Queen’s Speech

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, there is much that has been excellent in the rich tapestry of speeches which we have already heard, but I am tempted to say, “And now for something completely different”, which I hope is not too Pythonesque.

I wish to talk about greed. I will not be surprised if this produces a frisson of embarrassment. It is perhaps to be expected that a right reverend Prelate should use this word from time to time, because that is partly what they are for. It is perhaps not unexpected if an ex-trade union official does likewise, because in the days before sharp suits replaced cloth caps talking about greed was fairly regular practice. It is perhaps not unexpected if a “leftie” academic does this, for, after all, we do not pay them particularly well and they probably have not got over being a student at the LSE in the 1970s. And so on we could go, but it is still unsettling to hear the word in polite company. It is a bit like using the word “fornication” at a Mothers’ Union meeting, or confessing to preferring football in the directors’ box at Twickenham. However, I have to tell your Lordships that the world has changed. The Prime Minister has been reported in the press using the word, as has the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has appeared in a Times leader and even in a report in the Financial Times. So, thus encouraged, I continue.

Perhaps I may offer you two different interpretations of the word. The first is from Gordon Gekko in the film “Wall Street”. “Greed”, he said, “is good”. There is a remarkable scene in the film where he persuades unwitting customers to buy useless products. Contrast that with David Hume, who wrote in his Treatise that greed—he used the 18th-century term “avidity”—is the most destructive of all the vices. That is strong stuff.

Which of these is right? And what does it have to do with the gracious Speech? The first clause in the speech states that,

“my Government’s legislative programme will continue to focus on building a stronger economy”.

The second sentence reads:

“It will also work to promote a fairer society that rewards people who work hard”.

These themes are reiterated and re-emphasised:

“My Government is committed to a fairer society where aspiration and responsibility are rewarded”.

These themes, of the economy and fairness and justice, are tied together in the Queen’s Speech. It is difficult to talk about things such as greed in the various debates on the Queen’s Speech—there is no particular section that deals with it, so I am taking today.

Two questions arise. The first is whether Gordon Gekko was right about the driving force of capitalism—if he was, it is a very serious matter, and it is claimed by some that that is the case—or whether David Hume was right and has given us fair warning.

The second question is: what is the relationship between a stronger economy and fairness? That relationship is posed in the gracious Speech. I am with Hume in the voting lobby on both these questions. Hume’s case is pretty straightforward. He argued that one of the two major responsibilities of the state was to enshrine in law the rules concerning property—who owns what, what are the grounds of legitimacy of ownership and what are the rules governing the transfer of property and wealth, because societies, until well into west European history, used other means of transferring property and other means of claiming legitimacy of ownership. This covers much of what is important to all the members of our society. It covers ownership of property, payment of wages and salaries, payment of taxes in life and death, inheritance and financial gain or loss.

Hume argues that in a society where everyone understands these rules and sees them enshrined in law, we find them broadly acceptable. In such a society, there will be stability, continuity and sustainability, which are essential in many ways—not least in “building a stronger economy”, because without these civic virtues enshrined in our society the strength of the economy will begin to fray. It would also help in “strengthening Britain’s economic competitiveness”—another phrase from the gracious Speech.

However, connoisseur as David Hume was of the ways of men and women and the contortions of civil society, he saw that the needs of society went beyond the simple definition, simple acquiescence and enforcement of law. A just society goes beyond simple acquiescence in words of the law; it goes beyond the capacity of the state simply to enforce the requirements of the law. A just society requires the acceptance of a shared concept of fairness within that society.

Acquiescence in the law is fine, and indeed necessary up to a point, but it is not a sufficient condition of health in a society, whether economic health or civic health. If one’s sole criterion of acceptable behaviour, commercial and financial, is whether that behaviour is in accord with the law, Gordon Gekko becomes the relevant guru—“Greed is good”, if you can get away with it. If the definitions of law are inadequate or, even more, the enforcement of law is weak, then “grab all you can” is the order of the day. Forget flaccid words such as “fairness” and “justice” even if they feature in the gracious Speech. Tax evasion is, after all, not the same as tax avoidance, especially if you are an international company with international tax arrangements. Tax avoidance is okay, provided your overseas bank account is sufficiently shielded from the gaze of HMRC.

Greed in those circumstances, Gekko would claim, is actually good—it is good policy; it is the right technique to use. After all, as both Amazon and Starbucks argue in these circumstances, it provides jobs and satisfies customers. There is some good in it. “Well, what is wrong,” some would ask, “with the going rate of £4 million as an average perhaps annual bonus in certain areas of the financial services? Four million pounds is not big by comparison with some of the bonuses paid, but it is the equivalent of 40 years’ earnings for a university professor, a junior consultant and all sorts of people who are considered reasonably comfortable. There is something odd; there is a distortion that we have drifted into when that kind of figure—and that is at the lower end of the scale—is seen as acceptable.

“All very well”, you might say. “You’re wearing your conscience on your sleeve. What is to be done about it? It is not so easy to deal with”. I have to declare an interest here, lest your Lordships get the wrong impression: I am actually a capitalist. I chair an SME that employs 130 people, most of whom are software engineers, in the town of Halifax. It makes a major contribution to the employment of talented young people. We have a strong overseas sales portfolio; we know what this is about; but just conforming to the letter of the law is not enough—the company is called Frog, by the way, if you want to check it out.

What do we do about it? That is hard. It is not easy to change a culture, but that is what is required. There has to be a change in culture. This is not the politics of envy; I am reasonably comfortable, as many Members of this House are, but it has to do with the way in which we see the future of our society.

Hume has two suggestions for us to turn our minds to. He says that the capacity to be a mature moral agent with mature moral opinions has two sources in society. One is the family and the other is education. In the family, the two year-old learns that it is not just, “Me, me, me; mine, mine, mine”. That begins in the family. In education, virtue has to be learnt, it has to be taught, it is part of how we see the future development of young people, but that is a story for another evening.