| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I knew that noble Lords would probably react in that way. It has been a privilege to move this Motion year by year. It is one of the many courtesies of this House—a House whose nature I regret that the Prime Minister has never really understood.
In a valedictory vein, perhaps I may say how much we on this side of the House miss seeing Gareth Williams in his place. The House has lost many good Members since we last met for the gracious Speech, but none—I can say it without causing the slightest shred of offence to anyone—leaves such a gap as Lord Williams.
However, the House is fortunate to have the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, as his successor. She took office in the most difficult circumstances and with a controversial Session lying ahead. I respect the way in
which she has conducted herself during the past few months. As I work with her, I see how much she recognises her duty as Leader to the whole House. There will be tough give-and-take during the coming year if the Government persist with their divisive proposals, but when the noble Baroness speaks for the whole House as Leader, she can be sure that we on this side will always uphold her authority.The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, is a national institution. Indeed, he is more than that. He is perhaps the only national institution that has managed to remain untouched by change these past six years. The noble Lord represents all that is best in the House. He justly bears the high dignity of a Companion of Honour, richly deserved and nobly borne. He has unrivalled expertise and a commanding influence, born of remarkable courage in overcoming personal misfortune and turning it to the service of others. He has loyally supported his party in the Lobbies, but he has also managed to keep a strong and independent voice that has swayed many a Minister to come his way, just before the noble Lord strayed offside! Thanks to him, the condition of disabled people has time and again been improved by landmark legislation that he has inspired. One would not credit his four score years, but if there were ever an argument against a retiring age in your Lordships' House, the noble Lord is it.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, has a parliamentary career that is barely a tenth of the length of that of the noble Lord, but she too has an outstanding record of public service, most notably in her long period with the Royal Shakespeare Company and the National Theatre. She was also principal of a major school of music and drama. I hope that we do not become too theatrical in this House in what is bound to be a difficult Session, but if we do, we shall all turn to the noble Baroness for advice. The noble Baroness has made her mark here and speaks with authority. She made another outstanding speech today. We look forward, all of us, to hearing her even more in the future.
I have not counted all the Bills in the Queen's Speech, but to my ear, there were 26 or 27 Bills, not counting the Hunting Bill, and at least seven major draft Bills. Among these Bills are hugely controversial measures to change this House irredeemably.
This time next year, breaking an undertaking binding in honour on the Prime Minister and Privy Counsellors involved, given at the Dispatch Box, the House will have been purged of one fifth of all the Peers who do not support the Government, without any long-term reform plan being tabled. The office of Lord Chancellor will have been scrapped. The House will have lost one of its Cabinet members. The noble and learned Lords may be on their way out and a new Supreme Court may be being built—who knows where and at what cost—to solve a problem that few entirely understand. The policy was sprung on the world with no consultation before launch and not the slightest attempt at building consensus since. It does not make for a stable constitution or, indeed, a quiet life.
There are other major Bills that are complex and controversial and I wonder whether the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will agree with me that undertakings given at the Dispatch Box are a central part of the process of legislation. If the House cannot rely on an undertaking given about its own future in this very Chamber, how can we trust promises given on other Bills? I fear far more may have to be written on to the face of Bills if the word of Ministers cannot be trusted. Perhaps the noble Baroness will explain how the House can distinguish between a binding undertaking and one that can be dropped to suit executive convenience.
It is a very full programme and we should be in no doubt about that. We face the eighth education Act, the sixth transport Act, the 19th health Act and the 33rd Home Office Act in seven years. We are even promised another Fire Services Bill—but were we not slogging through a Fire Services Bill only a few weeks ago?
I believe that political achievement is not measured in the number of Bills but in the quality of public service. But now Bill follows Bill, follows Bill, follows Bill. And will another pensions Bill put right the robbery of the Brown years or the injustice of the annuity rules? Will another asylum Bill changing the law cobbled up the year before to sort out the fiasco the year before that end the chaos that increasingly makes up our asylum policy? We must all hope so. Will declaring war on the mums of Britain who care enough to take their toddlers to school put right an integrated transport policy that has disintegrated into shambles? And will the millions upon millions upon millions gushing down the plughole of more health reorganisation get a single suffering patient off a waiting list? And is there one person in this House who has been shaken by the hand by a grateful member of the public and told, "Thank God, your Lordships, I now feel safe about crime. The Prime Minister has put paid to the Lord Chancellor"?
