Implications of Devolution for England

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader for repeating the Statement made by the Leader of the House of Commons. It is good to hear that the coalition is alive and well: this was an intriguing government statement with a series of options between the parties. I think it is rather a pick-and-mix coalition—but hell.

September’s referendum was momentous, not only for the fantastic turnout and the decisive way that the Scottish people voted to stay in the United Kingdom, but also for the way in which it unleashed a devolutionary vigour up and down the country. This is something that Labour, as a party with an unequalled record on devolution, embraces—and it is a debate that we seek to lead. We welcome Westminster further releasing its grip on the levers that run this country—and despite the Prime Minister’s 7 am jitters on the morning after the referendum, all sides of the Chamber will, I hope, welcome the fact that the vow to the Scottish people through the Smith commission is being delivered.

But this is only the beginning of the change that we need to the way in which the country is run. In England, cities and towns are demanding a greater say in the running of their affairs. Labour has responded to these demands, committing to introduce an English devolution Act in our first Queen’s Speech. This will involve skills, transport and economic development. In Wales, we will place Welsh devolution on a stronger statutory footing. It is also right that we look at how Parliament works, as more power is shifted away from Westminster—and yes, we do need to consider ways in which English MPs, or English and Welsh MPs, can have a greater say over legislation that affects only England, or only England and Wales.

What we must not do, only months after the Scottish people voted to keep our kingdom united, is allow our country to be divided by the back door. Nothing we do should jeopardise the future of the union. Last year the government commission led by Sir William McKay looked at this very issue. Its report included the option of a change in the way legislation is dealt with at Westminster: a Committee stage for only English MPs, who would scrutinise and amend legislation that applied only to England. We should look at Sir William’s approach involving an English—or English and Welsh—Committee stage, because it is right that English MPs should have a key role in considering such legislation.

We will study the Command Paper published today by the Government. But our criteria will not be what is in the interest of a political party, but what is in the interests of our country. Ultimately, the way we go about constitutional reform has to change; it must not be done for political advantage. The old “Westminster knows best” approach will not wash any more. Labour, like the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and others, is prepared to put aside tribalism and put our faith in a constitutional convention—a bold and new way of delivering political reform. This will not be made up just of elected representatives, but will give members of the public the loudest voice. The convention should consider the McKay commission approach of an English Committee stage. We hope that the Conservative Party will also support the constitutional convention approach, helping us to achieve the cross-party consensus that the convention idea merits.

Many questions arise as a consequence of the Statement, and today I will pose but a few. Does the Leader agree that it is no longer acceptable for long-lasting constitutional reform to result from deals done by politicians behind closed doors—and that a piecemeal approach to constitutional change for political advantage is also unacceptable? As Vernon Bogdanor said,

“the British constitution is not the private property of the Conservative party”,

or of any other party.

Does the Leader agree that for reform to be successful, there must be consensus? I therefore ask, as I have done in the past: what are her party’s specific objections to a constitutional convention? We are all agreed that change is needed when it comes to laws applying only to England, or only to England and Wales, but as the Command Paper shows, there are several options available. Does she agree that a constitutional convention would be a much better way to consider and decide upon the best option, rather than partisan politicians?

In our debate on devolution on 29 October, the Leader said:

“There will be a time and a place for a constitutional convention”.—[Official Report, 29/10/14; col. 1204.]

I suggest that the time has now come, and I wonder whether the noble Baroness would agree. Noble Lords will know that Labour is proposing to devolve more than £30 billion to the cities and counties of England. I wonder whether the Government support this.

With regard to this House, does the noble Baroness agree that its future should be one of the issues considered by a constitutional convention, and that a democratic second Chamber, drawn from the nations and regions of the UK, would be a means of addressing many of the challenges that result from devolution?

When it comes to constitutional change, we must consider the unintended consequences of our actions, and think through the way in which changes are interrelated and interdependent. This must not be a matter of quick fixes or political stitch-ups, but a considered, consensual approach. That is why it is our firm view that the constitutional convention should take this forward, as part of a wider package of political reforms.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for her response to the Statement. We want to approach this whole issue of devolution in a way that enables us to share some common ground. We were pleased that that was possible in Scotland and that all the pro-union parties worked together. All the parties—the Conservatives, the Lib Dems and the Labour Party—are committed to meet the commitment set out by the Smith commission.

As was made clear in the Statement that I repeated, we were very keen to have the Labour Party contribute to our Command Paper, which we published today, so that we could continue that cross-party approach. Therefore, it is a little surprising that the noble Baroness referred to our “behind closed doors” approach, given that the leadership of the Labour Party were invited to contribute to the process, but so far they have sadly declined to do so. However, that is not the case with many Labour leaders of local authorities in all parts of England. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons has met Labour leaders of local authorities from Birmingham, Cardiff, Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield and Liverpool over the past few weeks to talk to them and to hear what they have to say on further devolution within England following the Scottish referendum.

The noble Baroness referred to her party’s proposals to extend greater powers to cities and towns. We have done a tremendous amount during the lifetime of this Parliament to extend greater authority and autonomy to all parts of England. England is far more decentralised now than it has been previously, and is far more decentralised than Scotland and Wales.

The noble Baroness spoke about the McKay commission’s report and its proposals for English votes for English laws. As she rightly said, the McKay commission made several proposals, and the Labour Party is putting forward one of those as its preferred option. That is clearly worthy of consideration. However, since the McKay commission did its work, greater powers have been devolved to Scotland. Therefore, it is our view that we need to consider the current situation, which has led to both parties in the coalition putting forward something which goes beyond what is proposed by the McKay commission.

The noble Baroness mentioned a constitutional convention. The Command Paper sets out the arguments for a constitutional convention and the Government remain open to receiving ideas on it. However, the establishment of a constitutional convention cannot be used as an excuse for delaying what needs to be done now.

