European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, compared with when we started nearly seven hours ago, we are a bit thin on the ground. However, we make up for it in quality, tenacity and, of course, fortitude. Let me put my cards on the table: I remain totally opposed to Brexit. I am not going to throw in the towel: if we go ahead, it will be a total disaster economically, socially and in every other way, and it was sold on a false prospectus. I will oppose it by any legal and constitutional means. As my noble friend Lady Crawley said, we have a long, long way to go. I say to the Ministers on the Front Bench in particular—and I am not threatening them in any way because all six of them are good friends of mine; I hope that does not do them any harm—you ain’t seen nothing yet.

We are just at the beginning of the beginning. We still have the Committee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading, and then, of course, we have the great repeal Bill and, I am told, at least 7,500 statutory instruments to be dealt with as a result of that. That is going to keep this House busy with a lot of scrutiny, and I am sure that we will do it properly. Of course, there are a lot of hurdles ahead: we have heard about Northern Ireland; no one has mentioned in detail the problems relating to Scotland. I know there are one or two members of the Front Bench who know some of the problems there. We have heard about the need for approval by 27 national parliaments and the European Parliament. It is a long, long way to go, and there is many a slip ‘twixt cup and lip.

Today, however, I just want to concentrate on one thing very seriously, and that is our form of parliamentary democracy. I was in the other place for 26 years, so I am very sensitive about our parliamentary democracy. Winston Churchill said:

“We believe Members of Parliament are representatives, and not delegates”.


He also said:

“We believe that Governments are the guides as well as the servants of the nation”.


Therefore, Governments should give the lead. I liked a quotation from Edmund Burke, to the effect that,

“a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and … most seriously to consider”,

the opinion of his constituents. But,

“authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,—these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land”.

That was Edmund Burke. That is our parliamentary democracy. We do not have a direct democracy here in the United Kingdom; we have a parliamentary democracy. That is why I was disappointed in the debate in the House of Commons, where they ought to know better.

I was going to mention that someone said, “This Brexit is going to be a total disaster, but I’m going to vote for it”. Incidentally, I have the greatest of respect for them. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, outed that person earlier on, so I cannot be blamed for doing that. However, when these Members of the House of Commons took the decision, did they think about their judgment and their conscience, or did they just feel that they had to do what they believed the referendum told them to do?

Let us look at that referendum. First, as others have said, it was advisory. All pre-legislative referenda are advisory. The only one that has not been advisory is the AV referendum, post-legislation, where we knew exactly what we were voting for, and thankfully, we voted it down. In addition, 16 and 17 year-olds were not allowed to vote, as they were in Scotland. Some of them are 18 now, and all of them will be 18 if we finish these negotiations. Some of the old cod—oh! I am chair of Age Scotland, so I had better be careful. I should say some of the elderly people who voted against remaining are, sadly, no longer with us. That is one of the ironies. EU citizens, who work in this country in the health service and the financial sector, were not allowed to vote. They are taxpayers. Whatever happened to “no taxation without representation”? They are being taxed, but they were not able to say anything.

On the threshold, which my noble friend Lord Rooker, and the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Norton, raised on earlier occasions when we discussed this, it was 40% in the first Scottish referendum, yet this referendum was supported by only 37% of the electorate. It would not have got through if we had had the Cunningham amendment. Even—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, will know this very well—for Muirfield golf club to admit women, it has to have a two-thirds majority. We are making a major change to the United Kingdom constitution, not just a question of admitting women.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

However important that is.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am sorry—that was of course implicit in what I said. Finally, there were the lies on which Brexit was sold, not just different interpretations of the facts which we get at general elections, but manifest lies. I will not go into that in more detail.

I will finish with a little story, which goes back to my original point about parliamentary sovereignty. Many years ago, when I was an MP for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, we were having a vote in the House of Commons to change the law on abortion. I am not a religious person and I did not feel strongly about it one way or another. I therefore went to my constituency party—we had a large turnout, with more than 100 people—and I told them that I did not feel strongly about it and asked them for their advice. We had a fantastic debate, which lasted over two hours, and it was about 50:50. However, they resolved unanimously to leave it to me, their elected representative, to listen to the arguments and decide how to vote. That is parliamentary democracy for you. If we do not stick to that, not just the House of Lords will be redundant but the House of Commons as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I rise with great sadness to speak in this debate on a Bill which will trigger the implementation of the biggest political decision taken in the past 40 years. The European Union has been a large part of my professional, political and family life. I have never wavered in my view of the crucial role that the EU plays and has played in safeguarding peace and stability among its members. It is certainly not perfect, but it has been extraordinarily successful in bringing people and nations together, in stabilising democracies, as a catalyst for change in countries aspiring to be our partners, and in creating the biggest trading block in the world which respects the rights of workers, consumers and the environment. Since we joined, both Conservative and Labour Governments have been crucial in the development of the EU, and our proud place in the world owes a great deal to our membership.

