlined by the noble Lord, is particularly important. That is age, you see. Our society would be in enormous difficulty without carers, but we will want to ensure that this issue is not used by this Government as a means of transferring extra responsibility to local authorities without the means to deliver. Today’s report from the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services on the serious reduction in services due to budgetary cuts should be a stark warning to the Government.

We have legislation on pensions, on police powers, on HS2, on intellectual property, and on offender rehabilitation, which we will examine closely and measure against tests of fairness and effectiveness. We have legislation that is clearly aimed at attempting to stave off for the Tories what they see as the threat from UKIP—on immigration, for example—by proposing to put in place, among other measures, a bureaucratic nightmare requiring private landlords to check their tenants’ immigration status. I trust that this legislation will not waste the opportunity to deal with the big issue of exploited foreign workers undercutting local workers. But we shall see.

These are dismal offerings. This is a Government who legislated for a five-year Parliament, but as this legislative programme so clearly shows, they have run out of steam after only three years. This is a Government who have already lost momentum.

What we need, but do not have, is the legislation that we have proposed in Labour’s alternative Queen’s Speech. This includes, for example, a jobs Bill to put in place a compulsory jobs guarantee, and a finance Bill that would kick-start our economy and help make work pay with a 10p rate of tax. We also propose a housing Bill that would take action against rogue landlords and extortionate fees in the private rented sector. What we have, however, is a legislative programme that does not even begin to meet the economic challenges which people, families, communities and the country are facing. It does not begin to address the scale of anxiety and disillusion throughout the country, which was shown clearly not just in the results of last week’s elections but in the shameful 29% turnout. We have legislation that will not do much if anything for individuals, young people, families and communities who are now so hard-pressed by being squeezed by the Government’s economic policies that many of them barely know how to make ends meet. They have to borrow from family and friends, and take up people’s generosity by making use of the rapidly burgeoning number of food banks. They worry not just about themselves and their children’s future but about getting food on the table. Yet the Government just say there will be no change in their economic plans for this country, just more of the same—more friends appointed to No. 10 and more being out of touch with the reality of people’s lives.

We have a legislative programme that does not address people’s problems, that is about the coalition’s priorities rather than the priorities of the people, and that is out of kilter with the people of this country. We have before us today a Government who are running scared. They are running scared of themselves and of what the other side in the coalition will do, whether over reform of your Lordships’ House or boundary changes. They are running scared of the economic arguments that we in this party, on these Benches, have put forward, which have now been taken up by virtually every serious economic and international organisation that worries about the UK’s lack of economic growth. They are running scared of UKIP and their own defections to a fourth party. Above all, they are running scared of the people of this country. These people’s lives are hurting and they want something different. They want to see jobs and growth, and they know that this coalition is falling apart at the seams. They want to see real change.

They will get their chance for change in the general election that is due two years from now. If the rise of UKIP and the poor performance of both coalition partners in last week’s council elections and by-election mean that the parties on the Benches opposite are not looking forward to that point of decision, we on these Benches certainly are. In the mean time, we face the last even remotely serious legislative programme of this coalition Government. We the Opposition will support it where it is right and oppose it where it is not. We will take our work seriously, scrutinising and amending legislation and holding the Government to account.

We want the Government in this House to take their own responsibilities as seriously, so we urge them to return to the efficient practice—cost efficient and time efficient—introduced by the party on these Benches that aligned the sittings of this House with those of the House of Commons. We want to see the Government Benches manage their programme more efficiently than they did in the previous Session, so that the House will not be forced off suddenly into extra recesses. We want to see better answers from government spokespeople in the House. We want to see the open policy articulated by the noble Lord, Lord German. We want answers that are based on content and that respect the House.

We on these Benches will get on and do our job. As the Opposition in this House, we will scrutinise this legislative programme and look hard at what the Government propose. We will hold the Government to account, and we will start with the debate on the gracious Speech that will begin in this House tomorrow.

I beg to move that the debate be adjourned till tomorrow.