The noble Baroness also referred to reforms to the upper House. There was an opportunity earlier on in this Parliament for reforms to the upper House. Members of the opposition party—and, indeed, Members from other Benches in the other House—decided that that Bill should not come forward. Reform of the House of Lords should not be linked to something that is urgent, needs to be done now and addresses a fairness issue to do with English votes for English laws.

No one is arguing that the work of the Smith commission should be delayed for a constitutional convention. No one is suggesting that the work of the Silk commission should be delayed for a constitutional convention. Similarly, a resolution on English votes for English laws cannot be delayed for a constitutional convention. The issue of English votes for English laws must be resolved. There are some options now for resolving it; and it is right that we debate those options.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

Could I make it clear that we want the McKay commission’s proposals to be put forward into a constitutional convention? This is not the be-all and end-all, and we see what the noble Baroness and her party are doing as being strictly for political advantage. In terms of the constitutional convention, this is not the long grass. We want a time- limited constitutional convention that would look at all these things, not in a piecemeal way but in a proper and dignified way for the future constitution of our country.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am a little bit baffled. A lot is happening in terms of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Opposition are not arguing that those changes should be delayed for a constitutional convention. Arising from the result of the Scottish referendum is the need for us to address an important issue, which is about English votes for English laws. That can be addressed quickly and there are some options for consideration. It comes off the back of several reports on the issue of English votes for English laws over many years. This is not about ruling out a constitutional convention or any other bigger issues that might arise in due course; but the issue of English votes for English laws needs to be addressed right now. It can be addressed and it should not be delayed.

Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Report: Fusilier Lee Rigby

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister. Fusilier Lee Rigby served his country with courage. He was a brave soldier and his murder was an appalling act—an atrocity. Our thoughts today are with his family and friends, for whom reading this report will mean the pain of reliving his brutal killing. I also thank the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee for their investigation. It is right that this investigation took place; the report was the most detailed account of the agencies’ work ever published.

The security services and the police play a vital role in keeping us safe, often in challenging circumstances. They do a hugely difficult job of seeking to identify those who pose a risk to our country. We should remember that, while the perpetrators of terror need succeed only once to achieve their dreadful aims, our agencies and others need to be successful every time to keep us secure. In so far as there are criticisms in the ISC’s report, they need to be understood in that light. The ISC’s report outlines in detail how the two men who killed Lee Rigby—Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale—were under investigation at various times before the murder.

We welcome the announcement of additional resources, but will the Leader of the House tell us whether it is simply a question of resources or whether she thinks a better strategy is needed for dealing with those, like Adebolajo, who are recurring subjects of interest on the periphery of several investigations? In addition, the report points to the fact that at times there is a lack of co-ordination between MI5 and the police. Can the noble Baroness outline the steps that will be put in place to strengthen the working relationship between the different agencies—MI5, SIS, GCHQ and the police?

The report also highlights the issue of returning foreign fighters. We will engage constructively with the forthcoming Bill and welcome the decision to reinstate relocation powers, which were removed three years ago. As the Leader of the House said, Michael Adebolajo was arrested, but the report states that his case was not then followed up. This is not simply about the powers but the way in which cases are followed up. Can she assure us that there will be a more systematic and rigorous response to returning foreign fighters, including mandatory referrals to deradicalisation programmes?

The report underlines the fact that these two individuals, and in particular Michael Adebowale, were radicalised over a number of years, including by accessing extremist material online. Thus it makes a compelling case for an expansion of the Prevent programme. The report says:

“The scale of the problem indicates that the Government’s counter-radicalisation programmes are not working”.

Noble Lords will recall that we raised this important issue in the House before. How will the Government ensure that Prevent will receive the priority and resources it needs? Would the noble Baroness agree that we should consider widening the scope of Prevent so that in future people like Michael Adebowale would be included, and to ensure that local communities are engaged in the prevention of radicalisation?

The role of internet companies is clearly of crucial importance. This raises two vital issues: whether the companies have a responsibility to draw authorities’ attention to issues of national security and whether the major US companies regard themselves as compelled to comply with UK warrants legally authorised by Ministers in cases of national security. Can more be done to encourage companies to flag up issues of concern where matters of national security are raised? The report says that companies may sometimes decide to pass on information to the authorities when they close accounts because of links to terrorism, but in this case they did not.

Part of the problem in this area is that there are different practices by different companies and no agreed set of procedures. In the case of images of child abuse, there is a procedure in place for companies to take action and refer abuse allegations to the authorities. There should be much stronger procedures in place and a much stronger responsibility placed on companies when it comes to terrorism as well. Does the Leader of the House agree? Further, can the Leader update the House on work being done to improve our ability to get information, with a warrant, from companies based in the US?

Lastly, on the issue of detention, we welcome the Government’s announcement that oversight will be strengthened but urge them to go further. For some time we have said that the framework of commissioners needs strengthening and this report demonstrates the value of thorough scrutiny and the ability to learn lessons. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether David Anderson’s review also covers strengthening oversight and the role of commissioners?

This report is a stark reminder of the threats we face in keeping our country safe. The murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby was an appalling act of cruelty and depravity. We must learn the right lessons—and that is what the ISC report seeks to do. It does so thoroughly and with diligence. In seeking to put those lessons into practice, the Government will have our full support.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her response and the manner in which she made her remarks on the Statement by the Prime Minister that I repeated. I certainly join her in paying tribute to Lee Rigby’s family and in recognising that this must be a very difficult day for them indeed. I also agree with the noble Baroness about the good work the committee has done in its investigation and the thoroughness of its report. Of course, she is absolutely right to restate that the security services and the police do a very difficult job in keeping us safe. We very much acknowledge that.

