That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:

“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.

My Lords, the gracious Speech concentrated on four main themes, which the Government are determined to pursue in this next short parliamentary term. The first and overriding priority is, and must continue to remain, delivering a fair and prosperous economy for families and businesses. In the past 18 months, we have had to confront the first truly global economic recession. No matter where one travels, even among the most traditional and risk-averse economies in the world, no country has escaped the consequences. Everywhere I have been in the past year or so people raised the same questions: how do we pull ourselves out and how long will it last?

There have had to be hard choices: whether markets should be left to sort out the crisis or whether Governments should intervene; and whether to let the recession run its course or whether to stimulate the economy back to stability and then on to growth. The arguments about how best to do this have raged between economists, commentators and politicians. Blame has been apportioned and reapportioned on an almost weekly basis. But, as the gracious Speech makes clear, the Government believe that it is vital to take action to shoulder responsibility and to protect those on middle and modest incomes and those who are unemployed. To this end, the Government are pledged to do more to create jobs and to foster growth and employment. Moreover, the Government will reform the financial services industry so that those who save and those who lend do not again have to live with the anxieties, the insecurities and the fear that they have experienced in recent months, through no fault of their own.

The second theme that struck me in the gracious Speech was that of the urgency that the Government attach to dealing with climate change. The global nature of the challenge is as clear with climate change as it is with the economic recession. Most people can agree on the objectives both for the first, stabilising and then reducing carbon emissions, and for the second, stabilising and growing the world economy. As the gracious Speech noted, the Copenhagen summit takes place next month, and we all anticipate that national interests will be weighed against international co-operation. Negotiators will attempt to balance the restrictions that may be placed on one generation—our own—with the needs of the next generations to live in safety from devastating weather pattern changes and to enjoy future energy supplies. We must not be deflected from arguing the case for what is right, what is responsible and what is humane. We should remember that our Prime Minister will be among those who toiled longest, worked hardest and argued with greatest conviction on the issue.

I turn to two other themes of the gracious Speech which are of a more domestic nature. The first is the strengthening of our public services. One of the huge attributes of this country is that we in all parties recognise that we must all contribute to the great public services, to provide education, health and social welfare. This is the cornerstone of our sense of social justice, grown and nurtured in this country for almost 500 years, and it is very different from what exists in many other countries. Our system is far from perfect, but it has improved hugely under the Labour Government. Just as one of the great Conservative Administrations of the past—that of the then Mrs Thatcher, now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—can take credit for changing for ever the terms of engagement in recognising, tracking and controlling public expenditure, taking responsibility at all levels of public administration, so we on these Benches are proud of what our Administration is achieving on public services: 44,000 more doctors, 89,000 more nurses, 42,000 more teachers, 19,000 more police, the shortest waiting times in history, the creation of Sure Start, child benefit at record levels, the minimum wage and much more.

There is more to be done, as the gracious Speech makes clear: more on strengthening the key public services, more on setting achievable goals for individuals, and more on letting those individuals know what they and their families can expect on health, welfare and, in particular, on the educational standards on which our collective future depends. That touches on the last theme: social justice. Without good public services, social justice cannot be achieved. Good public services—the provision of health, education and social services—are fundamental prerequisites of equality of opportunity between men and women, between people of different ethnic origins and between people of different beliefs and sexualities. All these issues have been tackled boldly over the past 12 years, sometimes against heavy odds, but always with determination and conviction. But equality of opportunity between rich and poor is an even tougher barrier to social justice. We have begun—pulling half a million children out of poverty, together with 900,000 pensioners—but it is not enough, and this is a challenge which we on these Benches are determined to champion.

There are two further issues in the gracious Speech that I should like to mention. The first is foreign policy. Establishing security and prosperity in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East and dealing with the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea are issues that we all know have to be addressed. However, I was especially pleased that the Commonwealth was mentioned so early in the gracious Speech and that in this, the Commonwealth’s 60th year, Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh are to visit Bermuda and Trinidad and Tobago. I declare an interest as the deputy chairman of the Commonwealth Study Conference.

I put on record the satisfaction of these Benches at everything that has been done to put this country at the heart of Europe. We acknowledge all the work that has been done in trying to bring peace and stability to troubled parts of the world, often with the support of our superb and courageous Armed Forces, who put themselves on the line for us every day.

Many of us—and that includes many from all parties—are especially pleased with this Government’s cancellation of debt for the poorest countries, the separation of the provision of overseas aid from any trading advantage to ourselves, the trebling of our aid budget and the commitment to make binding our aim to achieve by 2013 the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of national income dedicated to international development. World poverty is beatable and we are determined to beat it.

