Speech To House Magazine Conference

The coming year in Parliament will be a difficult one for the Government. There are international affairs of great concern to us all to be debated, with the uncertain situation in Iraq and the continuing war on terror. European matters are coming to the fore with the new draft constitution and controversies over economic and defence issues. Difficult decisions will be announced on important development plans and air transport capacity. Regional Assembly referenda are in prospect. The Hutton Inquiry Report will not make good reading for Government. 

The Government has a difficult legislative programme. The Labour Party is dividing more frequently, as its backbenchers become more assertive. At the same time, the Opposition is more effective. Less than 2 weeks ago at Opposition and Labour backbench insistence, the Government made 90 amendments to its major flagship Bills on Crime and Health and only narrowly survived by 17 votes on Foundation Hospitals, despite an official majority over all other parties of 162. 

Within a day of the Queen’s Speech last week, almost 130 Labour MPs had signed a motion against University top-up fees.

There are tensions at the highest level about the European Constitution – once famously described by the Leader of the House as a ‘tidying-up exercise.’ Yet, it had become so important by last week that the Foreign Secretary let it be known that we might actually veto the Constitution.

One aspect of The Queen’s Speech concerned me. Traditionally, all the Bills which were anticipated by the Government were announced. Some Bills which might not be ready in time or were contingent on events or were not expected were covered by the Queen always saying, as she did this year that ‘other measures’ would be brought forward. This year, in breach of convention, Bills which were anticipated, known about and going ahead were omitted from the Queen’s Speech. 

23 bills were proposed in the Speech, but we had also been expecting important Bills on Mental Incapacity, Gender Recognition and other subjects, which were not referred to. I had interest groups contacting me to voice their disquiet, because they thought particular Bills had been dropped. The day after the Speech, the Government produced one Bill on Gender Recognition in the Lords and the Leader admitted to me that the Bill on Mental Incapacity was going ahead. Yesterday, I heard that a Health Protection Agency Bill was presented in the Lords. And, what about the others we were expecting on mental health, animal welfare, civil service reform and regional assemblies? I believe that we should be given a full list at the start of the year. We should not be left guessing. It is just not sensible nor efficient, since it leads to misunderstandings. 

Touching on a number of the measures proposed, some have already been flagged up as trouble for the Government. The constitutional reforms : to create a Supreme Court, a Judicial Appointments Commission and abolish the office of Lord Chancellor - all on the back of the – no, I am not going to say ‘an envelope’ – the Cabinet reshuffle in June. These ideas were not the result of widespread consultation and debate. If the Government had consulted, they would have discovered serious reservations about the possible impact of these changes on the independence of the judiciary. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, only learnt of them ‘minutes’ before the press. He has said that without new constitutional safeguards, scrapping the Lord Chancellor poses the biggest threat to judicial independence for centuries.


Our senior judges have also raised great issues about the attempt to create a Supreme Court. I hope the Government’s reply will be a constructive. But we did find last Session that we had to push them very hard to make sensible compromises.

House of Lords’ reform is another contentious area. The Government intends to scrap the remaining hereditary peers without putting anything in its place. They embarked on Stage One of reform in 1999, with the removal of all but 92 of the hereditary peers, without knowing what Stage 2 would be. And here we are 4 years later, but they have made no progress. The Leader of the House has said that he believes in a democratic element in the Lords. So, what is the difficulty in proposing one?

Then there is what we thought must be the printing error, the Euro Referendum Draft Bill. Surely it should have been the Euro-constitution Referendum Bill or nothing. No one believes there will be a referendum on the Euro this side of the general Election.

Michael Howard has signalled that there will be a battle over at least part of the Asylum Bill. The Home Office has stated that ‘provision will be made’ to take the children of asylum seekers into care ‘as an incentive’ to make asylum seekers return home voluntarily. But, we believe that rather than attacking human rights to family life, the Government needs to take effective administrative measures to deal with asylum cases fast.

The introduction of the Pensions’ Protection Fund is to be cautiously welcomed, but it there is concern that they have estimated the necessary level of premiums at too low a level. Some consultants estimate it to be 3 times over the Government figure. The danger is that if the cost is too high, it will encourage even more companies to close their pension schemes. Many also wonder how the scheme can work without a Government guarantee. PPF is only expected to come into force in 2005. The Bill will not address the main needs for incentives to save. We support an increased state pension and reversal of the spread of means testing. Better incentives to save are needed. I can see a healthy debate over these issues. 

We will also want to argue against unnecessary burdens on individuals and businesses. The new sellers’ packs for house sales are designed to speed up transactions. But, the Select Committee and others have disagreed, pointing out that it will require many more full surveys to take place.

The measures to strengthen company audit can be welcomed, but do include some burdensome proposals, which we will wish to debate. The Chartered Accountants have detailed criticisms of the proposal to rotate the lead audit partner every five years and other key parameters every seven. They believe this will add 5% to audit fees.

The overall simplification of company law has been delayed. We regret this.

The Employment Relations Bill will require close scrutiny. At present it is claimed to be a modest measure, but we would not want to see onerous extra regulation.

The creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority allied to the £43 billion to be spent cleaning up our nuclear sites is probably the prelude to the privatisation of BNFL.

We will also want to look closely at the Traffic Management Bill, which provides for an agency to give permits for streetworks. It sounds like a good idea to persuade the utilities to work together, but we do not want this to become full of unnecessary red tape.

At this stage, the biggest battle developing is over Tuition and Top-up fees.

The history partly explains the nervousness among Labour MPs. In the 1997 campaign, Tony Blair said that “Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education.” Within a year the Government had brought in tuition fees.

In their 2001 manifesto, Labour promised, “We will not introduce top-up fees and have legislated to prevent them.” They have now broken this manifesto pledge. According to the Government’s own research, student debt has risen two and a half times since 1998/99, the first year of tuition fees.

We argue that this will not encourage students from poorer backgrounds to apply to university. Most Labour MPs agree. I doubt if the Government can succeed in putting this measure on the statute book. The likely struggle has the potential to match the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

We were also disappointed at the missing Bills. Legislation is needed to protect the rights of Mental Health sufferers as well as to ensure access to treatment. 

There is a need for the Civil Service to be put on a statutory legal footing. Conservatives published their proposals for a Civil Service Act over 18 months ago in the form of a Civil Service Charter.

The other expected bills on animal welfare and regional assemblies also have their supporters.

This will be one of the most interesting Sessions for years.
There are many challenges for the Government and the Opposition. By the time this Session ends next Summer, we will be about 9 months away from the likely General Election. The time will fly by.

So there is rough weather ahead and my advice to the Leader of the House, our Captain on the bridge, is strap yourself to the wheel.