On the questions that she asked, first she asked about increased resources and whether the security and intelligence services had sufficient funding. It is worth explaining to the House that funding for the security and intelligence services has increased in cash terms now by 5% compared with 2010 and they had a good funding settlement compared with other departments, including in the 2013 spending round where they saw an increase when other departments saw a reduction in their funding.

The noble Baroness asked about the way in which MI5 and the security services are responding to some of the identified persons who might be described as peripheral risks or operating on the periphery. MI5 responds to this point in its initial response to the report and says how it has already started to take steps to improve in this area. We will come back again with more detail on this in the new year. She also asked about how connections could be improved between the different agencies and the police service. They are continuing to improve all the time and they are working well and seeking always to address any issue that should be strengthened.

The noble Baroness asked about returning foreign fighters and the approach being taken to them. In its report, the committee criticised the way in which the particular person concerned was examined when he returned. The committee is right to say that we should look at this case by case and, indeed, one of the measures being introduced in the new counterterrorism Bill is to make sure that there is an improvement in this area and a more systematic approach.

The noble Baroness also asked about the improved arrangements for deradicalisation. Again, in the new counterterrorism Bill, which will be introduced tomorrow, the measures we have already in place, including those under the Prevent scheme referred to as Channel, will be put on a statutory footing.

As to the noble Baroness’s comments on Prevent funding and on how Prevent operates, it is worth reminding noble Lords that in 2011 this Government asked my noble friend Lord Carlile to carry out a review of Prevent. His conclusion was that Prevent should be split, with the money for integration—the more community-based measures to improve cohesion in communities—moving to DCLG, where that money now sits with the programme for cohesion, and the remainder of the money being specifically focused on guiding people away from extremism and terrorism. The money spent on Prevent has increased from £35 million in 2012 to £40 million in 2014. It is worth adding that in my noble friend Lord Carlile’s report he said there were cases under the previous Prevent regime where groups which we now consider to support an extremist ideology had received funding. Changing the Prevent regime by moving the cohesion aspect of it into DCLG and making Prevent more focused on tackling extremism and preventing terrorism was, we believe, the right approach.

As to the questions that the noble Baroness raised about internet companies, I agree with her that comparisons can be made between the way in which the internet companies have improved the way in which they remove from the internet sites and images that relate to despicable crimes of child abuse. That was at the prompting of government. We think that the same approach needs to be taken by the internet companies towards terrorism. We are very clear that these internet companies have a social responsibility to take the necessary action that should prevent any kind of terrorism activity occurring. We introduced new emergency legislation in the summer, which I referred to in repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. We are working very hard to ensure that that legislation is properly applied to US companies which operate in the United Kingdom. As I said in the Statement, Sir Nigel Sheinwald is doing much in that area to see that there can be progress. That is something that we will pursue with vigour.

The oversight role of the Government’s adviser on counterterrorism measures, David Anderson QC, is very broad, and he is able to look at the threat response, the capabilities and important safeguards. He has done excellent work so far, and clearly we look forward to him continuing in his role and supporting us and helping us further in the weeks and months ahead.

EU Council

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

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

Let me begin by echoing the words of the Prime Minister about the contribution of our Armed Forces in Afghanistan. On these Benches, as in the rest of the House, our thoughts are with those who have served our country and the families of those who have lost their lives. Britain’s commitment to Afghanistan will continue beyond the handover of Camp Bastion. We must continue to support the Afghan Government through both political and humanitarian aid as well as in our training mission. Every one of our troops who served in Afghanistan can take pride in both their mission and in what they achieved, and our whole country is proud of them. I also echo the Prime Minister’s words about Ukraine and support for its Government.

On climate change, we welcome the climate and energy package, paving the way for the global UN summit in Paris next year. What action will the Government be taking in the coming months to encourage other countries, particularly China and the US, to agree a more ambitious target, sending a clear leadership signal to all countries in advance of the summit next year? Specifically, why was the energy-saving goal watered down from the Commission’s recommendation of 30%? All opportunities must now be taken to strengthen these elements of the package over the coming months.

I turn briefly to the Ebola crisis in west Africa. The whole world has been horrified by the devastating scenes in West Africa, and our hearts go out to the communities that are confronting this threat on a daily basis. We welcome the UK’s efforts to help affected countries. We are proud of the work of our Armed Forces, our health professionals and our aid community. I welcome the fact that the Statement said that member states agreed to increase the deployment of medical and support staff in the region.

I turn to the EU budget change. The Commission’s handling of this matter has been cack-handed and unacceptable and, as the noble Baroness said, has caused consternation in a number of other member states. The urgent priority now is for the Government to pursue all diplomatic means to get the best deal for Britain. We are bound to wonder if they have done due diligence in their handling of what one might term a fiasco. The Prime Minister says that he was made aware of this matter only on 23 October, and the Chancellor said that he had no warning. However, that is simply not the case. These changes to the budget arise from changes to estimates of gross national income, or GNI. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the Office for National Statistics agreed to, and has been part of, the substantial and planned changes to GNI across Europe for the past two years, since 2012? Can she further confirm that the ONS stated publicly in May 2014 that these changes would impact on our budget contribution? It said in its press release:

“GNI … is used in the calculation of a Member State’s contribution to the EU budget”.

Clearly, the Treasury was aware of this. My right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition quoted in another place from a letter from the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the right honourable Member for Loughborough, who wrote to the parliamentary committee on Europe a full seven months ago on 11 March. In her letter she said that changes to GNI were going to take place in time for 2014, and wrote about the high priority that the Government were giving to addressing them.

So these changes were planned for a number of years, the ONS publicly declared that they would impact on our budget contribution, and Ministers knew about them and claimed that they were a high priority. Are there any further budgetary adjustments coming down the line that will affect any amounts due or owing—adjustments that are currently not in the public domain? I think that we deserve to know.

