Queen’s Speech

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I join those wishing the Duke of Edinburgh a speedy recovery, and thank Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales for being here with us today for the Queen’s Speech.

We just heard two excellent speeches. It is a parliamentary tradition that the proposer and seconder of the Humble Address be a wise, experienced sage and an up-and-coming new Peer. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would agree that it is amazing how quickly you can move from one to the other.

However, that has not always worked out. In March 1974, Lady Birk was paired for the debate with Lord Taylor of Mansfield. He certainly qualified as “experienced”. A former MP, he was then 79 years-old and was a regular attender in your Lordships’ House into his 90s. Lady Birk later became a Government Whip. Unfortunately, as she made her way to the Chamber for the debate, she tripped, fell and cut her head, so was unable to take part. The new Leader of the House for the new Labour Government, Lord Shepherd, had to find a replacement with just minutes to go. He alighted on Lord Brockway, who entered the Chamber preparing his speech in his mind because he did not have time to write anything down. Then, as ever, he spoke with great style and thoughtfulness. However, it was commented at the time that, at the age of 86, he could hardly be described as “up and coming”.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made a typically combative speech with very strong support for the Prime Minister. He highlighted his own political passions. I welcome the comments he made on mental health, on which there was general agreement around your Lordships’ House. There was not quite the same agreement for his comments on the European Union but that debate will continue as this extraordinarily long Session of Parliament goes on.

In his earlier life, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was identified as a champion of the emerging new Conservative thinking and policies. He pioneered outsourcing and privatisation in local government with great gusto. As one article put it, he was preaching Thatcherism before the word was even coined and even before Margaret Thatcher knew such a thing existed. Just think: if history had been slightly different, there may never have been Thatcherism—only Forsythism.

A combative and conviction politician, the noble Lord has had a long and distinguished career in Parliament, including as Secretary of State for Scotland. I am told by Scottish friends that a great claim to fame is his bringing the Stone of Destiny to Edinburgh Castle and the premier of the film “Braveheart” to Stirling Castle. However, no comments on the noble Lord would be complete without a tribute to his amazing charitable work. Many give of their time and money but few would dare to climb the highest mountains in Africa, Antarctica and the Americas as he has done for those causes he supports.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, shares the noble Lord’s commitment to charity and is a trustee of the charity KIDS, which supports children with disabilities and their families—something that, as she said today, has a personal resonance for her. As the youngest and one of the newest Members of your Lordships’ House, she still brings considerable experience of government and Parliament, having worked for David Cameron from 2005 until he resigned as Prime Minister. She is highly regarded by all those who have worked with her.

When the noble Baroness made her maiden speech, I was touched by a passage which impressed many of us. She said:

“A benchmark of a civilised society is how we care for the most vulnerable and, equally, how cared for they themselves feel”.—[Official Report, 2/12/16; col. 443.]


Her speeches since then have shown her commitment to those with disabilities and learning disabilities, and today she has also shown us her natural wit and a thoughtful approach. We look forward to hearing more from her.

The last time this House met was on 27 April. So much has happened in that time. The terrorist attacks in Manchester, London Bridge and outside the Finsbury Park mosque have shocked, saddened and angered us all. As a nation, we have been clear that we will not allow such evil to compromise our democracy, but we continue to be deeply affected as we recall those who have lost their lives and those whose lives are for ever changed. The sheer horror of the fire at Grenfell Tower, with the final number of fatalities not yet known, has left hundreds homeless and so many deeply shaken and traumatised. As well as the inquiries into the causes and the response, it also raises deeper questions about our society that must be seriously and genuinely addressed in the weeks and months to come. In all of this, we pay tribute to the dedicated, caring and professional work of our police, our fire service, our National Health Service staff and all those who put the needs of others first as they sought to help. In their responses we saw the best of humanity.

The backdrop for this election and its aftermath has been challenging; it has also been emotional. It was also quite an unusual election. It was not due for another three years so when the Prime Minister announced she wanted to sweep aside the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and have an early election, she took the country, Parliament and, indeed, her own party by surprise—and, perhaps, for granted. But she was clear about her rationale: it was about returning her as Prime Minister with a larger majority, to provide strong and stable leadership, with a clear mandate for the kind of Brexit she had outlined. Apparently it had nothing to do with a 21-point lead in the opinion polls. She claimed that the country was coming together but Westminster was not. She added that,

“unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way … So we need a general election and we need one now”.