Death of a Member: Baroness Thatcher

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, we are here today in rare circumstances: a recall of both Houses of Parliament for the specific purpose of paying tribute to not just a formidable former Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party but to a distinguished Member of your Lordships’ House, Baroness Thatcher. Before I proceed to my remarks, I want, from these Benches, to express our sympathy to Lady Thatcher’s family. Even when someone has been unwell for some time, as Lady Thatcher had been, to lose someone is still a grievous blow, made in some ways better, but in some ways worse, by the fact that the person in question was so prominent and so public a figure.

As the tributes to her which have flowed since the news of her death was announced have shown, there is no doubt that Margaret Thatcher was, and will remain, a polarising figure. For some, including many on the Benches opposite, Lady Thatcher inspired then, and inspires now, a devotion to a politician who they believe not only, as the Prime Minister said on Monday, “saved” this country but was the political ideal to which they aspired and, indeed, is the political model that they believe that they still need now. From that viewpoint, not only was she the dominant politician of her generation but was one of the most influential Prime Ministers this country has ever seen—someone who has claim, as David Cameron said in his tribute to her, to be Britain’s greatest ever peacetime Prime Minister. Not all those on the Benches opposite share that view. Some, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and the noble Lords, Lord Lawson of Blaby and Lord Heseltine, and many other noble Lords, are part of her story but in very different ways. Not all of them were always and at all times in full agreement with her. For some, including on my Benches and in my part of the political spectrum, Mrs Thatcher, as she was then, was a divisive figure and someone to whom they were, and remain, fundamentally opposed; someone whose very name, even now, almost 30 years since she became Britain’s Prime Minister in 1979, can raise heights of emotion, of passion, of anger, of despair and more; and someone who they believe can never be forgiven for what she did to individuals, to communities, to industries and to the country. That is a legitimate position of disagreement to hold, but to hold parties to celebrate the death of someone is wrong, in bad taste and something that I deplore.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

However, as the tributes have shown, disagreements with Mrs Thatcher, her vision, her ideals, her politics and her policies have not prevented even her political opponents from being able to assess fully the enormity of her impact as the United Kingdom’s longest-serving Prime Minister of the 20th century and as this country’s first, and so far only, woman Prime Minister.

I pay particular tribute to Baroness Thatcher in that role. She was unquestionably a truly remarkable woman, and although I did not agree with many of her policies, I recognise that it was extraordinary for a woman—a grocer’s daughter, wife and mother—to be a successful research chemist before becoming a barrister and then going on to become an MP, a Minister and to lead the Conservative Party and become the first female Prime Minister, especially at the time when she did it. Baroness Thatcher was a model for many women, including many women in politics. She burst through the glass ceiling and proved that it could be done, but she did not hold out a helping hand for others to follow. I admire strong women—and she was certainly strong and wielded immense power over colleagues as well as the country. However, as with my late noble friend Lady Castle, for whom I worked in the first six years of Baroness Thatcher’s premiership, she also knew how to use her womanly wiles. Barbara said that her power over male colleagues derived from the fact that she had,

“a brain as good as most of theirs plus … the arts of femininity”.

However, in relation to the issue of women, personally I wish that Baroness Thatcher had used her strength in different ways. I know that she showed many kindnesses to female colleagues, both MPs and her staff. However, despite the many talented Conservative women in Parliament, they were never—apart from another former Member of your Lordships’ House, Lady Young—promoted to the Cabinet. Since 1929, when Margaret Bondfield joined the Cabinet, there have still only been 33 women Cabinet members. As the first ever female Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher could have done so much for female politicians, and for working mothers and women struggling to hold their families and communities together, but she chose not to do so.

However, there is some in what Baroness Thatcher was and did that I admire: her personal strength and courage, shown so bravely in her response to being bombed at the Grand Hotel in Brighton in 1984, and her early support for Mikhail Gorbachev, with whom I had the good fortune to celebrate his 80th birthday here in this House two years ago, and for glasnost and perestroika in the former Soviet Union. All this was important in changing the dynamics of our continent and helping to bring the Cold War to an end, as was the part that she played in driving forward the single market.