It is hard to see how the Prime Minister can maintain his assertion that there was no warning and that Treasury Ministers knew nothing about these changes. Surely the Treasury must have made its own estimates of the impact on the EU budget that would follow. The reason why this matters is that in our view the Prime Minister could have done much earlier what he did at the last minute on Friday when he called for a meeting of Finance Ministers and entered negotiations about this demand. I think we would all be interested to know how he plans to go ahead and sort out this fine mess.

It is clear that the Prime Minister spends all his time negotiating with his party about Europe, when what he should be doing is negotiating with our partners in the rest of Europe about a reformed Europe and getting a better deal for the British people in the European Union. It is the British people who are paying the cost for the Prime Minister’s focus on his party rather than working in the best interests of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

I got the thing from the office.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My noble friend was not in the Chamber. It is not appropriate for him to speak.

Leader of the House of Lords

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 28th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

My Lords, I begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, for my excessive enthusiasm to participate in your Lordships’ debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, on behalf of the Select Committee on the Constitution, which I have the honour to chair, for quoting so effectively and powerfully from our report. I stand by everything that is in that report. I believe that it does its best to inform the House for the debate and I hope that the House will find it useful.

Regarding the Motion, however, I find I have a little difficulty because I agree with the first part, in which the noble Baroness congratulates my noble friend the Leader of the House, who I believe will be as formidable as she is fearless and will turn this event to good account in her negotiations with the Prime Minister and others in Cabinet. However, in the second part of the Motion, which criticises the Prime Minister’s decision, I think the noble Baroness underrates the extent to which my noble friend Lady Stowell is a prisoner of circumstances, deriving from some years ago. I will come back to that point shortly. That is not to underrate the serious nature of the diminished status under which your Lordships’ House now labours—in defiance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, rightly said, of both Erskine May and the Companion to the Standing Orders.

Of course one welcomes the acknowledgement by the Prime Minister of the unacceptable nature of the present situation and his clear commitment to put it right as soon as he can. But to help that to happen, we should also acknowledge the nature of what he has inherited: namely, the gradual erosion, over time, of the constitutional standing of this House, which the current event continues. Indeed, I believe that there are two disquieting long-term trends that have contributed to the situation we now face.

First, there is the huge expansion since the 1970s that my noble friend Lord MacGregor spoke about briefly of the range and machinery of government. There are more departments and Governments are doing more, and that has required more Ministers and more Cabinet Ministers. That trend was visible 40 years ago when in 1975 the issue was last addressed and the paid number of Cabinet places was increased from 19 to 21, providing what the Government of the time thought was some spare capacity for future growth. They were too optimistic. Moreover, the Acts of Parliament that governed and sought through financial controls to discipline such expansion were left unamended. Instead, they have been circumvented.

The committee’s report illustrates the recent trend in this century of the concept of Ministers attending Cabinet. Prime Minister Blair used it. Mr Brown, as Prime Minister, entrenched it at six, including two Parliamentary Private Secretaries—both of them, incidentally, his own. He then started recruiting Ministers from outside Parliament—those optimistically referred to as GOATs, or the Government of all the talents. He subdivided the supernumerary attendees to Cabinet into two different categories.

The blurring of government continued with the tsars and envoys and has continued under the present Government. Now, as has been pointed out, there are 11 ministerial attendees at Cabinet who are not Cabinet Ministers. We do not want our Leader of the House to be a member of that second XI. We know that she is first XI material, and I do not doubt for one moment that she will fight as though she is a first XI person.

The second trend is the gradual and perhaps inadvertent downgrading by government of the centrality to decision-making of this House. We are the secondary Chamber, but we have a part to play. Incidentally, I noted that while 4% of Ministers in the Commons are unpaid Ministers, 33% of Lords Ministers are unpaid Ministers. That is in itself unfair—but the solution is not to rebalance it but to ensure that every government Minister is properly paid from government funds at all times.

I do not believe that this is a party-political issue. Both parties carry a certain amount of blame. But it is a constitutional one of fundamental significance that has now left us without a Member of this House in the Cabinet. The change to the role and status of the Lord Chancellor in 2005 forms part of the undermining of the standing of this House—and a very substantial part, as has been commented. It was an object lesson in how not to make changes to the constitution, and I am glad to say that your Lordships’ committee is at present undertaking an inquiry into that role.

Our report does not make recommendations as to the way forward, but it is clear that the amending of the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 could offer one possible way forward, although I believe that it would need primary legislation. Our report indicates three possible options for amendment if that is the chosen route. I care deeply about the place of the House of Lords in our constitution. To me, the central issue concerns the bicameral nature of our legislature. That, as our report states, is a core part of our constitution. It is also a core part of our constitution that Ministers are drawn from the legislature. That must include this House at Cabinet level. Those basic principles of our parliamentary system have been blurred and neglected for some time. The restoration of the Leader of the House to full Cabinet membership will be but the first essential step to restoring our bicameral parliamentary system.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a very short but powerful debate. The Prime Minister can be in absolutely no doubt about the strength of feeling in this House, as was encapsulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, in her superb opening speech. I say that the Prime Minister can be in no doubt rather than the noble Baroness the Leader, because this Motion and the weighty arguments that are being made are not against or about her; they are about the office that she occupies or the office that she should occupy. Like other noble Lords, I emphasise that I have full confidence in the noble Baroness and I know that she is doing and will continue to do a splendid job. I very much regret that she has had such a baptism of fire.