Notwithstanding this brilliant beacon of hope for the world in these increasingly difficult and dangerous times, when our closest ally is abandoning values that we used to share, we are going to cut ourselves adrift, thanks to Mr Cameron’s political expediency, which backfired and could have potentially catastrophic consequences for our country. I will not rehearse the debate about the toxic rhetoric and intolerance of the deeply flawed referendum campaign, of which I am still ashamed. Of course, alienation towards the EU did not begin last year, and many of us bear a terrible responsibility for not being more robust in its defence over the past 20 years, countering the myths espoused by the press and its owners.

The people have indeed voted, and I would certainly not say that they did not know what they were voting for. They took the decision seriously. However, they were sold a pig in a poke and, rather than taking back control of their lives, they may well now be faced by job insecurity, rising prices, fewer rights as workers and consumers and fewer opportunities. As has been said, leaving the EU will not mend all that is wrong with our society.

While I understand the anger about elitism and inequality that I believe was expressed in the vote, I do not think that people voted to leave the single market or the customs union, so I have to ask why the Prime Minister did not even try to negotiate future membership of the single market with some restriction on freedom of movement. Why does she continue the appalling policy of Mr Cameron of putting politics before the economy?

The Minister in the Commons said that the vote at the end of the negotiations will be either to accept the deal that the Government will have achieved or for there to be no deal. That, for me, is simply not good enough. Parliament should have the opportunity to send the Government back to negotiate further with our European partners if the choice is between a hard Brexit that is not in the national interest and no deal. A recent ICM poll, carried out for Avaaz, showed that only 35% of the public would support crashing out on WTO terms and no deal, while 54% would want either the Prime Minister to continue negotiation or to suspend Brexit pending a second referendum. The EU and the wider world are rapidly changing politically, socially, economically, technologically and environmentally, and I believe it is therefore imperative for us to keep the door open to all options at the end of the process.

With the Bill, the country is embarking on a perilous journey towards an unknown future which, rather than being driven by economic well-being, is being driven by immigration control. Before setting off on the journey, I should like, for example, more information about the implications for our economy. Where is the economic analysis? I should like to know the Government’s views on the important legal issue raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. Will there be a further Bill at the end of the process? I would also be grateful for clarity about transitional arrangements that the Government will be seeking. The Government appear deluded about the time that negotiations will take on the difficulties ahead, and do not seem to understand that the overriding priority of our 27 partners who will have to ratify the final agreement is to maintain the integrity of the European Union.

How are the Government going to ensure that while reducing immigration they can continue to meet the needs of our farmers, our businesses, our construction and engineering industries, our health and social care sector and our universities? It is not just the hugely important question of EU nationals currently living in the UK; it is our ability to attract skills and talent in the future. Will EU nationals wish to come and work here if they have to pay for health insurance or if their children have to pay fees as foreign students at our universities? There has already been a reduction of more than 90% in the number of nurses from the EU registering with the Nursing & Midwifery Council since the referendum vote.

The referendum result was devastating for the 3 million EU nationals who live in this country but also for the Brits with whom many have relationships. People who contribute to our economy at all levels are already leaving this country because of the uncertainty for them and their families. The Prime Minister says she values the contribution of EU nationals, so now it is time to act. We are talking about human beings, not numbers on a spreadsheet. They need and deserve a guarantee that they can stay and that their rights will be grandfathered. I do not underestimate the complexities but this is a problem of the Government’s own making and they have a huge responsibility to deliver. The situation of our own nationals in other parts of the EU is equally important, but they are in favour of this unilateral action.

While I am passionate about this issue, more importantly, so are all the young people I know. I have spoken to literally hundreds of young people since the referendum, in academies, grammar schools, FE colleges and universities, and all but a handful are despairing of the result of the referendum. They feel that their opportunities have been stunted and that we, the generation who had it all, have sold their future down the river. Those youngsters between the ages of 16 and 18 feel particularly angry that they were not even allowed to vote about their future. Many young people who feel European are looking for jobs elsewhere in the world, my own children included. They are dismayed about the prospect of a future in an inward-looking, insular country, as well as about the deep divisions in our society.