Year by year, I begin to get the uneasy feeling that Ministers are drifting even further away from the real lives of our people. It happened to us in government, and this Cabinet is not immune. Something is stirring out there and people are beginning to notice. You can scrap jury trial, but you cannot scrap people's judgment on the failure of a government who have not delivered.
Of course there are things in this speech that we welcome. It is good to see the horror of domestic violence brought to Parliament's attention, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, mentioned in his speech. And for far too long the victims of crime and witnesses who often sacrifice much to bring criminals to justice have been treated as second-rate citizens by the criminal justice system. I welcome action on child protection, but hope that it will not lead to a new bureaucracy being built alongside the existing bureaucracies that have failed children.
It is right, too, to recognise that many people in this country have different life choices. They cannot marry but make lifelong commitments. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has said in the past, they face
inheritance tax. This is a matter for free choice—for a free vote—but can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House tell us whether the Bill extends the same privileges to other life partners who cannot marry, such as single siblings who live together or single children who care for an ageing parent over many years? Surely, they should not be thrown out of a lifelong home by the taxman any more than should gay partners when a loved one dies.Good, bad or indifferent, this is a major programme requiring careful scrutiny. Will the Minister tell us how it will all be accommodated in a Session starting so late that no Bill can go into Committee until the new year? Before the last Session, this House voted for more Bills to go into Grand Committee in return for sittings ending at 10 p.m. We honoured that agreement. Last Session, we offered to put almost half the Government's Bills into Grand Committee. We delivered more time there than in the previous three Sessions put together, but the Government could not honour their part of the bargain. Night after night after night, this House went on sitting after 10 o'clock, often deep into the night, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, recognised. The Government had their cake and then scoffed up the cake that had been promised to the rest of the House. It was not the fault of the House or the Opposition, but the fault of an overlong, ill-prepared programme. As I listened to the gracious Speech, and counted all the Bills, I saw the same mistake being repeated.
We recognise our duty to carry the Queen's business. We are in the middle of a two-year experiment on working practices that should continue. We will join the Government in choosing appropriate Bills for Grand Committee, but the Government should not expect this House to accept a one-sided deal again or to be blackmailed by hints of holidays lost if an over-heavy programme is not waved through. How many of the Bills in the gracious Speech will start in this House? Will it be more than last year and will they all be ready before some of them were last year? When the Minister replies, could she clarify the position on the Hunting Bill? Do the Government intend to facilitate presentation of a ban Bill in the same form as last Session? If the Bill is returned, it must arrive in good time so that this House can suggest a better way forward.
Finally, I would like to ask about the Speakership of the House. This is the last year that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is prepared to grace us with his presence as Lord Chancellor sitting on the Woolsack. We hear that an important announcement is to be made tomorrow on the report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, on the Speakership. Can the Minister give an undertaking that time will be given for the noble and learned Lord to explain his thinking and that of his committee and for the House to be able to discuss it well prior to considered decision?
We must all be aware that, if the position of Lord Chancellor is to be abolished after 400 years, we will need to find someone to fill that space on the Woolsack. It must be someone of stature, experience
and knowledge. Who better to have back on the Woolsack than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg? He could go from Lord Chancellor to Speaker in six months. We may even get a reference from his former employer and bring life and style back to those cold, empty rooms upstairs. There is a thought to close this speech and unite the House at the start of what I am sure will be a difficult Session. I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.Moved, That this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
4.14 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I also congratulate the mover and seconder of the Motion with regard to the gracious Speech. In particular, I remind the House that I first met the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, back in 1948 when he was a student at Ruskin College. He had arrived there having been a crane driver for several years—a profession that enabled him to understand better than almost anybody how to lift people from the bottom to the top.
The rest of the noble Lord's life has been devoted to doing exactly that—seeking people driven by disadvantage or the absence of a privileged background to the bottom of society and seeing how their potential can be most fully realised. I wish to place on the record that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, who subsequently became a student and later president of the union at Cambridge University, never forgot where he came from, who his friends were or how to help them. In a long life in Parliament, he has never for a single day forgotten that dedication to their purposes and benefit. As we all know, not only is the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, loved and admired in this House, but he is a man of immense courage.