I am grateful to the Constitution Committee for its swift, excellent and informative report and, like the noble Lord, Lord Lang, I care deeply about the position of this House in our constitution. The committee is of course right not to make recommendations, but the information that it provides and its conclusions are invaluable. I was interested to learn, for example, that the current Cabinet manual states that the Cabinet is the ultimate decision-making body of government and, as my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean has said, Erskine May, that parliamentary bible, describes the Leader of the House of Lords as a member of the Cabinet.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, said, the committee notes that the Leader may often have to give unpalatable advice to ministerial colleagues about the chances of their legislation passing the House or the time that it will take. It goes on to say that in such matters the Leader needs authority. Having been a Minister attending Cabinet, as Chief Whip, and a full member of the Cabinet, I can say to noble Lords that there is a difference; the committee is absolutely right. It is not a question of where the Lords appears on a Cabinet agenda; it is that to be a full member of the Cabinet gives one authority and the confidence that goes with that authority—the confidence to disagree with those who have greater experience and who, because they are Members of the House of Commons, do not understand the impact that their legislation will have in the Lords.

It is sometimes not a comfortable position to be in, but I always did what I did and had to do on behalf of this House. The role of the Leader of the Lords in the Cabinet is distinctive and different from other members of the Cabinet, as has been said; he or she is there to represent the whole of the House of Lords. I had the good fortune for some time to have two noble friends who were also members of the Cabinet, but I was the one who rightly had to take the lead in defending the position of this House. I am glad that my party recognises the distinction and it is clear that we will reinstate the position of the Leader to their rightful place as a full member of the Cabinet. I assure noble Lords that we will not turn the current situation into a precedent. This is a unique and foolish error of judgment. It is a wrong that must be righted.

In his much quoted letter of 22 July to the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, the Prime Minister does not mention Cabinet correspondence. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could say whether she is included in the circulation of all Cabinet correspondence, which of course results in much decision-making. I hope that she is. If that is the case, I wonder if this is or has been the norm for all those attending Cabinet. If it is an innovation as a result of the current situation, and if all those now attending Cabinet receive all the papers, it must surely have an additional cost implication. One might even ask if the costs involved over 10 months could add up to the rest of the salary that should go with the office of the Leader.

In relation to salaries, what one might call the rate for the job, the noble Baroness was surely right to refuse to have her salary topped up by the Conservative Party. She is, as has been said, a woman of integrity. However, I wonder if the Government will be complying with the equal pay audit regulations that were discussed in Parliament this afternoon. It cannot be right that a female Leader of the Lords is paid less than her counterpart was; it is a terrible example for the women of this country. All this comes from a Prime Minister who we were told was reshuffling his Cabinet with the aim of promoting women and equality.

Was it by accident or by design that the post of the Leader of the Lords was downgraded? Was it careless disregard, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd? The Prime Minister tells us that it was an anomaly, a temporary necessity, but the right honourable gentleman had a choice about who should be in his Cabinet. He chose not to include the Leader of the Lords. I have to say that it feels very much as though this House is being treated with contempt. That feeling might be strengthened later this week when I suspect that a new list of Peers will be published. We all want to give a warm welcome to new colleagues, but to have a House of more than 800— patronage before principles, that is—cannot be right.

Mr Cameron’s decision to downgrade the position of Leader of the Lords means that the office is diminished, and by diminishing the office we are all diminished. I therefore hope that if the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, decides to seek the opinion of the House, noble Lords on all sides will choose to send a clear message to the Prime Minister by joining her in the Division Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)]

My Lords, as has been mentioned, I went with my noble friend Lord MacGregor to see the Prime Minister about all this last week. I went because, while I greatly welcome the appointment of my noble friend Lady Stowell and congratulate her on it, like others I was shocked by the decision on the status of our new Leader of the Lords and wanted to challenge that decision.

Our objective was, first, to ensure that the Prime Minister understood the outrage felt throughout your Lordships’ House and then to see what could be done about it. It was clear that he fully understood, at that time at least, the outrage. He explained that the decision on her status arose from the fact that the Leader of the Commons had not recently been a full member of the Cabinet, but as that is now my right honourable friend William Hague, who is also First Secretary of State, it was impossible to demote him. Further, he said that ministerial heads of department these days are all Secretaries of State—a fact to which I will return—so that all the available spaces allowed by the 1975 Act were taken up, as explained in the excellent report from the Constitution Committee.

We came away with two undertakings, which we asked him to put in writing and he did so, in the letter which has already been referred to. The first was that this was temporary. Secondly, he promised that in practice meanwhile it would make no difference, as my noble friend Lady Stowell will be treated exactly like her predecessor, although she is not officially of Cabinet rank. In my view, the Prime Minister saying—and then putting it in writing—that our Leader, although not a member of the Cabinet, is to be treated as if she was one itself marks a profound, if apparently temporary, change in our constitution. My noble friend is, by the Prime Minister’s fiat expressed in the letter, exempted from the restrictions which would normally apply to those who merely attend the Cabinet. In our flexible constitution, as chairman of the Cabinet, he can do that.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, I attended Cabinet for a period. It was my noble friend Lady Thatcher’s Cabinet, while I was acting Chief Whip after the Brighton bomb. As Chief Whip my duty was to ensure that the Cabinet understood the views of MPs, particularly but not only the views of the Government’s supporters in the Commons, and to give advice on smoothing the Government’s path in Parliament. I was of course not there to contribute my personal views, which was for members of the Cabinet to do. Nor was I there to vote on the rare occasions when the voices were collected to make a decision. I assume that my right honourable friend Michael Gove will follow the same precedents in the current Cabinet.

The Prime Minister’s decision and the terms of his letter will, I have no doubt, be studied in academic and other circles to gauge his idea of Cabinet government. I note that those now considered as essential members of the Cabinet are the Secretaries of State—the ministerial heads of the various departments. They are regarded as more essential than the Leaders of the two Houses of Parliament. That is a profound comment on the way in which our constitution and the attitude to Parliament have developed, particularly in a bicameral Parliament.