I accept that there is no turning back, so it is our absolute duty to challenge the Government, to scrutinise and amend this Bill. But in doing so, my principles will not change. This is a great and diverse country but it is now fractured. I want my country to prosper, to be stronger, to be tolerant, and I will do everything I can to help it to succeed. However, I firmly believe that this will be much more difficult outside the European Union when our economic power and our voice in the world will be diminished. To mix my metaphors, alone we are merely a player on the global stage whereas the EU is greater than the sum of its parts and enables us to have an enhanced role on that stage.

Informal European Council

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I assure my noble friend that the UK is working with the international community to support the Government of National Accord’s efforts to deliver security and stability for the Libyan people and to tackle the flow of illegal migrants through Libya. We have allocated more than £10.5 million this year for assistance to Libya and technical support to its Government.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am glad that the Statement and the noble Baroness herself stressed the need for a positive partnership with the European Union. Is the noble Baroness not concerned then that the President of the United States is not well disposed towards the European Union? Indeed, he wants it to fall apart—likewise his nominee for ambassador to the European Union. Does that not give the noble Baroness cause for concern?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

One of the things discussed over the lunch was exactly how we can ensure that relationships between the United States and the European Union remain as strong as ever. We are very keen to make sure that that is well understood and that the EU along with us plays an important international role as we always have done.

European Council

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The Prime Minister has been very clear about the importance of working more closely with source and transit countries— something she reiterated at the EU Council meeting—and we established the Organised Immigration Crime Taskforce to tackle that. It is working in 17 countries and has successfully disrupted organised crime groups through participating in intelligence sharing, arrests and prosecutions. We are also playing an important role in Operation Sophia, which has destroyed more than 300 smuggling boats, apprehended almost 90 suspected smugglers and successfully saved more than 26,000 lives.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, given the scale of the challenge of negotiating trade agreements with the rest of the European Union and other countries, which the noble Baroness acknowledges, what transitional arrangements are envisaged once we leave the European Union? As a pro-chancellor of the University of Bath, I urge the Government, in formulating the negotiating strategy, to ensure that among the negotiators there is at least one person with in-depth knowledge of the university sector, so that we can ensure that the negotiations in no way harm our university sector but enable UK universities to take advantage of the challenges ahead.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

A range of issues are involved in the transitional arrangements, the Department for Exiting the EU is considering them and a lot of work is going on. Of course we want to ensure that we are using the expertise and skills of universities and trade negotiators to get the best deal.

Outcome of the European Union Referendum

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Welsh soccer team is certainly an inspiration, and I am sure we all wish them luck tomorrow evening. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, that we need a much more inclusive society, but unlike the noble Lord, I believe we are in the midst of a political earthquake whose tremors are being felt not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the European Union and the wider world. Whereas once we were a stabilising influence, the result of the referendum has destabilised our economy, our politics and our partners. We are in what some might call a brave new world—but no one has a map and no one has properly considered the options or implications for our country, for our citizens or for the constitution. Throughout the campaign, people were warned not to take a leap into the dark, but it is even darker than I had anticipated. I am still stunned by the lack of any preparations and, at a time when we are in desperate need of strong leadership, there is a vacuum in the Government and the Opposition, as many have said.

The idea of member states co-operating for the greater good to be a stronger voice in the world and to maintain peace and stability is a noble idea, and one whose importance for me has grown in an increasingly fractured and fractious world. This was brought home for me, as it was for many others, on Friday as I watched the moving ceremonies to mark the anniversary of the Battle of the Somme and on Saturday when I laid a wreath at an event to commemorate those who bravely went to fight fascism in the Spanish Civil War, which began 80 years ago. There is more that unites us than divides us—or perhaps not any more.