Lastly, and I suppose utterly predictably, my eye was caught by the reference to publishing draft legislation on proposals for a reformed second Chamber. On that, we know how divided opinions are. One colleague remarked earlier that this might be the last straw on the subject. We shall see. My only comment—at least, for now—is that a democratic mandate for a reformed second Chamber has to be matched by democratic powers that allow that mandate to be exercised.

The State Opening of Parliament is always a splendid and vivid occasion. This year it is especially interesting because, to be frank, there is for the first time in 12 years a real possibility that there might—just might—be a change of government in six months’ time. The polls tell us that that may happen, not that it will, and the British people will make their judgments in due course. However, they will make them after what has been, to quote Her Majesty about an earlier year, an annus horribilis for politicians. The expenses scandal has affected both Houses and all political groups—no party can point a finger at others—and the British public have rightly had cause to question politicians’ motives and the integrity of public life in general.

Public service in this country is our bedrock. For all our faults, our public services are remarkable for their integrity and freedom from corruption. Our Armed Forces answer the calls from the United Nations, NATO and the European Union with speed as well as courage. The overwhelming majority of people who staff our police forces, our fire services, our town halls, our Civil Service, our social work departments, schools and hospitals are dedicated and committed to public service. And so are most politicians. Most people enter public life to try to make this country and beyond better for people—all people—to live in. Government Ministers work very long hours, often to the detriment of their private lives, and opposition spokesmen and spokeswomen, mostly with little support—particularly true in your Lordships’ House—work late and start early to fulfil their considerable responsibilities and duties. Almost all do that with one overriding principle at the heart of everything that they do: public service. That is exemplified on all sides of this House, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I pay particular tribute to our Leader, a true leader of the whole House, my noble friend Lady Royall, who is supported so ably by our Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Bassam.

I hope that in these next six months, however hot the heat of the political battle, we shall be able to show that, although much has gone wrong—at times shamefully wrong—so much more has gone right in the way that public administration and public service are undertaken in this country and that the motivation of all of us, of all parties and none, is and will remain one of public duty and public service.

I beg to move the Motion for an humble Address to Her Majesty.

My Lords, it is with immense pleasure and pride that I beg to second my noble and esteemed friend’s Motion for an humble Address.

It is especially rewarding for me to follow the most admirable noble Baroness; as noble Lords will be aware, she was, among her many achievements, the first ever female Minister of State for Defence. I would like to think that I, too, given my origins and upbringing, may be achieving something of a first in seconding the Motion for an humble Address but, alas, I believe that I am not the first Yorkshireman to do so.

It is with some trepidation that I follow such an esteemed person as my noble friend who, in addition to her ministerial post of defence, was Minister for the Middle East, Minister for international trade and the Prime Minister’s envoy to the Gulf. I also know that she has a long-standing commitment to equality and justice, having been a trade union general secretary and an Equal Opportunities Commissioner. I am very fortunate to be associated with her today. Indeed, I am very aware of the great honour bestowed on me of giving this address and I hope that I can do justice to your Lordships’ expectations.

I first joined this House as a Cross-Bench Peer but from the moment I arrived, I have always felt supported and found great guidance and reassurance from noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, was, from the very beginning, extremely supportive and always provided a guiding hand. It was my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland, the then Leader of the House, who found time to listen and to reassure me as I took up my seat on these Benches.

I must also join my noble friend Lady Symons in paying tribute to the dynamic duo—what a great team—of my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, the Leader of the House, and my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, the Chief Whip. Lately, I have had the great pleasure of working closely with both of them and benefiting from their strong and inspirational leadership as I found myself, for a time, in the Whips’ Office.

Entering the Whips’ Office was certainly a steep learning curve, but one which was both rewarding and enlightening. I was fortunate to have a great mentor in the form of my noble friend Lady Andrews. As I say, I had to learn a great deal as a Minister in the Whips’ Office. There are probably two initial key issues that a Whip faces. The first is that you have to answer a lot of parliamentary Questions, often on subjects about which you know little. I take this opportunity to thank noble Lords for their forbearance and patience with me during the times when this was abundantly clear to them.

I can assure noble Lords that, despite their doubts, I sought guidance and advice about answering parliamentary Questions. Surely, I thought, there must be some sort of guidance—a course, an induction programme, perhaps, that I could go on. Early on, I sought advice. “No, you do not need a training course on this”, I was told, “you just need to learn a few golden rules”. I was told a story that perfectly illustrated what the golden rules were. Let me share this with noble Lords.

