Debate on the Address

I reassure the noble Lord that he should not be worried about being fingered as the largest contributor to Labour Party funds because I have calculated that I give the same percentage of the McNally family wealth to the Liberal Democrats as he gives of the Sainsbury family wealth to the Labour Party. This gracious Speech takes place against a background where the Government need to win and sustain public trust in two major areas of policy: the war on terrorism and the response to climate change. On the war on terror, there is still too much of a tendency to seek party political advantage by trying to paint anyone questioning any measure as soft on terrorism without recognising that there is a genuine debate to be had about how to combat the terrorist threat while preserving the freedoms that make our liberal democracy what it is. I share the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on that. Once again, the gracious Speech is frontloaded with measures dealing with counter-terrorism, law and order and the administration of justice. This morning, the BBC estimated that we have had 50 such measures since 1997, and a recent academic study showed that many of the provisions of that legislation were never implemented or were later withdrawn. To quote Steve Richards again, the record of Home Office Bills is that some have been effective, some have been useless and some simply symbolised the new Labour mission statement of the time. The gracious Speech is more of the same, with no recognition that what is needed is better administration and less legislation and better delivery, not spin. On climate change, there is widespread concern that the Government will be strong on rhetoric and short on the tough practical measures and proper benchmarking needed to meet the challenges put forward by the Stern report. On both issues, the Government’s priorities should be broad consensus and public trust, not short-term party advantage. Talking of broad consensus brings me to reform of the House of Lords. I am sure that the whole House will be impressed by the clear, precise and detailed nature of the commitment on Lords reform contained in the gracious Speech. We will have a chance to discuss these matters in detail a week tomorrow. But noble Lords know where I stand. I agree with the Guardian editorial, which said: "““Only in Britain would the claim that the people must be denied the right to elect their own legislators be regarded as respectable rather than risible””." I am on record as saying that the proposals brought forward by Mr Jack Straw were among the most progressive from the Government in almost a decade. I understand that Mr Straw was given a very warm welcome when he went to the Labour Peers to discuss his ideas. When I look across the Chamber I see reflections reminders of my youth—but unlike me they are a little older. I remember that as I queued for my Fabian tea they streamed past to the Tribune meeting. I ask them to think whether they really want as their last political fight to die in the ditch to preserve a House of patronage and placement. As I say, we will return to that. Of course, when we come to that debate, we will have the benefit of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Today and last week we saw the noble and learned Lord wearing another hat—and doesn’t he enjoy wearing it? I refer of course to his role as Lord Chancellor. Seeing him both at Prorogation and today, I hope that the Conservatives have not shot themselves in the foot in their desire to preserve the title. I thought that when we eased the Lord Chancellor off the Woolsack we would not see so much of him as we have in recent times. I make the point that under a new Prime Minister the Lord Chancellor might come from another place, and we must think of the position of the Lord Speaker in relation to a Lord Chancellor from another place. Now—I’ve lost the plot; not for the first time in my life. There must be another page to my notes; no, there isn’t! We have to look very seriously at the roles of Lord Chancellor and Lord Speaker. I do not think that they are quite right yet. In saying only one more thing, I again refer back to my old college. I will mention not Portugal Street polytechnic but University College, London. The Constitutional Unit at the University College, London, did a study earlier this year, which showed overwhelming support for the role of this House as a check and balance in relation to an over-powerful executive. In the gracious Speech that role remains. We will need to exercise it in the year ahead. I remind the House that that same study showed that the best organised, best disciplined and most influential group within this House was the Liberal Democrats. With such power goes responsibility—a responsibility that we will exercise to the full in the year ahead.