However, the decision to leave the EU has been taken. I respect most of those who voted to leave, but I have absolutely no respect for Mr Johnson or Mr Gove, backstabbers who have wrought havoc in the country and their party and who exacerbated people’s fears and insecurities by disingenuous propaganda and sometimes downright lies. They threw liberal and humane values to the wind and built on fears of difference. They fanned the flames of division in this country between rich and poor, young and old, and cities and towns. They did nothing to prevent the crack in what the most reverend Primate called the “thin crust” of tolerance.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, and others, I believe that many of those who voted to leave were using the referendum to express dissatisfaction and to vent their anger about a system which does not respond any more to their needs and concerns. Their lives are difficult: they are insecure and constantly worried about their jobs, the roof over their head, problems getting their kids into school, and the long wait to see the GP. They feel that they have no control over their lives, so when simple solutions were proffered for complex problems, and when told that the only way to get back control was to vote leave, of course that is what they did—that is normal and natural. Many people simply believed that their lives could not get any worse. That is an indictment of not just of this Government’s policies but government policies as a whole. My fear is that those people who have given up on the political system and given up on experts will now be let down because the promises made by the leave campaign are undeliverable even by the most assiduous and shrewd negotiators.

Many of the promises cannot be reconciled with reality, including the political reality that Governments in other member states are confronting populist and nationalist forces whose leaders, such as Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders, have been strengthened by Brexit. The people with whom we will be negotiating are concerned about contagion and are naturally looking to their own electorate as well as considering the changes necessary to make the EU more responsive to the 21st-century challenges on security, climate change, migration and the economy. What, I wonder, will be the impact of Brexit on the rerun of the Austrian presidential election, where the far right was beaten by a whisker? It is a dangerous moment for the EU as well as for the UK.

Can the Minister say who our negotiators will be and who will determine the positions that they will take? At a time of national crisis—which this is—we need national unity and that must mean that the Government cannot act alone. I agree with my noble friend Lady Mallalieu that the public like and want us to work together. As many have said, there must be parliamentary, cross-party engagement. There also needs to be direct access for the Opposition—when we have one—to civil servants. There must be deep involvement of local government, for in many instances it will bear the brunt of change and is best placed to understand the impact in those areas where people already feel left behind. I endorse the call made by Sadiq Khan yesterday that London should be guaranteed a seat at the table throughout the negotiations alongside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and his call and that of many noble Lords for us to remain in the single market.

How will the Government ensure that the voices of all stakeholders are heard and reflected? As a pro-chancellor of the University of Bath, and someone who is proud of the university’s reputation as a truly international centre of excellence for teaching and research, I express concern on behalf of the university sector, like the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. What assurance can the Minister give that staff and students from EU countries will be able to continue to work and study at British universities in the long term? The intake for this year will be fine, but what will the impact be on applications for 2017? I understand that eight British universities have already had their credit status downgraded as a result of the Brexit vote, amid concerns that curbs to free movement will hit recruitment of academics and students and that EU research funding will be cut. This is more tangible proof of the damage of the uncertainty caused by Brexit.

Many noble Lords have spoken, and will speak, of Article 50, and how and when it will be invoked. But I wonder how it will be possible to reconcile the tensions between the economic need for speed, to provide certainty, and the political desirability for time. Concern about insecurity for EU nationals has, properly, been emphasised this afternoon. These people are human beings, not pawns on a chess board; likewise our own citizens living and working in other parts of the EU, including those who serve us so well in the institutions.

However long negotiations may take, it is clear that a huge number of our civil servants will be engaged in disentangling us from laws passed during 40 years of membership and in working on new agreements. The usual work of government will be paralysed, at a time when the country is crying out for action that will deal with the blight of inequality. Who, for example, will work on the policies that will improve the lives and life chances of young people? Already shafted by this Government, they have now been so let down by the referendum result.

The deep divisions in our country are sadly not new, but the depth of the divisions was not taken seriously by any political party. If we are to remain a tolerant, united and inclusive country, the first priority of the Government and the Opposition must be to develop and implement policies that will heal that divide.

Jo Cox MP

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, Jo was beautiful inside and out. She was brave and bold. She was an extraordinary woman, as the world now knows, but she was also utterly normal, a working-class Yorkshire lass with a strong family. She was a mum who adored her children and put them first. She was a wife, a daughter, a sister and a friend. She understood the community that she served; it was her community. She had a fantastic capacity for connecting with people, no matter where they came from.

Jo was intrepid, feisty and fearless, whether climbing mountains—including when pregnant—working in countries torn apart by conflict or challenging authority. She was bright and intelligent, a tiny bundle of boundless energy whose enthusiasm for life was infectious. It is absolutely true that if you bumped into Jo during the day and had a quick hug, your day got better. Her life, so cruelly and tragically ended, was devoted to changing the world. Many of us say that we want to change the world but that is exactly what Jo did through her work for those fleeing war and hunger and with the poorest and dispossessed, and through her work as a Member of Parliament. She was a powerful advocate who gave a voice to the voiceless and fought passionately against injustice and for human rights. She was a great human being.