Perhaps I may couple the tribute to the way in which Jack overcame the sudden and apparently disastrous visitation—or catastrophe—of total deafness with a great tribute to his wife of 52 years. Pauline sat beside him, assisted him, fought for him, fought with him and showed immense dedication to her husband. I believe that she is, indeed, a great ideal and model to us all.
Therefore, it is singularly appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, should on this occasion move the vote of thanks for the gracious Speech. I know that he will be one of those who rejoice in the fact that the Queen's Speech includes a reference to a review on disabilities, on which he is perhaps, among us all, the finest authority of all.
As has already been said by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, is herself a woman of great distinction in the arts. She is an administrator of the arts—not only for the National Theatre and Covent Garden, but she is Principal of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama and, in addition, has continually dedicated herself to the improvement and widening of the field of the arts.
The noble Baroness modestly pointed out that she was one of the founders of the Parliament Choir—an organisation to which I have had the pleasure of listening on more than one occasion. She also told us that last night she was unable to contribute her lovely voice to the choir. However, she did not tell us that one reason for that was that she was engaged in an honourable and, indeed, utterly delightful family duty—welcoming her daughter as a graduate of the University of Manchester. I believe we all recognise that, on behalf of her mother, her daughter deserves our congratulations, even though she cannot be present today.
Perhaps I may warn the Chief Whip that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is capable of organising an artistic performance at the drop of a hat and may at any moment bring together the famous freedom chorus from "Fidelio" to frighten the Chief Whip in his more tyrannical moments.
I turn to the past legislative year, which was marked by substantial pieces of legislation from the Criminal Justice Bill on one side to the hospital foundations Bill on the other. The range of legislation was huge. However, I am sure that the House will understand if I say that, among those achievements, came the sustaining of great losses. I refer to the very famous and eminent Members of this House, such as Lord Shawcross, who was well over 100 years of age when he died, and the great judge Lord Wilberforce, who many—particularly on the Bench of judges—will recognise as one of the most eminent in the great story of English and British law.
Perhaps I may make a special mention of two of the great radicals who have passed from our midst: my colleague Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and, as has already been mentioned, Lord Williams of Mostyn. In their different ways—belonging as they did to different parties—both men were outstanding radical thinkers and radical practitioners. At least for me, the light has dimmed a little with their passing.
I also want to congratulate the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, Lady Amos. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, she took over in a difficult situation with calmness, steadiness, wisdom and good judgment. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that she has already shown that she sees herself as Leader of the whole of this House and not as Leader of any particular part of it. However, that is not in any way to doubt her own political commitments and political values. We all look forward to working closely with her over the years to come.
Perhaps I may turn now to the gracious Speech. On these Benches, there are some Bills that we warmly welcome; for example, the child protection Bill. Heaven knows—in the light of the terrible story of Miss Climbie—it is a Bill that we all profoundly welcome. Many, too, will also welcome the domestic violence and victim protection Bill. I understand that it will start in this House, and it is badly needed. I wish that were not so, but one cannot watch the stories on television and read about them in the newspapers without recognising that, tragically, domestic violence is one of the scars on our society that we have not yet got beyond.
I am pleased to welcome two further Bills; namely, the civil partnership Bill, which owes a great deal to my noble colleague Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who introduced it originally as a Private Member's Bill. We are glad that it is going forward. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that lasting relationships should have the civil benefits that go with sustaining them. It is right and proper that that should happen. I hope that one day it will go beyond couples of the same sex to couples of different sexes if they have made the necessary commitment to one another. It is important for children, for families and for partnerships. As someone who married in a church, I see no real rivalry between a marriage blessed in a church and a marriage elsewhere; although, clearly, sacramentally, they are very different.
Finally, in this context, we are glad to see the companies law Bill which, if it manages to ensure proper accounting and auditing of companies, is greatly welcome. It is very damaging for a country that depends on trade and finance, as we do, to have even the slightest doubt about the propriety of the actions taken by company directors. The Bill, which is not a partisan Bill, will be of great assistance to us all.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to three Bills that are likely to be very much more controversial and to say a few words about our view on these Benches. The first Bill will be extremely difficult; namely, the Bill introducing top-up fees in higher education. As a former education Minister, I want to say just a few words about it. The gracious Speech refers to the need to deliver a world-class education system. I shall not carp at the improvements in schools, particularly in primary schools, which have been striking. I give due credit to the Government.