Lady Thatcher’s determination and belief were the principal drivers in Britain regaining the Falklands, but they led also to misjudgments such as Section 28, now rightly repudiated by today’s Conservative Party, or gauging the ANC wrong in South Africa. Her legacy and impact in and about Europe is still absolutely with us today.

I know too, from my own personal experience, just how formidable a political opponent she was. In the 1980s I was proudly working for my noble friend, Lord Kinnock, then the leader of the Labour Party, and I saw first hand, to the cost of our own campaigns, just how effective a politician she was and how much parts of the country supported her at that time.

Lady Thatcher had a real appreciation of middle England’s hunger for aspiration, giving people a greater chance to own their own home. She recognised that our economy needed to change, but the painful changes that were made were not carried by the broadest shoulders and have left an unbalanced economy with which we are still grappling. History will form a judgment on the legacy of Baroness Thatcher as a political figure in Britain, and in the world. Agree or disagree with her, she was unquestionably a towering figure in this country and beyond our shores. I leave those judgments to others better qualified than me to make them.

I will conclude my remarks by saying something about Lady Thatcher as a Member of your Lordships’ House. She entered this House in 1992, more than 20 years ago, and was automatically and, rightly, immediately a senior figure in this place. When I first came to your Lordships’ House I was mesmerised by this frail but still powerful woman who through sheer determination had transformed our society, dividing opinion and dividing the country. Not for her the consensual notion of one nation that I passionately espouse. As increasingly frail as she became, as a result of that enormous impact, her appearances in the House at key moments and on key Divisions were electrifying.

In more recent years, of course, Lady Thatcher’s appearances were less frequent. I pay tribute to those who were of particular assistance to her, and especially mark the support—the real, caring support—given to her by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, in her later years.

Lady Thatcher’s presence was never anything but controversial, and the debate on what she did and the legacy she left will continue. She was willing—indeed, keen—to take on the established orthodoxies, but seemed at times not to understand the devastating impact of her policies on too many communities. She was a polarising figure, but whether you agreed with her or not she was a giant in politics. Both regardless of her controversy, and precisely because of it, it is as such that she will, and should, be remembered.

House of Lords: Oral Questions

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

Because, my Lords.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I welcome all that the Leader has said. I just wish to place on record that I think that all Members would wish to ensure that those of us who feel a little nervous about asking supplementary questions should be encouraged to do so, and that we should have a much more accepting view in this House of those who feel somewhat reluctant to ask questions.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I agree with the noble Baroness entirely. One thing that Members of this House can do, particularly those who contribute more frequently in Oral Questions, is to observe our courtesies and give way to some Members who perhaps do not ask questions so often. I urge all Members to do so.

European Council

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement by the Prime Minister on the outcome of the European Council meeting. Like the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, I pay tribute to Pope Benedict XVI. He is a spiritual leader for 2 billion people and a theologian of great distinction. His visit to the UK in 2010 will be long remembered as a proud moment for millions of Catholics, other people of faith in this country and, indeed, many Members of this House. His decision to stand down is not one that he will have reached lightly. It is right that all sides of your Lordships’ House acknowledge his service, and from these Benches, I do so now.

On the European Council, I join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House in welcoming the fact that an agreement has been reached on a cut in the seven-year payment ceilings for the European Union budget. At a time when so many budgets are being cut at home, last October the other place voted for a real-terms cut in the EU budget, and it was right to do so. That is what my party argued for in the debate. In the resulting vote, the Prime Minister was given a strong negotiating mandate for a real-terms cut in the budget. We are therefore glad to see the agreement reached at the European Council. However, as well as restraint in the budget, we needed reform—prioritising growth within a smaller budget by cutting back even further on wasteful spending.

First, on agriculture, the CAP fell as a proportion of spending from 46% in 1997 to 33% in 2010. We welcome the modest decline in agriculture spending as a share of the European budget, from 31% in 2013 to 27% by 2020. The Leader was right to say that there is further to go in this area, with agriculture making up just 1.5% of the total output of the European Union but still accounting for nearly 30% of the budget.