Jo loved this country but she was a real European and a citizen of the world, recognised by the World Economic Forum as a young global leader. The fact that on Wednesday, her 42nd birthday, events are being organised to celebrate her life in New York, Nairobi, Washington DC and Brussels, as well as in Batley and Spen and London, is testament to her global reach. She literally touched lives throughout the world.

In my book, Jo was the best sort of politician. She was Labour to the core and rooted in our values, but she understood that there are good people in most parties and that sometimes, in order to bring about real change, you have to reach out to those of a different political persuasion. She knew how to build bridges but also how to disagree in an agreeable way. Jo’s murder was a tragedy with a terrible and lasting impact on her family, but it was also an attack on our society and on democracy.

As an optimist, I hope and believe it will have a lasting effect on the way in which we do politics, and the way in which politicians are regarded by the public and the press. Public service should be celebrated. Politicians follow a noble profession at national and local level. Most do a great job, but too often they are undermined by the corrosion of cynicism and by a contempt that is dangerous and contagious. Someone wrote on the memorial to Jo in Parliament Square, “You can’t kill democracy”. We will not let that happen, but democracy is fragile. Our politicians are vulnerable and targets of hatred.

Jo’s life and her words were testament to the fact that there is more in our communities and in our country that unites us than divides us. The sight of the Prime Minister and Jeremy Corbyn laying wreaths at the memorial in Birstall gave a strong message of political unity. There are times for heated debate, but there are also times for us to stand together. Despite the fact that Jo worked in the most difficult and fragile parts of the world where the lives of human beings are degraded through poverty, hunger or conflict, she never ceased to love people and love life. She was generous in her friendship and had the widest circle of friends.

She was fun. I will remember Jo for many things, but my fondest memory is of an early evening last summer, sitting next to the River Wye round an open fire on which we cooked our dinner because summer at the cottage was the only way for the adventurous Cox family to cook. Her beautiful children were running around while Jo, her beloved Brendan and the other grown-ups put the fractured world to rights.

Westminster and the world will remember Jo in many ways. The tone of democracy, decency and tolerance were set by Brendan in the remarkable words that he crafted so soon after her vile murder. May that tone continue in our politics and our public life, and may Jo’s unquenchable spirit live on.

EU Referendum: Voter Registration

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I am afraid that I will have to write to my noble friend.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, much mention has been made of universities, and it is absolutely right that they have a key role to play. I am Pro-Chancellor of the University of Bath and I have ensured that the administration of Bath University and the students’ union are working together on this. I urge all noble Lords who have anything to do with universities to do likewise.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

That is an extremely good idea. We are writing to all universities to encourage them to engage with their students to advise them on how to register to vote before the EU referendum.

Young People: Mentoring

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My noble friend is absolutely right, and to address this issue the Careers & Enterprise Company published a detailed analysis last October which showed exactly where young people need further support and where there needs to be improvement in careers and enterprise provision. Following that, the company launched a careers and enterprise fund, for which the winning bids were announced in March, and 75% of funding will go to those areas which were highlighted as most in need of improved support.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome any expansion of much needed mentoring for young people. Can the Minister confirm that this will include emphasising the importance of democratic engagement? I am sure that all noble Lords will be concerned about voter registration levels among young people, especially with regard to the EU referendum, which is about their future. Will she agree to meet Bite The Ballot, which was recently championed by President Obama, to discuss how it might work with the mentors on the issue of democratic empowerment?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

We certainly consider mentoring, in a whole range of ways, to be extremely important, which is why we will be launching a £12 million government fund to extend and scale up proven schemes that link mentors with young people. We will launch this scheme later in the year and announce further details. We would welcome organisations that are involved in mentoring across an entire spectrum bidding for this funding, because we believe that it is extremely important for young people to have role models in a variety of areas to help ensure that they reach their potential.

European Council: March 2016

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I would refute what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has said about the Budget. All independent commentators say that it will exacerbate intergenerational strife.