That was the only way, she said, to guarantee certainty for the years ahead. Well, we now have neither strong leadership nor certainty, and certainty is not provided just by announcing that we will skip the next Queen’s Speech, unusually, and have a two-year Session of Parliament.

We should challenge the premise on which the election was called. The Prime Minister had her mandate. She had an overall majority of 17 in the House of Commons—how long ago that must seem now as she sits round the table trying to broker a deal with the DUP. When the Prime Minister called the election, she had just got her Brexit Article 50 Bill through Parliament, unamended—the “clean” Bill that she wanted—although I wonder if David Davis, as he left the rather short initial talks with Michel Barnier yesterday, privately wished that the Government had accepted your Lordships’ House’s amendment on protecting the rights of EU nationals and thus settled the issue, so that he could focus on other matters. Despite the Prime Minister’s complaints, there was nothing extraordinary or unusual about our tabling of amendments, the debates and the votes. It is what we do. On these Benches, we will continue to be a robust, challenging and responsible Opposition, recognising the conventions of your Lordships’ House.

As an unelected House, this House has recognised the primacy of the other place—the House of Commons—and always will. That was the central premise recognised in the Salisbury/Addison convention, reinforced in the Wakeham report in 2000 and the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions chaired by my noble friend Lord Cunningham of Felling in 2005. Following the election of a minority Government, there has been discussion about whether the conventions of this House still apply, so let us be clear what they are. The Salisbury/Addison convention recognised the legitimacy and the mandate of that great 1945 Labour Government, who had a majority of 146 in the House of Commons but only a handful of Peers in your Lordships’ House. The agreement in essence held that, given that majority, this House would not vote against manifesto items at Second Reading or introduce wrecking amendments. Whenever our conventions have been re-examined, the starting point and the endpoint have remained the same. This House recognises the primacy of the Commons, and that is how we have always conducted ourselves.

What is also clear in those reports, and from our own experiences, is that the House of Commons has primacy, not the Executive or Government. Your Lordships’ House can advise, scrutinise and propose amendments to the other place, but at the end of the day, the House of Commons, as the elected House, is entitled not to accept that advice, however wise we may think it is. That makes the process sound a bit more confrontational than it generally is when in so many cases, as we know, the terms and principles of our amendments are accepted by the other place. That is where the Strathclyde report went wrong—in trying to confuse the House of Commons with the Government. They are not the same. The Queen’s Speech in 2016 was very clear on this. It said:

“My Ministers will uphold the sovereignty of Parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons”.—[Official Report, 18/5/16; col. 3.]


We agreed with that then and we agree with it now.

If the Government are ever able to do a deal with the DUP, the details should be published along with the costs. There must be transparency. There must also be transparency about the legality and the political implications for the Good Friday agreement, to which the UK Government are recognised as a co-guarantor. They should act with rigorous impartiality towards all political parties in Northern Ireland. However, even with a deal, I suspect that there are a number of issues on which a Conservative/DUP Government might not find all the MPs of their respective parties in total agreement, particularly if the Prime Minister fails to put jobs and the economy of this country at the heart of Brexit negotiations. So—I want to be very clear on this—should the House of Commons send this House legislation that has been amended from the Government’s original intentions, their Ministers should not seek to use your Lordships’ House to thwart the mandate of the democratically elected House. The Government do not have the mandate that the Prime Minister sought.

This is the Prime Minister’s first Queen’s Speech and it is clearly not the speech that she originally planned. It has been delayed and shorn of so much promised social legislation, and it is the first in decades to be delivered without a parliamentary majority. If it was delayed to wait for the ethereal deal with the DUP, that is even more chaotic than we first thought. Perhaps it is chaos without coalition.

The first three paragraphs of the gracious Speech are on Brexit. First, there are warm words about getting the best possible deal and working with others—and then the harsh reality. Interestingly, the words “great repeal Bill” are not even mentioned, perhaps because such legislation was so misnamed. In addition to new legislation on trade and customs, the Government have identified five areas where new national policies are required with, presumably, new primary legislation: on immigration, on international sanctions, on nuclear safeguards, on agriculture and on fisheries. These areas will be complex and often very technical. The detail of these Bills will be crucial, so I urge the Government to publish their proposals early. I hope that the noble Baroness will take this away and consider it. It would ensure meaningful consultation so that we can look at them in some detail, because small mistakes could have serious consequences for our nation.