As far as I am concerned, it gives rise to two reflections. These days there are no heads of departments in the Lords, which used to be quite normal. For example, my noble friends Lord Young of Graffham, Lord Cockfield and Lord Carrington headed departments not long ago in the constitutional reckoning of time. In spite of all the huge numbers of appointments to the Lords, no one has recently been appointed to be head of a government department.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, perhaps I might point out to the noble Lord that we had two members of the Cabinet in the Lords: my noble friends Lord Mandelson and Lord Adonis, both of whom headed departments.

[Lord Cope of Berkeley]

Yes, I said that the examples which I drew were recent, but I accept that the particular examples given were a little further away. I entirely accept that those are perfectly acceptable ones as well. It used to be quite a normal thing, but the fact that there is no head of department in the Lords at the moment is perhaps an indication of the view of the Lords held in other places.

My other reflection is that all heads of departments now seem to be Secretaries of State and, as a result, are covered by Schedule 1 to the 1975 Act. Of course, that was not always so in days gone by. I have heard it justified by the fact that, because of the wording of many statutes, Secretaries of State alone can issue statutory instruments. So the proliferation of Secretaries of State flows from the proliferation of statutory instruments in Bills and Acts. I have complained before in your Lordships’ House about legislative drafting habits and the difficulties that this particular practice gives rise to, but that is a side reflection.

For these constitutional reasons, I regard this decision as most unfortunate. I believe that it has already changed the constitution temporarily by allowing my noble friend the Leader of the House the full status of a Cabinet Minister even though she does not hold the rank. I hope, as the Prime Minister does, that it will prove temporary and certainly that it will not be a precedent.

Ukraine (Shooting Down of MH17) and Gaza

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. I am also grateful to the Chief Whip for extending the time for Back-Bench questions to 30 minutes.

The shooting down of MH17 over the skies of Ukraine was a tragedy which shocked the world. From these Benches, I join the Leader in expressing our heartfelt and deepest sympathy to the relatives of those who lost their lives. We share the feeling of anger mentioned in the Statement. We have all been greatly saddened and dismayed by the images of the site, strewn with bodies and belongings, telling the tale of what was normality and hope but is now despair and destruction.

We have been outraged about the way in which the site has been dealt with—first, access barred to the OSCE by drunken rebels, then the site left open for anyone to trample over and the casual indifference in how the bodies of the deceased have been handled. These are the remains of human beings who were loved by families and friends. One can only imagine what it must be like for them to see the disregard and disrespect with which their loved ones are treated.

The families face not only grief and loss but at the same time multiple practical issues. I would therefore ask the noble Baroness if the Government will identify a senior Minister to co-ordinate support for them—as was done by my right honourable friend Tessa Jowell after 9/11, 7/7 and the tsunami. I would be grateful for an assurance from the noble Baroness that the Government will do everything they can to enable the international community to help secure the site, repatriate the bodies and gather the evidence that shows who is responsible. We welcome the resolution of the United Nations Security Council this evening. Does the noble Baroness agree that as soon as the investigation into the disaster is complete there should be an emergency meeting of European Heads of Government to consider what further steps should be taken?

It would appear that international civil aviation regulators imposed no restrictions on crossing this part of eastern Ukraine. Could the noble Baroness confirm that the necessary safeguards are now in place over this area—and also over any other conflict zone in the world? The evidence is growing that this was not simply a tragedy but a terrible crime. In light of the vile attack on flight MH17, can the Leader say whether there is now any specific travel advice to British citizens planning to go abroad?

This is the moment for a strong and determined EU to step up to its responsibilities and confront Russian actions. Europe must show its sorrow but also its strength. If we, the European Union—born out of conflict and with a mission to keep peace—act together, we can and will be strong. So I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to seek a toughening of EU sanctions against Russia at tomorrow’s European Council meeting. Can the noble Baroness tell us what measures the Government want to see considered? Will the Government support decisive steps to extend sanctions, not just against specific individuals but also against Russian commercial organisations to dissuade President Putin from the supply of arms and support for the separatists that he is now providing across the Russian border?

Turning to the horror unfolding in Gaza, I am sure that other noble Lords, like me, wept when witnessing on our television screens the unnecessary death and destruction which grows by the hour. It is intolerable to see the harrowing images of hospitals overwhelmed, mortuaries overflowing and parents devastated as they cradle their dying children. With each day the situation worsens.

Since the start of this conflict, 20 Israelis have been killed—18 of them soldiers. More than 500 Palestinians have been killed, including countless innocent young children. Their short lives ended in the most brutal and horrific of circumstances. No one would suggest that reducing this conflict to a ledger of casualties is right but I am sure the whole House would agree that we must acknowledge the scale of the suffering in Gaza. The life of a Palestinian child is worth just as much as the life of an Israeli child. Every death will fuel the hatred, embolden Israel’s enemies and recruit more supporters to terrorist groups. We abhor the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and we abhor the escalation of Israeli military action. Both must cease. It is innocent people who are suffering most.

The Israelis have the right to live without constant fear for their security; the people of Gaza have a right to live with dignity and peace. We stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself but does the noble Baroness agree that self-defence must be proportionate? The escalation of military action will not bring Israel lasting security. Rather, it deepens the insecurity and brings suffering and death to individuals and the devastation of innocent lives. Does the noble Baroness agree with the Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, that we must continue to press for an immediate ceasefire, an immediate end to the Israeli military operation in Gaza and rocket fire by Hamas, that all sides must respect international humanitarian law and that Israel must exercise maximum restraint? Does the noble Baroness share the concern expressed about Israeli use in Gaza of flechette shells, which spray out thousands of lethal metal darts? I am sure the whole House will agree that the only way to avoid the cycle of violence and perpetual insecurity in the region is to address the root causes of the conflict, and that there must be an immediate return to the negotiating table, and talks for a two-state solution. In the words of Mr Ban:

“Israelis but also Palestinians need to feel a sense of security. Palestinians but also Israelis need to see a horizon of hope”.

