King’s Speech

Lord Newby Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, for moving and seconding the humble Address.

Whenever the noble Lord, Lord Reid, intervenes in your Lordships’ House, we all tend to lean forward slightly to make sure that we do not miss what in recent years has tended to be a lethal attack on the Government and the hapless Minister trying to defend them. He may have to modify that approach slightly under the new Government, but I am sure he will not turn from being one of the Chamber’s rottweilers into a government poodle. I certainly hope not.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, among many accomplishments, is a noted comedian. Many electors, of course, think that all politicians are comedians, but she, unlike the rest of us, is able legitimately to take that as a compliment rather than a criticism, and she has shown today how she can combine both roles.

It is a great pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, as the new Leader of your Lordships’ House. We have worked closely together in recent years, particularly on matters European, and I hope that on that issue and on others we can find common cause in the future. I would also like to record my appreciation of the way in which the noble Lord, Lord True, fulfilled his role as Leader of the House. As your Lordships will know, he has not always regarded the Liberal Democrats with unalloyed positivity, but he was extremely collegiate as Leader and helpful to me personally, and I wish him well in his new role.

I also wish the Government well. They have taken over at a time of very great difficulties, both domestic and international, and my principal concern about this Government, unlike their predecessor, is not so much what they are trying to achieve, but whether their approach is ambitious enough to meet their own declared aims.

On the economy, a combination of stability, planning and a focus on growth will in itself improve market sentiment, as will some of the specific initiatives, such as the creation of Great British Energy. However, the Government’s plan seems to me to be worryingly thin on workforce planning. Having ambitious plans for investment, whether in housing, infrastructure or energy, is good, but even with the planned replacement of the apprenticeship levy and reforms to FE colleges, skilled workers will be in very short supply over the course of the coming Parliament. I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept that, in the short term, such skills gaps can be fully met only by increased recruitment from overseas and that they will take steps to facilitate this.

The state of our public services has rightly been identified by the Government as dire. We welcome the focus on improving the performance of the NHS, but we believe that the Government should go further by giving patients a right to see a GP within a week and to start cancer treatment within two months of an urgent diagnosis. We are particularly disappointed to see nothing in the speech about social care, where the crisis is ever-present but the much-trailed suggestion even of a royal commission seems to have vanished. In any event, no royal commission can help with today’s problems of bed-blocking and generally inadequate levels of provision.

On the environment, the Government’s approach is a welcome contrast to that of their predecessor, but on the urgent issue of the failing water companies we remain unconvinced that they are willing to take the necessary action. Water companies should not be for-profit entities, and as long as this underlying structural problem exists we have no confidence that they will meet consumer needs for clean watercourses and seas at an acceptable cost.

On foreign affairs, we support the Government’s stance on Ukraine. We also agree that an immediate bilateral ceasefire in Gaza, coupled with the release of the remaining hostages, is a priority. However, we believe that the Government should go further by halting arms sales to Israel, recommencing support for UNRWA and immediately recognising the state of Palestine.

The Government’s change of tone on Europe is also welcome, and we agree that working together on security and migration should be urgently progressed. However, that is not nearly enough. We should be agreeing an ambitious new youth exchange programme. We should be reaching quick agreements on trade and foodstuffs, plants and animals. We should also be looking for a much more ambitious trading arrangement, and accepting that if any long-term growth strategy is to succeed for the UK, we need to be moving towards rejoining the single market and removing the shackles that currently prevent so many businesses, particularly small businesses, doing business with our largest trading partners.

I am not entirely without hope, however. The new Attorney-General, the soon to be Lord Hermer, when asked a couple of years ago what piece of legislation he would like to see introduced, said, “The European Union (Please Can We Come Back?) Act”. I assure him that, were he to introduce such a Bill into your Lordships’ House, he would have the wholehearted support of the Liberal Democrats.

In our view, the area where the Government’s approach falls spectacularly short of what is required relates to the way in which we run our democracy. I can see why today the Labour Party thinks that a system that gives it a landslide victory on a mere one-third of the votes has a lot to recommend it, but even it must accept that this system stinks. For once, the Liberal Democrats find ourselves with a number of MPs that broadly reflects our vote share. However, the sense of injustice that we have felt in the past is now rightly being felt by those who voted Reform or Green. It is therefore hardly surprising that there is a cynicism across the country about a system that produces such a result. That cynicism leads in some cases to anger and in others to apathy. In either case it is bad for democracy and should be rectified by the introduction of a proportional electoral system, in line with Labour Party policy.

As for your Lordships’ House, we enter this Parliament in a position where, after all the new appointees are introduced, we will see the Conservatives with 281 Peers compared to our 80. Noble Lords will recall that, after the previous three general elections, Conservative Peers argued that we were grossly overrepresented because of our weak position in the Commons. I hope, therefore, that they will now agree that, to follow their own logic, Liberal Democrats should get another 87 Peers to align us with our two parties’ representation in the Commons, or that they should voluntarily reduce their numbers to 134 to bring them into line with our 80. I am particularly looking forward to hearing the view of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on this issue.

On Lords reform, we remain of the view that all legislatures should be elected, but we accept that this Government will not move in that direction. In the absence of fundamental reform, we welcome the plan to abolish the remaining hereditaries and to introduce a retirement age. I am, however, a bit worried that only a consultation is planned on the latter change. There is a well-known equation relating to Lords reform—namely, that reform proposals plus consultation equals inaction. We will therefore be pressing the Government for a speedy timetable for any consultation and for the resulting reform.

On these Benches, it is a great relief that we have done with the previous Administration. We believe that the present Government will have greater respect for the Nolan principles and set higher standards in public life. We believe that they have identified the key challenges facing the country but that they will need pushing to be ambitious enough to achieve their goals. That is what we will now seek to do.