On the other Bills referred to, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, picked up on the mental health Bill. There is a serious and immediate need to improve mental health services and we look forward to seeing the proposals. Previous promises that there should be parity of esteem between physical and mental health services have not been met. Just saying something does not make it happen but, with good will and appropriate resources, new legislation has the potential to make a real difference. Like the noble Baroness, we also welcome stronger action to tackle domestic violence and abuse. Since 2010, cuts to local authority funding have seen one in six specialist refuges close in England, and one-third of all referrals are currently turned away. Refuges are key to tackling this crime, and I hope they are seen by the Government as part of the solution. Perhaps this is also an opportunity to revisit the coalition Government’s policy that removed legal aid from victims of domestic violence in child custody cases.

The promised full public inquiry into the horror of Grenfell Tower is welcome, and it must be to learn lessons and to hold those responsible to account. Those who have suffered must have their voices heard, and process and information must be open, be totally transparent and hold the confidence of the local community and those affected. We welcome that the Government have taken up the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Wills in his Private Member’s Bill to introduce an independent public advocate. Such an advocate should play a key role in supporting bereaved families through any official process or inquiry that can sometimes seem distant and not have their needs at its centre. That office must be fully independent and resourced and must not in any way be used to avoid the normal legal processes or potential legal action or be linked in any way to legal aid, which should not be ruled out for such cases.

The Government have also pledged to review their counterterrorism strategy. With the expertise and knowledge in your Lordships’ House, we will want fully to engage with any review and discussions that seek to make our community safer and to prevent such criminal and terrorist atrocities as we have seen. When the Prime Minister announced as her starting point that she was prepared to tear up the Human Rights Act if it “got in the way”, she was perhaps just looking at the issue from the wrong end of the telescope. The greatest and foremost human right is the right to life, and the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens. Before any rush to new legislation, the starting point should be to examine existing laws, and their enforcement and resourcing. This needs wise judgment. It requires intelligence and experience and must be effectively resourced. We have to ask ourselves questions. If we had more police officers and more community officers and the capacity for intelligence operations, would that make a difference? We know that our police and security services have foiled numerous attacks, so do they need new powers or are the existing ones adequate but in need of better resourcing? Should we better resource the border agency? How do we prevent people becoming radicalised through misplaced ideology or racial hatred? Unless we examine the hardest questions, we do ourselves and our communities an injustice.

This Queen’s Speech is as much about what is not in it as what is in it. The promised commitments in the Conservative Party manifesto on scrapping the pension triple-lock, the means-testing of winter fuel payments, grammar schools, even yet another promise for a further vote on fox hunting and many other commitments have bitten the dust, despite this now being a two-year Session. Were they ditched for a deal that may never be agreed? Despite the issue dominating part of the election campaign, the Government still could not find room for anything meaningful on social care, other than perhaps that it should be improved and there will be proposals at some later, unspecified date.

Finally, it seems that the spaceflight Bill has been announced again; we want to leave the EU and fly off into outer space. I do not know if this is an attempt to seek voters elsewhere, but I say to the Government that, before they head off into new worlds, they should focus on transport on planet Earth. We have the ongoing, never-ending chaos of Southern Rail and still no firm decision on a third runway.

There are some positive individual proposals in the gracious Speech, but on the whole it is undoubtedly a disappointment. Half-echoing Ted Heath’s infamous “Who governs?” when calling and losing the February 1974 general election, the Prime Minister went to the country on the dividing lines of strong and stable government or a coalition of chaos. How she must regret using those words. In calling the election, she has unfortunately weakened herself and the Government. These are troubling times for our country, with so many difficult issues needing a strong and capable Government. In such times, Governments have to rise to the challenge. Those key issues that affect, and even blight, the lives of so many of our citizens were not effectively addressed in the Speech. Should this Session last two years, the bulk of the legislation will be Brexit-related but the issues that people are worried about, such as housing, jobs, quality of life and their hopes for future generations will not be improved by the measures put before us today.

As the Official Opposition—indeed, as a Government in waiting—we will continue to maintain our constitutional role of scrutiny and challenge with responsibility, and at all times act in the best interests of our nation in the challenges we all face. I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.