Leader of the House: Cabinet Membership

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, my noble friend raises a number of important points. Clearly he is right to question whether the Leader of the House of Lords is fully equipped to do that job. I am absolutely confident that the Prime Minister has given me the authority I need to represent your Lordships in Cabinet. A few months ago, in answer to a Question on another topic, I said that sometimes I liked to think of myself as an action woman. I like to get things done. I do not need status in order to get things done. I have the authority I need and I shall be judged on the work that I do.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Baroness can get things done. This is not about her status; it is about something much more profound. When I heard about this yesterday, I simply did not believe that it could be true. When it was confirmed later in the day, I was deeply dismayed that the Prime Minister could treat this House with such contempt. The men previously appointed to this post by the Prime Minister sat at the Cabinet table as full members. When it is in government, my own party will reverse this. I shall refer the issue to the Constitution Committee and I hope that it will ask the Prime Minister to give evidence.

I have a number of questions but for the moment I will confine myself to this. Other than for a party chair, what are the precedents for a political party paying part of the salary of a Cabinet Minister? Given that the Leader is the Leader of the whole House and not just of the Conservative Benches, surely this is both improper and unethical.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I would emphasise to the noble Baroness and to all noble Lords that I shall sit around the same Cabinet table and participate fully in its discussions in exactly the same way as all my predecessors did. It will be a great privilege to do so. As to her question about the salary that the post attracts, I can assure the House that careful consideration is being given to the propriety of any arrangement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I believe that, in making his appointments yesterday, the Prime Minister ensured that we have a Government well equipped to serve the people of this country. I have made the point about the status of the Leader of this House. Clearly, I understand the very strong views that have been expressed during the supplementary questions to this Question. However, for my part, I want to focus on how I do my job and what I do.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I realise that a Private Member’s Bill is now due to be introduced, but this is a self-regulating House and there are two or three more noble Lords who wish to put a supplementary question to the Leader of the House. I have the greatest sympathy for the noble Baroness but I ask whether, in this self-regulating House, those Members who still have a question to put to her can do so.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we are indeed a self-regulating House—but a House that has very clear rules about how we conduct our business. Noble Lords opposite are great defenders of the Companion. I propose that we respect the Companion in this regard.

EU Council June 2014

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. First, I associate these Benches with what the Statement says about the importance of commemorating the centenary of the First World War and the sacrifice of a generation who gave their lives for our freedom. I also welcome the references to the association agreements signed with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

I must congratulate the Government on their chutzpah. It is an extraordinary feat to claim that a 26-2 defeat and isolation is both a triumph and a strength. The results might have pleased those in the Conservative Party who favour a Brexit but they were greeted with dismay by business, trade unionists and all those who understand that the future success of our country and our place in the world depend on being part of a reformed European Union. The Prime Minister suggested that by pushing the Council to vote on Friday, he was defending a deeply held principle. I suggest that he was merely trying to defend the reputation of his party and maintain its unity.

The Prime Minister ended up with the candidate who he said would be a disaster for Britain but it could have been so different. A few weeks ago, we had a European Council divided about the presidency of the Commission; last week, we ended up with a European Council united against the Prime Minister. Personality politics might work well in the popular press or among the populists who are peddling fear in our country but they patently do not work among European leaders. They were the ones who might have been won round by discussion and diplomacy, rather than shouting and foot stamping. I understand that at the start of the process Chancellor Merkel said that the agenda of the next European Commission “can be handled by” Juncker,

“but also by many others … At the end, there will be a fairly broad tableau of names on the table”.

I would be grateful if the Leader could explain how the Government think that we reached a situation in which 26 European leaders coalesced around one name.

Personal attacks and threats followed by splendid isolation are a testament to weakness and a lack of tactics rather than strength, while insults such as the one from the Health Secretary, who called the other European leaders cowards, are simply rude. As Chancellor Merkel said in Sweden:

“Threats are not part and parcel of”,

the European spirit and,

“this is not part of the way in which we usually proceed”.

It was not too late to rethink tactics and tone at that stage, but no efforts to change were made. Does the noble Lord agree that leaving the EPP Group nine years ago and the very recent decision by the European conservatives to invite the German AfD, a right-wing opponent of Chancellor Merkel’s CDU, to join their group in the European Parliament were tactics for short-term political gain rather than being in the interests of either his party or our country?

This morning, I had wide-ranging discussions with members of the governing party in Italy and over the weekend I spoke to other European colleagues. It is clear that reform of the European Union is needed and desired by our partners. The Prime Minister suggests that it is only his conviction that Europe needs to change. I assure noble Lords that that conviction is widely shared and has been reinforced throughout the European Union as a consequence of the results of the EU elections. My party also wants reform but the difference between us and the Prime Minister is that we want it for the sake of our nation, while his major preoccupation is to heal the divisions within his party.

I fear that the Prime Minister is trying to appease those in his party who want to leave the EU. They cheered his lack of support because they do not want reform; they just want exit and real isolation. Mr Cameron’s erstwhile friend, the Polish Foreign Minister, was undoubtedly speaking for many when he said in relation to the Prime Minister and his Back-Benchers:

“He is not interested. He does not get it … his whole strategy of feeding them scraps in order to satisfy them is … turning against him …. he ceded the field to those that are now embarrassing him”.

The threat of exit is clearly real but I wonder whether the Leader believes that this somehow increases our influence in Europe. Do guns to the head represent a real strategy that will deliver the reforms which we all desire?

Our membership of the EU is important for jobs and business, as well as strategic action on everything from climate change to terrorism. Yes, we need to ensure reform of the budget, of transitional controls for immigration and of benefits. I am sure that working together with our partners we can secure reforms. Is the Government’s real problem not the fact that there is a gap between what the Conservative’s Brexit faction—or perhaps I should say the Conservative majority—is demanding and what sensible European reform amounts to?