In relation to the Statement, I do not think the noble Baroness has answered the question from my noble friend Lady Smith on the number of people who have already been welcomed to this country. I personally welcome the agreement with Turkey, but I am concerned that little or no heed seems to have been given to the situation in Turkey itself in relation to human rights, good governance, free media and the rule of law. Of course I deeply regret the violence that is now taking place in Turkey, but the Turkish Government must always pay heed to their obligations under international law, not just to the refugees, who are hugely important, but also to their own citizens.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Baroness is right. That is why progress will not be made on the part of the deal that includes Turkey’s accession to the EU until Turkey has complied with all the demands laid out for it to meet, and they have been in place for a very long time now. All Europe—including the UK, which has long been a supporter of Turkey’s accession to the EU—recognises that Turkey has a huge amount to do before it would qualify for that membership. On the concerns that the noble Baroness raises about Turkey more generally at this time, yes, there are issues that have been raised, such as freedom of speech or the arresting of journalists, and we have heard about some of them and debated them in this Chamber. Those are all of great concern, but at the same time that does not detract from the generosity that Turkey has shown to the people of Syria. We need Turkey to continue providing that refuge to people. Yes, we need to continue to apply pressure on the matters that concern us regarding human rights, but we must not do so in way that somehow undermines the very positive work that Turkey is doing in support of very desperate people.

Caste Discrimination

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am very happy to do that.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, the last Government agreed to conduct a feasibility study into if and how it might be possible to estimate the extent of caste-based discrimination in Britain. The research was concluded in November 2014, I understand, but the report has not yet been published. When is the report likely to be published, and why has there been such a delay?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the case law provides potential protection for someone wishing to claim caste discrimination, which is what all sides of this House wanted during earlier debates. We need to consider carefully whether putting the word “caste” into the Act would actually change or clarify the legal position.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 27th May 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

That this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone, and the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, on their speeches. They have continued the tradition of excellence by those moving and seconding the humble Address.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, has come a long way since her days studying sociology in the 1960s at the then revolutionary hotbed, the University of Essex, where she was described as,

“a very strong-willed student with left-wing sentiments”—

to which I have to say, what went wrong? However, the noble Baroness remains related to, among others, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton, and of course his son, the honourable Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. We have party membership forms in our office should she wish to arrange a family reunion at some point.

While it is often said that gentlemen prefer blondes, I note that one of the noble Baroness’s many middle names is Brunette. I have to say that I am very grateful that my parents did not name me Ginger. I must, however, congratulate the noble Baroness on her stellar career, both in government and in the world beyond. Notwithstanding her known commitment to the Church of England, she is a great example of the fact that in politics, too, there is an afterlife. So I may well be beating a path to her door in due course.

The Chancellor, George Osborne, has been reported as saying that he talks to the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, more than he does to his own wife—for which I am sure his wife is very grateful.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

On his ennoblement, the Guardian suggested that the noble Lord was a dead ringer for one Ron Weasley, the famous friend and close confidant of Harry Potter. I hope for reassurance from the Leader that the forthcoming schools Bill will not include any measures to force Hogwarts to take academy status. I know that as a Chelsea FC supporter, the noble Lord will have been celebrating two blue wins this month. Those who follow football tell me that there is no comparison between the two victories—one was headed by a hard-nosed, highly paid campaigner from overseas who will do anything to get a result; the other by Chelsea’s winning manager.

I am addressing your Lordships as Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition when I fervently hoped for the people of this country that we would be on the opposite side of the Chamber. I believe in the power of politics to change lives. So did the hundreds of candidates up and down the country who put their lives on hold, as well as their party organisers and the thousands of supporters who knocked on doors, delivered leaflets, ran phone banks, organised staker bases and provided much-needed sustenance. I had the pleasure and privilege of working with many, including three special young people in Gloucester: Chris, Emma and Tom.

The gracious Speech makes much of a one-nation approach but I fear that the state of the union, as the President of the United States might say, is sadly not strong, with tension between England and Scotland stirred up and all too successfully exploited by strategists on both sides, and the unionist centre ground squeezed. But despite this, I know that noble Lords on all sides agree that our union must be rebuilt. I hope that the many Scots among us will support the three remaining defenders of the union in the other place. Britain is a great country and we are better together. That said, such was the result north of the border that my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland has been considering changing her name. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has been thinking the same—and I must say that he has enough names to lose.

With respect to the Speech before us, if the proposals for a British Bill of Rights mean the scrapping of the Human Rights Act this will also Increase pressures on the union. The Commission on a Bill of Rights set up in 2011 found that the people in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland did not display the same hostility to the Act as those driving the debate. Mr Cameron should understand both the limitations of support for the scrapping of the HRA and the dangers to the bonds of the union. In doing so, he might recall the words of Edmund Burke, who wrote that,

“whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither is, in my opinion, safe”.