Secondly, we welcome the increase in funds targeted towards growth infrastructure, R&D and innovation. However, can the Government confirm that the achievement of a declining budget compared to November’s proposal came not at the expense of agricultural spending but in part at the expense of this funding for growth? Can the noble Lord also tell the House that proper investment will continue to be made by the EU in science, as urged by many UK university vice-chancellors last week?

Thirdly, the Opposition and the Government agree on the need for the EU to play its part in effective development, diplomatic and governance support in north Africa. Can the Leader of the House therefore say what discussions took place about how the EU could play this enhanced role in the context of the decision in this budget round to freeze the European Development Fund, which provides assistance to that region? Given the new emerging challenges across the Sahel, what information can the Leader of your Lordships’ House provide on how funding to that region will be affected? Will he also take this opportunity to update the House on the transition road map for Mali, which forms part of the Council conclusions?

Fourthly, given the very significant and unprecedented difference between the ceiling on payments and the ceiling on commitments agreed on Friday, can the Leader tell the House what discussions took place on how this would be dealt with in the years ahead?

This budget agreement shows that contrary to the views of some Members opposite, the European Union is capable of change, and that it is capable of change when we work with our allies. However, while this budget agreement brings restraint, Europe still needs a plan for recovery and growth. The Council conclusions talk about the importance of trade agreements. Can the Leader update the House on developments on the possible EU-US trade agreement and on how the Government see it being developed this year, including at the G8 summit? However, do the Government also recognise that the long-term changes to the budget and the possible EU-US trade agreement are not a substitute for a growth strategy now for Europe?

There are 26 million people unemployed in the European Union, more than 6 million unemployed young people looking for work and, shamefully, 1 million of them are here in the UK. I should be grateful if the Leader can say what specific budgetary measures were agreed in relation to young people and employment—for example, on the European youth guarantee.

The European economy is struggling and the British economy is flatlining. What Europe now needs—what Britain now needs—is a plan for jobs and growth. That is the way in which Europe must change, and that must be the priority for the months and years ahead, in both Britain and the European Union.

Business of the House

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Sandwich]

My Lords, I feel it is an important discussion to have now. For example, can the noble Lord say whether the usual channels have discussed and agreed the principle of a limit on the numbers of speakers, which would surely allow those who have prepared for several weeks for debates to have their say in a reasonable way?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, time is short and I do not want to prolong this debate. However, I, too, am concerned about the time limits today on speeches, on issues which are of concern to all the people of our country. We are a self-regulating House and, although on this occasion it is too late, my noble friend Lord Bassam did make representations to the Chief Whip suggesting that perhaps we could have additional time on another day for the second debate. It is clearly too late now but I hope that in future the Government will exercise more flexibility when it comes to these issues in a self-regulating House.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Anelay of St Johns)]

My Lords, since reference has been made personally to me, on this rare occasion perhaps I may assist the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box. This is a Conservative Party debate day and the House decided as a matter of procedure that the time allocated would be five hours, as an envelope. That time limit may, in exceptional circumstances and in consultation with the Leader of the House, be extended to six hours. That has happened on one occasion in the past two and a half years, and it was of course open to the usual channels to consider it. However, as I explained yesterday to several Peers individually, even if extra time had been allocated to the first debate, that would not have given each Member one extra minute. It would not have made a difference.

Peers have quite rightly raised the question of the importance of these matters. In a brief discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, the opposition Chief Whip, I made it clear that I was not going to invite the chairman of my Back-Bench committee, the Association of Conservative Peers, to surrender the only debate that he has had in this Session. In the past two and half years, he has only had one, in the last Session. He is leading our second debate and I would not ask him to abandon it. It could not be moved to another date as this is the last Conservative debate day until the next Session. That is how precious it is.

I have also indicated that I am very happy to look at the possibility of a debate on another day, in prime time, on an issue such as Europe, where I have had representations that have been most fairly made. On that basis, we should now move on. We have important speeches to be made, and this House has made it clear in the past that speeches can be succinct. I can assure the House that I am looking at a way of ensuring that they can be less succinct perhaps on another occasion. It is time to move on and allow those who wish to speak in the debates to do so.