Reform is possible through constructive discussion, but those discussions need to take place in the Council and at all levels in the European Commission, not just within the college. I would be grateful if the Leader could tell the House what plans there are to ensure that we have more Brits working at senior level in the Commission at this crucial time and also at more junior levels, who will feed through to higher levels in due course.

Reforms require successful negotiation, and I fear that the Prime Minister’s negotiating skills have been proved to be sorely lacking and that his strategy is in tatters. The gulf between the demands of those in the noble Lord’s party who want to leave the European Union and what the Prime Minister can negotiate grows ever wider. As the gulf widens, so the drift towards exit will loom larger. That would be disastrous for the future prosperity of our country.

G7

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader for repeating the Statement, and the noble Baroness the Chief Whip for agreeing to take this short exchange today rather than yesterday. I am sure that the whole House will be grateful for this flexibility.

Just one week after the anniversary of D-day, I take this opportunity to pay tribute on behalf of my Benches to all those involved in the commemorations, especially the veterans, who are truly extraordinary. Their stories were deeply moving, their fortitude a lesson to us all, and we owe a great debt of gratitude to them, and to the thousands who lost their lives, for their courage in fighting against fascism to safeguard the freedoms which we enjoy but too often take for granted. They were remarkable people who risked, and too often gave, their lives for our country. It is now our duty to ensure that we continue to honour them and their memories so that our children, our children’s children and future generations know about the service and sacrifice of those who went before us.

Before turning to the G7, let me echo the comments made by the Leader’s right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the European Commission President. The message from the European elections was clear: we need reform in Europe, and we need people in top jobs in Europe willing and able to pursue that agenda. The appointments of a new Commission and President now provide a vital opportunity to pursue this much needed European reform, which must be seized and not squandered. The Prime Minister is right to acknowledge that, but he might have had more influence if the discussions had been less personalised and more diplomatic. The negotiations might also have been easier if his colleagues in the European Parliament had not joined forces with parties that hold dubious views, including some which sat with UKIP in the previous Parliament. I still hope that the Prime Minister will make the necessary progress in the appointment of that key post.

The central issues of the G7 communiqué were the global economy, international development, climate change and Ukraine, and I will briefly address each. On the global economy, trade is a key engine for achieving that priority. It is important to work to reduce trade barriers while respecting states’ rights to regulate, which is why we support the EU-US trade agreement. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with EU leaders and President Obama on whether the TTIP negotiations are on track and when they are likely to be completed? Can the Minister reassure the House that there will be no impact on our public services, and in particular on the NHS? Can the noble Lord say what specific discussions have been held to ensure that the NHS will be excluded from any future agreement?

On tax and transparency, I trust that the Government are doing everything possible to ensure that the bold promises of the Lough Erne declaration are not watered down in practice. Last year we welcomed the OECD’s work to tackle tax avoidance and it was promised that developing countries would be part of that process. Can the Leader assure the House that will be the case going forward?

We support the conclusions on international development, and recognise and welcome the actions that have been taken by the Government. However, we still look forward to the Government bringing forward a Bill to enshrine the 0.7% aid target and would give that measure our strongest support.

Climate change is an enormous threat to our planet and is inextricably linked to many of the problems faced by the world, including poverty and migration. The agreement of a new international framework for tackling climate change is hugely important, and the G7 statement on that is very welcome. Britain and the EU can play a leading role in achieving a deal. One of the keys to success in Paris in 2015 will be to make good on the promise of climate finance made in Copenhagen. Can the noble Lord inform the House of when the UK will make money available for that and assure us that the Government are working to secure timely contributions from the other G7 members?

Finally, on Ukraine, following Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, it was right for G7 countries to boycott this year’s G8 summit, which would have taken place in Sochi. This crisis has been the West’s most serious confrontation with Russia since the end of the Cold War, and there had to be consequences for Russia’s actions.

Secondly, we welcome the swearing-in of President Poroshenko and his first act of offering political concessions to the Russian-speaking east. I also join the Leader in welcoming the initial engagement between President Putin and President Poroshenko. Following the Ukrainian President’s commitment to sign an association agreement with the EU, has the Prime Minister received any assurances from President Putin in his bilateral meeting that there would be no further Russian aggression in response to that action?

Thirdly, we see the continuing volatile situation in eastern Ukraine and the rising violence in south-eastern Ukraine with growing concern. During the Prime Minister’s conversations with President Putin, did he seek assurances that Russia will accelerate its withdrawal of troops from the border with Ukraine and stop the flow of weapons and pro-Russian insurgents into the country? This G7 meeting was a demonstration of the unity of international action. It was right for the G7 to call for a de-escalation of the situation, the need to work towards a diplomatic solution and continuing to maintain the pressure on Russia. In taking that action the Government have our full support.

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.

House of Lords: Questions and Correspondence

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, one decision that I have taken recently, which I hope my noble friend and other noble Lords will support, is that a new electronic system for dealing with Questions for Written Answer is to be introduced. I have said that, so far as this House is concerned, Ministers will continue to send hard copies to Members and sign them personally. That is important because it speaks to the need for accountability of Ministers in our House. That is right and I am sure that all noble Lords here will support it.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for all that he said and I welcome the innovations. However, as many noble Lords have said, it is not just the speed but the substance of the Answers that is important. I, too, have an example in front of me: a direct Question to which I received not a direct Answer but a bland statement of policy. It is essential that we have direct Answers in order to hold the Government to account. However, as the noble Lord the Leader will know, I am concerned about the impact of long recesses on our ability to hold the Government to account, including by the tabling of Written Questions. With a 10-week Summer Recess, the tabling of Written Questions on two days is simply not adequate, and I ask the Leader what he is doing to address that issue.