Queen's Speech

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard]

It is probably logically necessary that there would have to be a vote of no confidence in the Government. If it were impossible to form a new Government, I have no doubt that Members in another place would vote for Dissolution by more than 55 per cent. That is what happens in the Scottish Parliament, for example: if the First Minister resigns and they are unable to elect a new First Minister, an election is triggered.

I draw the attention of noble Lords opposite to the manifesto on which they fought just three weeks ago. It pledged, and I quote it precisely, that Labour would provide legislation,

“to ensure Parliaments sit for a fixed term”.

Please note carefully the word “ensure”. Those who fought the election on the basis of “ensuring” that Parliament sat for a fixed term have some obligations to say how they would ensure that.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

The noble Lord’s point about a fixed term is interesting. He cited with approbation the fixed term for the US President being four years. In local government, as he knows, the fixed term is four years. Why does he think that a five-year term is appropriate in this context?

[Lord Rennard]

Actually, I have not argued that case; I have argued the case for a fixed-term parliament. I think that the argument that those in favour of five years would make is that this is the first time in British history that a Prime Minister has surrendered that supreme partisan advantage of being able to pick and choose polling day according to opinion poll ratings rather than the national interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, effectively pointed out earlier, this has often been deeply damaging for the long-term British economic interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Onslow]

My Lords, it is great to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. I hope that, unlike one of his predecessors, he will not be pursued across the roof of his burning palace by rioters in Bristol, which once happened.

Macaulay stated in 1834 that,

“we look at the essential characteristics of the Whig and the Tory, we may consider each of them as the representative of a great principle, essential to the welfare of nations. One is, in an especial manner, the guardian of liberty, and the other, of order. One is the moving power, and the other the steadying power of the state. One is the sail, without which society would make no progress, the other the ballast, without which there would be small safety in a tempest”.

I hope that that exactly encapsulates the whole principle of this new coalition Government.

It is perfectly fair to say that Mr Cameron acted with supreme statesmanship immediately after the election, in which he was closely followed by Mr Clegg. This has resulted in a Government who I suggest are supported—or were supported at the polls—by more people than have supported any other Government since the advent of universal adult male suffrage, let alone universal suffrage. That gives this Government an essential ballast of authority to do the things that have to be done. It also combines those two principles—

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Surely the principle of the moral authority which the noble Earl is talking about is when the Government have sought approval from the electorate for a particular set of legislative proposals—a manifesto. In this instance, both political parties have jettisoned their manifestos and the coalition agreement has never been put to the British people

[The Earl of Onslow]

My Lords, all Members of the House of Commons are elected on the Burkean principle: not as delegates but as representatives. I always have to think here, but the House knows what I mean. They are elected for their judgment. Thereby, when certain circumstances arise, as they did after this election, they had to make judgments on the facts as they were. The two leaders have taken a thoroughly great and statesmanlike decision.

I listened with great interest to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Grocott and Lord Elystan-Morgan. I agreed essentially with them on fixed parliaments and the 55. If you say, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, did, that the aim of the Government is to return power to the people, making sure that they cannot have an election seems a very odd way to do that. But then I did not go to university, so perhaps I do not understand that.

In 1923, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, Bonar Law was elected on a programme of free trade. When he died, Baldwin succeeded him and felt that he had to go to the country to get a mandate for a basic change in policy. I see nothing immoral or wrong about that. In fact, I see morality and right about that. The concept of 55—I do not know whether it is 55 seats or 55 per cent; and nor do the Government, who will have a consultation on that—seems absolutely, wrong. If the Government have lost power in a vote of no confidence, then they must be allowed to recommend a dissolution.

In France in the 1870s, the Government were defeated. I am not sure of my exact historical facts, but the President either could not, or would not, grant a dissolution. So what did they say? They said the French equivalent of “Yippee! What we can do is swap about being in government and we do not have to go to the people and give them any choice”. From then until 1940, when Pétain brought an end to the system—although it was reintroduced in 1945—the French had a Government every six weeks or months. If you have fixed-term Parliaments and an enormous trigger for a dissolution, together with an element of proportional representation, we will turn into the Third and Fourth Republics as sure as night follows day. Do we really want to bring Mendès-France, Daladier and all those other interminable French politicians back into the Palace of Westminster as new Franglais politicians, or something like that?

This is not the way to go about it. If a Government lose command of the House of Commons, that represents the basis of our constitution. Only the House of Commons can raise the money for the King or Queen’s Government to continue. If the Prime Minister loses the confidence of the House of Commons, he has to go—it is as simple as that—because he cannot raise the money to run the country, and that is why the House of Commons is, and has been for 300 years, the senior of the two Houses. This House, very wisely, gave up the right to raise tax some time in the 1340s. It did not give up the right to say, “No, you don’t raise tax”—which is a different issue. That was what brought about 1911.