A Minister and a senior civil servant are being driven to some remote government establishment. The car begins to travel deep into the countryside, it is getting late, and the fog closes in. The car gets slower and slower and finally the driver, dimly seeing a passer-by, rolls down the window and shouts, “Where are we?”. Back comes the answer, “You are in a car in the fog”. The civil servant immediately jumps up and says, “Do you realise, Minister, that that is the perfect answer to a parliamentary Question? It is short, it is absolutely true and it tells you nothing that you did not already know”.

The second most challenging duty as a Whip was to try to make people stay late into the evening to vote. I thought, “Okay, let’s try the usual Yorkshire charm”. That did not last too long, so I implored people to stay—I even begged them. Finally, I resorted to threatening them with the Chief Whip. Alas, even the threat of the wrath of my noble friend Lord Bassam was of no avail at times, until I realised that, when really necessary, a Whip has to use the ultimate sanction, the ultimate threat of the real boss. Eight simple words seemed to do the trick every time: “If you leave early, I will tell Josie”. My noble friends know only too well the effectiveness of this sanction.

I thoroughly enjoyed my time in the Whips Office, and I am immensely grateful to my many colleagues in the office who work tirelessly to see the business of the House through. I also express my gratitude to all the officials who work behind the scenes, often unseen and unknown, but who do great service to the work of this House.

Indeed, it is at times such as this, when we consider the work ahead as set out in the gracious Speech, that we realise the significance and great import of the work we do. It will be no surprise to anyone here that I take particular interest in the Equality Bill, having worked for most of my adult life as a service manager and an academic promoting equality and human rights. We sometimes hear these days the idea that we have too many rights, as if it is somehow not injustice that is the problem but equality. To me, rights are like the air we breathe—while it is possible to survive on less, we can do so only for a limited time before the body suffers and our brains close down. If we are to thrive as a free and fair society, we must continue to protect the rights of those who are most vulnerable, those in the greatest need and those who experience injustice. The Equality Bill introduces a range of new and important protections, for example on age discrimination, that will greatly protect and benefit the elderly who require services and goods; and new duties on public bodies to address discrimination based on socio-economic disadvantage. The Bill is but the latest in a long line of Bills brought in by this Government since 1997 that extend opportunity for all while ensuring the protection of all, and I greatly welcome it.

As someone who began his career as a social worker, and who has retained the values and ethos of empowerment and support for independence that underpins that profession, I must also welcome the Bill on personal care at home. The Bill fulfils the Prime Minister's promise for free personal care at home for those with the highest need, so that they can remain in their own home. Who among us would not want to see our parents or grandparents, when they are at their most vulnerable, able to remain in their own home for the longest possible time? I am sure that we will have a number of interesting and perhaps challenging debates about the Bill, but I hope that your Lordships share with me the commitment to fairness and justice that this and much else in the gracious Speech sets out today.

I should also briefly mention the digital economy Bill, which promises so much in the delivery of a communications infrastructure fit for the 21st century. I am myself a great lover of the internet and all that it brings, although I did have some problems of my own last year when I came into conflict with a number of supporters of a certain party recently represented on “Question Time”. I shall not delay noble Lords now with the details of the disagreement I caused. Let us just say that, during a visit to a particular city, I failed to see the value in discussing the ways in which we can overcome extremism in this country with members of a party that count among their friends those who would see the far right once more rise to power in Europe. I am not, of course, referring to Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

So, having refused to indulge them with my presence, I found myself the subject of an intense and somewhat vulgar internet campaign. I remember, over the whole weekend, reading pages and pages of internet blogs calling me any number of names and epitaphs, none of which I can repeat here. The culmination of this was on the Sunday evening, at the height of this small trouble, when I came across a front-page piece all about me—where I was born, what school I went to, what jobs and roles I have had over the years. Becoming slightly unnerved, I continued to the end of this long document, and I suppose that I was somewhat relieved to find that my detractors had not done their homework as well as I had thought. In their final attempt to disgrace me, they had published a picture of me. However, when I scrolled down to look at the picture, I saw that it was not a picture of me. It was a picture of my friend from the Cross Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Well, I thought that it was easy to mistake one name for another. But perhaps they had gone a tad too far by suggesting that all Peers look the same. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord did not suffer any difficulties from this and that he will forgive me for not seeking to put a correct picture of myself in his place.

I am not the only one to have experienced difficult times this year at the hands of those who seek to destroy our common values and who would attack the ideals that made this country so great and its people free. Here in London, four gay men have been murdered, and we have seen dramatic increases in homophobic attacks. This kind of hate crime, which is deplored by the vast majority of people, must not be allowed to continue. We have to turn our backs on those who seek to drive division and hatred between us and who would see our great country turn in on itself and away from the universal rights that so many have fought for and lost their lives defending.