I must say directly, without the slightest qualification, that what has happened to our universities—not only under this Government but also under their predecessors even more—has been nearly disastrous. Without any question, 20 years ago, the British education system at the tertiary level was regarded as among the best—if not the best—in the world. Having been an academic lecturer in a number of British universities—I declare an interest for many years as a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University—I have seen both sides of the higher education problem.
But, bluntly, one cannot starve even a brilliant higher education system and expect it to maintain world class status. And it has not done so. Many of our finest academics have gone abroad. Most have gone to the United States, some have gone to Canada and some to Australia. Can anyone blame them? The average salary for a professor—not a senior professor—in the United Kingdom is currently £24,500. The equivalent position in the United States is paid £54,000. The move from one English-speaking country to another—I assure the House that there are people out there all the time recruiting the best of British talent for universities overseas—is to see a steady haemorrhage of some of our finest brains. That cannot be allowed to continue if we really are believers in a world-class university system.
It is fair to say that both parties have steadily starved universities of the money that they need for proper research and development. Right now, universities estimate that they need £2 billion in order to maintain even their present level of research—let alone to improve it and to hold on to the most brilliant students. That £2 billion will not be forthcoming in the Government's proposals. At most it will be £0.5 billion, which will come out of student fees. A point that profoundly worries me is that, with every increase in the payment of student fees, the Treasury will withdraw some part of the money from general taxation.
There will be many arguments over who is right about the solution. My party makes no bones about saying that there has to be a substantial contribution from general taxation—and we would put up the top rate of taxation to 50 pence in the pound in order to meet that need. I do not press our case; there will be other opportunities to do so, but I do say that this House, more than any other—because it has so many Members who are knowledgeable about higher education—has an absolute duty to ensure that the universities get what they need to return to being world-class institutions, which tragically they are not at present.
I wish to mention two other Bills. Noble Lords will have to bear with me. I have not taken as much time as one or two other speakers and I do not intend to do so. I turn first to the asylum and immigration Bill. We have profound concerns about this measure because it addresses the most desperate people. We understand the desire of the Government to distinguish between economic migrants and real, persecuted refugees and asylum seekers, but we shall be seeking to protect those who are genuine refugees who have suffered torture and persecution, because we believe that that is an ultimate requirement of a civilised society.
I conclude with one or two words about House of Lords reform. Members on these Benches are unhappy about the fact that we are not seriously to address the possibility of establishing a ministry of justice of the kind we see flourishing in Scotland. Perhaps I may say that the Scots have made a better job of constitutional reform than those south of the Border. However, as regards Lords reform, I want to say simply that, having listened to many speeches on the issue of the right of a non-elected House to challenge the other place, Members on these and many other Benches in this House declare that it is not our wish to be a non- elected House. It is, above all, the wish of the Prime Minister. We wish that that were not so.
4.26 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and it is a privilege to stand before noble Lords on my first State Opening as Leader of the House. However, I cannot do so without remembering my distinguished predecessor, Lord Williams of Mostyn. Although extensive tributes have been paid to Lord Williams, I do not think that enough can ever be said about the
skills he brought to the job as Leader. I know that I speak for everyone in the House, Peers and staff alike, when I say that we still miss him greatly. We also lost several other Lords during the last Session, and the House is a poorer place without each and every one of them.The last Session was at times hard for Members on these Benches. We suffered 88 defeats, more than any government since the 1975–76 Session, when the then Labour Government lost 126 votes. I hope that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister chooses carefully the basis on which he will judge my performance.
Last year in his opening remarks on the Queen's Speech, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said:
- "Revising legislation—and revising it freely, responsibly and well—is what we are here for".—[Official Report, 13/11/02; col. 12.]
My noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke has been a great asset during the 11 years that he has been a Member of your Lordships' House. He is one of the great campaigners in this House. His diligent, fearless, independent-minded and highly successful work on disability rights has earned him enormous respect both in this House and outside. He brings real-life experience to the areas on which he speaks.
My noble friend is also a very brave man. Not only did he contest Finchley in 1951—and we all know who later made that constituency famous—but he was also PPS to another of this House's great campaigners, and someone to be feared; namely, the late Lady Castle of Blackburn.
My noble friend lost his wife Pauline this year, after more than 50 years of marriage. Lady Ashley was a huge support to him, and I know the whole House will join with me in sending my noble friend our deepest sympathy.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page