Algeria

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating a Statement on Algeria given in the other place by the Prime Minister.

I start by joining the noble Lord and the Prime Minister in expressing my deepest sympathy and condolences to the families who lost loved ones in last week’s terrorist attack. For them, and for all those involved, the past six days have been an unimaginable nightmare. The whole country has been shocked as the horrific details of this unprovoked and violent act of terror have emerged. This was pre-meditated, cold- blooded murder of the most brutal kind, and behind each lost life is a family of loved ones who are in our thoughts today.

I echo the Prime Minister’s unequivocal condemnation of those involved in planning and carrying out this attack. It is they who must bear full responsibility for the dreadful loss of life, and every effort must now be made to bring them to justice. We on this side of the House will give the Government our full support as they seek to achieve this, and we endorse the thanks expressed by the Prime Minister to our embassy staff in Algeria. We will also give the Government our support as they consider how best to respond to the growing threat which al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other violent extremist groups pose.

In particular, the task is to understand the nature of the new threat—more decentralised, more fragmented, taking advantage of the ungoverned spaces and security vacuum in parts of north Africa—and at the same time, in its response, for the international community to apply the lessons of the past about the combination of diplomacy, politics and security required to help bring about stability in the region.

First on the attack itself, people will agree with the Prime Minister that the Algerian Government were faced with some extremely difficult judgments about how and when to act. Nevertheless, do the Government believe that there are any lessons to be learnt for Governments handling terrorist incidents on their soil? Secondly, in light of the attack, can the noble Lord the Leader say more about the work that the British Government are doing with British companies operating in the region, and can he tell us whether at this early stage any lessons can be learnt?

Turning to the broader context of what is happening in the region, on Mali we support the actions of the Government to date, and we welcome the confirmation by the Prime Minister that they do not envisage a combat role for British troops. Do the Government agree that the efforts of the French military must be supplemented by the much more rapid deployment of west African forces, and what is the Government’s view about whether this can be achieved? After last year’s coup, the Government of Mali face both a security and a legitimacy crisis. What further steps can be taken by the international community and Governments to use diplomacy and development to stabilise the situation? In particular, which international body should co-ordinate this urgent work? More broadly across the region, countering the emerging threat of terrorism begins with understanding it and talking about it in the right way. The work to deal with this threat will be painstaking—diplomatic and political as much as military; collaborative and multilateral, not unilateral. There is no quick fix.

Do the Government agree that we are talking about a number of distinct regional organisations—some using the banner of al-Qaeda, others not—rather than a single, centrally controlled group? Each of these threats needs to be monitored and countered appropriately. Can the noble Lord the Leader outline what steps might be taken to improve the flow of information and intelligence from the region, and whether it needs to be better shared with key allies? We know that these threats grow where governance is weak, as the noble Lord himself suggested. What longer-term roles do the Government anticipate for the African Union and ECOWAS—the Economic Community of West African States—in securing greater stability in the region, and how can the European Union support this effort? In relation to ready access to arms, can the Leader of the House set out how the international community can better prevent the spread of this weaponry throughout the region, including weapons left over from the Libyan conflict?

Finally, do the Government agree that if we are to meet the challenges we face, we need a much greater focus of our diplomatic, development and political resources on this region? We should also remember the events of the Arab Spring, which demonstrated the desire of people across north Africa to improve their lives through peaceful means, not through violence and terror. We should support them. Indeed, I was at a conference in Cairo at the weekend, supporting colleagues from the newly formed Arab Social Democratic Forum, all of whom are committed to meeting the concerns of their citizens and achieving social justice through democratic means and respecting human rights, human dignity and the rule of law.

However, today, above all, we mourn the victims of this terrorist attack. We grieve with the families of those who died. We stand united in seeking to bring the perpetrators to justice and will do everything we can to protect British citizens working and living across the world.