Queen’s Speech

My Lords, Britain has become one of the most centralised countries in the developed world. Over the past 10 years, this top-down, target-driven, tick-box-obsessed, regulatory and surveillance-obsessed Government have consistently placed their faith in laws rather than in people and in bureaucrats rather than in businesses. Thousands of new laws have been added to the statute book every year—3,071 in 2007 alone. The humble Address confirms that this veracious appetite to legislate and regulate shows no sign of abating. The Government, the humble Address says, are going to, ""work to build trust in democratic institutions"," yet there are now 1,152 quangos in the UK responsible to unelected boards rather than democratically accountable institutions. These quangos employ 534,000 people—more than the entire Civil Service at 522,000. They are responsible for the distribution of £90 billion of public funds, and 68 quango chiefs earn more than the £187,000 salary of our Prime Minister. The Minister, in his opening address, claimed that greater responsibilities had been given to local government, yet according to the Local Government Association it is weighed down by more than 1,200 centrally imposed targets, costing councils an estimated £2 billion a year. Local government represents 25 per cent of government expenditure but 81 per cent of central targets. The responsibility to report, which has been given, is not the same as the responsibility to act, which has been taken away. It is not just local government that is sinking under the burden of the box-tickers and bureaucrats. Recently I visited a young offender institution and met staff who were frustrated that, while they were having to cut back on essential education, they were required to produce more and more data to send to the Prison Service. They had a team of five individuals who were dedicated solely to the task of collecting information on 40 key performance indicators, such as how often the toilets were cleaned and whether inmates had had health and safety training. The one piece of data out of 40 that they did not have to collect was reoffending rates, which seems rather obscure and absurd given their purpose. Perhaps the answer that the Government will reach for is to appoint a reoffending tsar. We have a plethora of tsars and envoys. In fact, I was curious to know how many there are, so I tabled a Question and received an Answer, recorded in Hansard of 19 October 2009, from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall: ""The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost".—[Official Report, 19/10/09; col. WA 54.]" That seemed to make the point. This kind of meddling and the new initiatives that seem to come from left, right and centre are very much crystallised in an established practice—namely, the census. The 2011 census will be the most extensive and intrusive ever in our history, running to 32 pages of questions. This time—for the first time—we will be asked to give the name, sex and date of birth of people staying overnight and we will have to state how many bedrooms there are. Noble Lords will see how this is being described as a sex snooper’s charter. Just because Governments can ask the question does not mean that they should. Those for whom disclosure may cause a difficulty could perhaps make a note in their diary for 27-28 March 2011 to sleep at home. We have now overtaken India as the country with the longest tax code in the world. In 1997, Tolley’s Yellow Tax Handbook ran to 5,000 pages, which was the culmination of nearly two centuries of tax legislation. Yet in 2009 the handbook ran to 11,500 pages. You must need very big hands, but perhaps it now requires a big van. Why does this matter? The design of legislation and government—the architecture by which we make decisions, hand out accountability and receive back responsibility—matters. First, it matters to this place so that we can hold the Executive to account and know what is going on. If we legislate too much, legislation does not get the required scrutiny. If it is too complex and opaque, we cannot get to the heart of the issue. Secondly, too much data can obscure rather than illuminate a problem, as anyone who has been involved in business knows. Thirdly, it damages morale. Many people are in public service to teach and care. They do not go into it to tick boxes and collect data. Fourthly—perhaps this is the most dangerous—it gives the illusion that something is being done when it is not. The humble Address states: ""Legislation will be brought forward to halve the deficit"." That makes you wonder why the Government need primary legislation to halve it when they managed to double it without so much as a statutory instrument. The humble Address continues that the Government will legislate, ""to introduce guarantees for pupils and parents to raise educational standards"," when, after 10 years, only half the students leaving state school managed to attain just five decent GCSEs. We have plummeted in international league tables in maths and science. The Address continues that the Government will, ""enshrine in law its commitment to abolish child poverty by 2020"," when over the past 10 years the numbers have fallen by only 10 per cent. That was before the recession, so how are we supposed to take seriously a pledge that legislation will eradicate the remaining 90 per cent over the next 10 years? In the millennium, Ministers said that they would halve child poverty from 3.4 million to 1.7 million by 2010. They then abandoned that and a new pledge has been brought forward. The humble Address states that there will be legislation to, ""narrow the gap between rich and poor"." However, as was written in the Guardian on 8 May 2009, so it must be true: ""Britain under Gordon Brown is a more unequal country than at any time since modern records began in the early 1960s, after the incomes of the poor fell and those of the rich rose …Overall, the poorest 20% saw real income fall by 2.6% in the three years to 2007-08, while those in the top fifth of the income distribution enjoyed a rise of 3.3%. As a result"—" listen carefully to these words from the Guardian— ""income inequality at the end of Labour’s 11th year in power was higher than at any time during Margaret Thatcher’s premiership"." This Government and this Address are all about complexity and control. Good legislation empowers the individual. Bad legislation empowers the state. Good government promotes enterprise and celebrates creativity and diversity. Bad government promotes dependency, uniformity and conformity. The only hope is that this is the last Address before the general election so that this Big Brother Government, who have lived by a tick-box culture, will soon die by the ultimate tick in the box by the electorate.