This is clearly not the Queen’s Speech that I had hoped for, with much-needed measures to attack the widening inequalities in our society, enabling all to grow their talents to the benefit of our country, and of course the abolition of the dreadful and pernicious bedroom tax. I would be grateful if the Leader could say which of the Bills announced in the Speech will begin in this House and how long the first parliamentary Session is likely to be. Noble Lords will have noticed the plethora of spending commitments, so I also have to ask: how will these be paid for?

It is welcome that more people are now employed in our country but I am concerned about the quality of many of the jobs created. Work brings dignity when someone earns enough to keep themselves and their family but too many working people continue to rely on in-work benefits and when a utility bill, or the need to replace a household appliance, tips them over the edge some have to turn to that hard-hearted symbol of the Cameron era: the food bank. As the Prime Minister’s former guru Steve Hilton remarked last week, it is,

“outrageous that people should work all hours of the week and still have to live on benefits because they don’t get paid enough”,

as well as being,

“a really big problem, both economically, socially and morally”.

It is one thing encouraging people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps but quite another to go around kicking down the pillars of support that have long helped those struggling to get by.

As with decent jobs and fair pay, good housing is a cornerstone of family life and society. Get it right and much else follows, including improved health and a much more positive approach to school, college and work. The commitment to build 275,000 affordable homes by 2020 fails to understand the scale of the problem and falls way short of the 1 million that Labour proposed. Ministers must do better to ensure a balance between houses for sale, homes for rent and affordable public housing. Instead, we have before us a half-baked plan to sell off housing association homes, which presents huge practical difficulties and sums that simply do not add up. It has also been met with much derision from across the housing sector.

Decentralisation was at the heart of Labour’s plans for growth and a more balanced country. New powers are being offered to some of our great city regions but rural areas should also play a similarly important role in driving our economy. Such devolution is a good thing but I have concerns about the Government’s rationale and fear that behind the apparent good intention sits a more hard-nosed agenda. Over the past five years, major funding reductions for local government, education, social security and policing, combined with the transfer of key NHS responsibilities on to councils, have left parts of our country feeling cast adrift and bereft of previous support. Imagine the consequences if the principles of the small state and an unfettered free market were injected into the bloodstream of our public services, with co-operation and collaboration falling by the wayside while competition runs rife, and public bodies meeting merely to sign off contracts while community and social ties unbind. No wonder local authority leaders from the now Conservative-led Local Government Association are warning that another round of cuts will devastate services and harm the most vulnerable. With the devolution of responsibility, government must will the means as well as the end.

The proposals announced on decentralisation, English votes for English laws and devolution to Wales and Scotland, the continuing demands to go beyond the measures agreed by the Smith commission and hints about boundary changes lead me to renew our calls on the Government to establish a constitutional convention. Such a convention could consider the future of this very Chamber and look at change in the round rather than in the piecemeal way that we are experiencing, with its profound implications for our country.

From concerns with the national and local, I turn to the global. We live in a great country, but our full potential cannot be realised in isolation. Such a position sadly looks set to continue apace as we seriously consider a possible exit from the European Union. The need to protect ourselves and our allies from terrorism is ever present, but we must also ensure that we safeguard our interests in business and in trade, play an influential role in matters concerning climate change and technological innovation, and help tackle the root causes of global poverty by taking a lead in international development. During the last Parliament, Mr Cameron’s failure to control the Eurosceptic wing of his party and the rise of UKIP began to dominate our country’s world view. But getting to this point has not just been a narrow political failure on the part of the Conservatives; those of us who believe that our future lies in the European Union must talk with, and not at, people and clearly demonstrate the wider benefits of membership.

I have two final points on the EU referendum—for today at least. We will vote for the Bill but we believe that younger people need a stronger voice in society and that the referendum would provide one opportunity, perhaps helping to deal with the sort of alienation that Georgia Gould, the daughter of my noble friend Lady Rebuck and our sadly departed colleague Philip, the Lord Gould of Brookwood, has identified in her excellent book, Wasted. We saw last year how young people in Scotland engaged in the run-up to the independence referendum. I hope that Mr Cameron will learn from that experience and offer 16 and 17 year-olds a say over whether their country should remain within the EU. Meanwhile, I am sure that all noble Lords would be grateful for confirmation from the noble Baroness that we in this House will be able to vote on what will be a critical decision about our future.