We saw last week the first ever Remembrance Day commemoration without a surviving member of the Armed Forces from World War 1. It is our duty to ensure that their memory is never tainted or their sacrifice forgotten by letting the forces of hatred and racism ever gain another foothold in our minds or hearts. I know that noble Lords will join me in that battle, and that is why I am so proud to be a Member of this House. I am reminded every day of the importance of what we do and the trust that is bestowed upon us. I am grateful for the opportunity to be here and I am thankful to noble Lords and all those who have helped me to play whatever small part I can. I am also grateful to have served in a Government and under a Prime Minister who stand up for the values that I hold dear. As the gracious Speech shows us, they are committed to strengthening and protecting those values.

My Lords, this has been a great pleasure.

Motion to Adjourn

That this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

My Lords, as I listened to the gracious Speech, I counted 13 new Bills. I did wonder if that unlucky number was a portent of the fate of its authors sometime in the next few months. If so, it did not faze the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, or the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, whom it is my pleasant duty to congratulate on moving and seconding this Motion today.

The noble Baroness became a Member of your Lordships’ House in 1996 as part of the nouvelle vague of Mr Blair’s Cool Britannia. Unlike so much of that now vanished era, the noble Baroness always was, and is still, cool. Her intelligence, good humour, charm and integrity shone out in her speech today. She was a fine public servant and dedicated trade unionist—both badges of honour—before entering the House. Within months of coming here, she was a Minister in the Foreign Office, Defence and Trade departments. She never put a foot wrong as a Minister or as a servant of the House when she was Deputy Leader in 2003 to 2005. Many of us expected her to go forward, on merit, to a place in Cabinet, but she turned her hand instead to business, where she has had equally great success as she did on the trade union side of the table. Can I say what a pleasure it was to have her back in such a prominent part in our debates? To propose this Motion is a high distinction; how well she deserved and graced it.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, came to us as a so-called “people’s Peer”, being sent here in May 2006 by the commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, as one of those independent of party affiliation. The noble Lord has since played a frequent part in our debates. The House always listens to him with care as one who brings immense experience in the fields of mental health, drug use and social cohesion. A recent biography of the noble Lord said that his work is distinguished by his insistence that the subject of any research should benefit from being part of that research. The noble Lord certainly put that principle into practice in his research into your Lordships' House, for in under two years he abandoned the Cross Benches and emerged last October as a Whip in a Labour Government. Now, he has left that role too and sits as a Back Bencher, not as a people’s Peer, but as a member of the people’s party. Few have moved with such agility around your Lordships' House and, having heard the noble Lord speak so elegantly again today, I must tell him that if he wishes to continue his research, I am sure there would be a place on the Benches behind me, and he would be made very welcome.

I join the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, in what she said about the past 12 months in this House. Last year was a very difficult year in your Lordships' House, one in which we had to draw deep on our ancient experience and apply powers we had not used for a century and a half to deal with abuses of the House. Under the skilled leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, your Lordships met that challenge swiftly and firmly, showing yet again how much there is in the flexibility and freedom of self-regulation and showing too that your Lordships’ sound collective judgment can be trusted.

We will soon face new challenges, against the unhappy background of a press campaign, in accommodating ourselves to the valuable report of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, which we will debate later this month, and in the report shortly to be published by the SSRB. I hope that the SSRB understands the major differences between an unpaid, non-representative House such as this and another place, for this place cannot operate without the readiness of Peers often to make sacrifices to attend. Not all occasions are as splendid or inviting as the State Opening of Parliament—just try day four in Grand Committee on the local democracy Bill with the Liberal Democrats at the crease—but I know that your Lordships will response constructively and reasonably to independent recommendations when they are soundly based.

So here we are debating the last gracious Speech of this Parliament and, despite the worth while things in it, it would be all too easy to mock. There will be a law to halve the national debt. Is it intended to turn two pounds into one? Did none of the clever people in No. 10 see the absurdity of a Prime Minister who has presided over the most ruinous, and still mounting, expansion of the national debt in peacetime proposing to halve it by passing a law? Sadly, a debt accumulated by folly, imprudence and a spending boom has exploded in a catastrophic national bust, and I do not think it will be wafted away by law. It will be paid off only by hard choices, sacrifices and the sweat and toil of the British people, whose future, often their very pensions, has been mortgaged in this debt. Instead of passing laws about the national debt, we should have had a general election and a new Government to start dealing with it.