I shall briefly comment on some of the other things. Between 1999 and the election, I thought that this House worked better than at any time that I have been in it, and I have been in it since 1971. That is not as long as my noble friend Lord Ferrers, but that is impossible. We used to combine in odd coalitions all over the place when the Government made mistakes. I know that as night follows day, however good this Government are, they will do silly things. All Governments do. I thought of calling my new Liberal Whig noble friends noble acquaintances. The independent Tories, of whom my noble friend Lord Lucas is certainly one, used regularly to vote with the Liberals against the Conservatives during the previous Session. I did that on the American extradition treaty and on control orders, and I do not resile from that for one moment. It seems to me that as a Back Bencher on a big government side, it is your duty to be constructively disloyal, and I promise my noble friends on the Front Bench, both Liberal and Tory, that I will be constructively disloyal because that is the duty of somebody who is here and who paid their debt to their political masters some time in 1801, or it may have been 1717, I do not know. That is how I hope that this Government will go on. I wish them the most enormous success because they are full of good ideas and represent the greatest section of the voting public since universal adult male suffrage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the newly appointed Ministers—in particular, my noble friend Lord McNally. I believe that what has been done by David Cameron and Nick Clegg has been in the best traditions of the history of our democracy. It has not been an easy coalition to put together. I do not quite follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who suggests that there should have been a further general election after the coalition agreement was published.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way but I want to correct him. I was not suggesting that there should have been a further general election; I was saying that the claim of having some stupendous mandate by virtue of adding together the percentages of two lots of votes and saying that therefore everything should pass through without dissent because of that mandate cannot be made. That argument is destroyed by the fact that both manifestos were jettisoned in the coalition agreement.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord says, but talking of both manifestos being jettisoned is just unreal. The fact is that neither party won an overall majority and in coalition there plainly has to be compromise on both sides. It is as simple as that: in effect, we were commanded by the public. I found that on doorstep after doorstep people were saying, “I hope that there is a hung Parliament because it’s about time we had parties in Parliament co-operating”.

I must confess that it is with some wistfulness that I look across at the Members on the Benches opposite, because after 40 years in opposition I am not sure how it is going to feel being part of the governing party, but there we are.

I think that we still have far too many Bills—22, I believe—in the programme. It is a really deep problem for this country and our democratic process that the amount of legislation is far beyond the capacity of the culture to understand, let alone digest. Although Nick Clegg has promised a great repeal bonanza, I hope sincerely that we will think hard about the way in which we proceed in both this House and the other place.

I should like to refer to the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when speaking on the Queen’s Speech. He referred to the prospect of election to this Chamber, saying that,

“if there is a demand for change, it must be addressed in a comprehensive way. Let me assure the House that proposals will be put before your Lordships at a formative stage”.—[Official Report, 25/5/10; col. 22.]

The key phrase there is,

“if there is a demand for change”.

I believe that the only proper, democratic way in which we can measure whether there is a demand for change in the method by which this Chamber is composed is by holding a referendum. I must be honest with the House and say that it was not until having hospitality with the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Bassam, an hour ago that I realised that it was part of the Labour Party’s manifesto at the last election that there should indeed be a referendum to consider whether or not to elect this House wholly or mainly. I believe that that is absolutely essential—primarily because we do not own this House. We are servants of the public and surely there can be no more fundamental change than to alter profoundly the way in which this place is composed. The public must decide that. Anything short of that will sell the public short. I hope that the noble Baroness, in summing up the debate, can tell the House that the Government will consider—and do so soon—the need for such a referendum.

I shall talk a little about legal aid, which is a bit of an orphan subject in this debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol referred to it and my noble friend Lord Goodhart made a passing reference to it. Let us make no bones about it, legal aid has been ignored too much. It was one of the great achievements of the Attlee Government. In a country where lawmaking is out of control and one cannot move without reference to the law, which is ever more complex and all-embracing, it is a scandal that the legal aid scheme has—I cannot say “failed”—is in extreme ill health. There are deserts of legal aid in this country and they are growing. The number of solicitors’ firms willing to do legal aid declines substantially every year. I have no time to go into the specifics but I hope that the Government will do more than what is suggested in the two lines in their programme and,

“carry out a fundamental review of Legal Aid to make it work more”,

not “efficiently”, as they say, but more effectively. In that regard I hope that they will note the fact that the Law Society, I am pleased to say, has at last undertaken an in-depth review of what it calls access to justice. An 80-page interim report is now circulating throughout the legal profession for feedback. I hope that the Government will act soon and work with that review in the hope that there can be some consensual reforms. That leads into what has been said about prisons and many other things.

In the two minutes that I have left, I shall refer to the charity and voluntary sector. The gracious Speech states:

“The role of social enterprises, charities and co-operatives in our public services will be enhanced”.

I hope that it is not just in our public services that the Government will make every effort to aid and abet the wonderful voluntary sector that we have in this country—the glory in many ways of the culture of the United Kingdom. Again I suggest that we need a bit of a change of attitude by government to the voluntary sector.

Too often, with the best intentions in the world, ministries will take initiatives, often with substantial funds, and will work not through the sector itself from the bottom up but in far too impository a way. For example, I would recommend that nothing should be done nationally without the close involvement of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which is the umbrella body of the—what is it?—third of a million charities in this country, 90 per cent of which do not have a single paid member of staff. I suggest even more strongly that nothing, but nothing, is done towards reviving and engaging citizenship, helping charity—which often gets to the parts that the state cannot reach, namely the most vulnerable and fragile in our society—other than by working with what is there. The most vital tools are the councils for voluntary service in every city and every county in this land. They work closely with their membership—a plethora of extraordinary organisations.

In all that, I hope that there will be bureaucratic proportionality because by God there has been overkill. I hope that there will be a degree of proper risk by the state realising that sometimes you have to chance your arm, even in government, for greater prizes and returns.

Last but by no means least, I hope that the Government will realise that for every pound that they spend—let alone every pound that they cut from the charity and voluntary sector—they are not merely denying the work that was paid for but cutting off the state and its agencies from a vast input of voluntary effort, time, compassion, knowledge and contact. Please will the Government think twice, thrice and four times before cutting a penny from the voluntary sector’s budget?