Notwithstanding the fact that I will no longer lead for my party on these Benches, I thought it worth recalling a few observations from more recent humble Address debates, when Labour was the majority party in the other place but in a political minority here. I hope your Lordships will indulge me a moment, as these observations might in fact jog a few memories, fond and otherwise. For example,

“we shall endeavour to act as a constructive but vigorous Opposition. We shall play our part in helping this House to fulfil its obligations as a second Chamber, to scrutinise and improve legislation and, when—and only when—judgment dictates, to ask another place to think again”.—[Official Report, 14/5/97; col. 17.]

That was Viscount Cranborne in 1997, leading the Conservative response in the humble Address that followed Tony Blair’s first landslide victory.

“Good constructive opposition has a vital democratic role, and I do not wish to see this House cowed and controlled”.—[Official Report, 20/6/01; col.17.]

That of course was the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, four years later, following Labour’s second landslide victory.

“The Government have won a clear election victory … They are entitled to the fruits of that victory and I congratulate them on it. But they cannot ignore the warning signs and they should not evade or curtail the scrutiny of Parliament”.—[Official Report, 17/5/05; col.16.]

Your Lordships will have already guessed—that is the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, once again, in 2005, following our third election victory. Those were the days.

During those three Parliaments, politics in this House was a numbers game. In theory, no overall control; in practice, and with Labour not even the largest group until 2006, opposition parties could come together readily to defeat us. They did that more than 500 times, on more than 30% of Divisions. During the past five years, coalition government meant a majority here, with my party the lone political opposition. Given our numerical weakness we did amazingly well, thanks to the very strong team which contributed heavily towards a century-plus of formal defeats and secured many more concessions.

However, the situation now, thanks in part to the 1999 hereditary Peers Act, is historic for Labour. In some respects, there will be similarities with our period of government, although the Conservative group is already the largest and expected to increase. Could the Leader say what plans she has to deal with the size of this House beyond encouraging more retirements? Either way, it is most definitely the first time in opposition when it will not be difficult for us to join forces with other noble Lords to defeat the Government. That is a great power to have, and in this unelected place, a great responsibility too.

As a responsible Opposition, we will continue to stand by the broad principles of the Salisbury convention, as set out in the report of the Joint Committee agreed by this House in 2007. However, we will seek to challenge legislation in the usual ways, engaging constructively and making improvements where possible. Following amendments made to Bills in the last Parliament, we will also be on the lookout—BlueWatch, if you will—for attempts to introduce the substance or intent of those concessions via secondary legislation. Given that some of those concessions were made in response to internal tensions within the coalition, on the Labour Benches we look forward to those noble Lords recently freed from their five-year experience of Stockholm syndrome joining us more regularly in holding Ministers to account.

I acknowledge that Labour not only lost the election but lost it badly, in part because of the nationalist surge in Scotland but also because many people in England and Wales believed that we could not yet be trusted to run the economy. As the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, suggested in his reflections on the result, the non-shy, non-Tory supposedly shy Tories allowed Mr Cameron to achieve what for most commentators, pollsters and indeed bookmakers seemed an unlikely majority. However, if we consider how people voted in different places, including for second-place parties, we look, feel and indeed are a more divided country than ever before and in a way that is far more complex than the north/south binaries of the 1980s and 1990s. As Labour did then, our party will, during this Parliament, continue to fight to protect those institutions and ideals that we believe bring our country together and make it great: the NHS, the BBC, human rights, rights at work, legal aid, dignity for the disabled, the future of the union and our future inside the European Union. This is what I have sought to do during my time as Leader and then shadow Leader of this House. I know that whoever succeeds me will do the same.

On a personal note, if noble Lords will allow me, it has been a huge privilege to serve for nearly seven years. I am proud of my group. This House, albeit in need of reform, is an integral and important part of our nation’s constitutional make-up. I like the way in which we do politics in this place. I hear all too often from people up and down the country that they have lost faith in politics and politicians. One reason cited is that we are too shrill, too aggressive, too partisan and too ready to question not just the policies of our opponents—that is right and proper—but their very morality, as if our own tribe is somehow superior. I am pleased that political abuse is not our style. It would be ironic, would it not, if this House, so often derided as elderly, elitist and out of touch, were to show the British people that there is a better way for us to do politics—to disagree but not to be disagreeable, as my right honourable friend Ed Miliband put it just a couple of weeks ago. That is my firm wish for the future of our political system as a whole and I will continue to play my part from the Back Benches. I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.