Then again, we have a proposed new law to guarantee better education. If only it were so easy—as though law can deliver what only good teachers can if they are spared, as a new Government will spare them, the constant meddling of bureaucracy unleashed on schools since 1997. We have a proposed new law, “to narrow the gap between rich and poor”. Has anyone dared tell the Prime Minister that he has had over 12 years of running our economy and the gap between rich and poor has widened? Nearly 5 million people are unemployed or on incapacity benefit, and one in five young people cannot find a job. After years of new Labour, the cycle of deprivation and poverty is worse in this country than ever before.

You cannot solve problems by passing laws to deal with issues that you failed to solve when invited to do so by the British people three times in the past. This concept of legislation—of abolishing the national debt, poverty and educational underachievement by law—has not been seen since the weakest of late Roman emperors passed law after law ordering the troops back to barracks and the barbarians back across the frontier: and just look what happened to them.

Like many noble Lords, I have read for days the leaks and the pre-briefing. We read stories of Ministers boasting of the most political speech for years, of wanting to use the gracious Speech to create dividing lines. I read of cunning wheezes devised in the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit or by those bosom buddies, the Lord President of the Council and Mr Balls, to trap the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives into the wrong side of a couple of headlines in the Daily Mail. This obsession with headlines before reality sums up everything that is wrong with this dying Government. At a time when we need unity and common purpose, the Government plot division and party advantage.

One of the most striking things in the Speech was Her Majesty’s reference to the 60th anniversary of the Commonwealth and her attendance at CHOGM—the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. What a lasting force for good the Commonwealth is, and how much it owes to Her Majesty’s personal and unswerving vision and dedication. I hope that on that occasion your Lordships might consider a Loyal Address to thank Her Majesty for her service to a great international institution. After all, she has been there from the beginning.

Turning to ourselves—always a popular subject in this House—I know that the sharp eared among us will have noticed, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, a reference to a draft Bill, no less, on a reformed second Chamber with a democratic mandate. In 1994, in the month in which he became Leader of the Opposition Tony Blair declared in his keynote speech:

“The House of Lords should be replaced by an elected second Chamber”.

Now, more than 15 years later, we have proposals for a draft Bill. In between, we have had the proposals of my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his royal commission; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who had two goes at it; the late Robin Cook; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton; and now Mr Jack Straw. In that time, however, we have never seen so much as a whiff of a Bill for a democratic mandate.

Now, at the midnight hour, a draft Bill is whisked out of the box. If the intention is to create a dividing line, we will not play ball, but if it is meant seriously, albeit impossibly late, can the noble Baroness, who will have had a hand in crafting this daring little sentence in the Speech, tell us how your Lordships will be permitted a say on plans for our future?

Even if we count the days before Christmas, there are just 28 days left to legislate before a March election and 41 before a May one. How many of the proposed Bills will be starters in this House? That will help to make progress, but it will not put a quart into a pint pot. With four parliamentary days being the minimum to get the smallest Bill through with normal scrutiny by this House—it looks as though some of these Bills will take several days in Committee—this is a fantasy programme, as the Government know full well. There is no question of delay, but every Bill must be properly scrutinised because, if passed, it becomes the law of the land. This House cannot surrender its duty to see that the law is sound just to oblige a Government on whom the sands of time are running out. We will act responsibly, but we will not needlessly cut corners. That needs to be understood from the very start, and I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will be of the same view. Rushed law is almost invariably botched law. We will hold up nothing, but we will wave nothing through unless such urgency is overwhelmingly in the national interest.

I hope that no stones will be cast at this House for doing its job. We all know that we will be back for the same ceremony in a few months’ time. This is the first time in many years that we have had a fifth Session speech. The year 1991 provided a rare exception to a rule of the past 50 years—1963, 1978, 1996—that a fifth Session speech often precedes major political change. Whatever happens next, this is my 11th speech on this occasion from the Dispatch Box and, one way or another, it may well be my last as Opposition Leader. It has been a great privilege.

In these days of restless constitutional change, the House, in often difficult and contentious circumstances, has acquitted itself well. Since 1997, we have passed more than 400 Labour Government Bills. Many have not been the best Bills. The fact that we have had nearly 50 criminal justice Bills does not suggest that the Home Office got it right the first time round. It has not been the place of this House to challenge the legislation of the elected Government and to try to stamp its authority on another place. The House has taken some notable stands. The struggle over jury trial and extended detention without trial—matters which were never put to the British people at an election—come to mind. We have improved many Bills within our place as a revising Chamber. But, at the end of the day, if the other place has insisted in a considered manner, we have normally, properly deferred to the elected House. The events of 1999 cast doubt on the relations between the two Houses, but since then your Lordships, in your wisdom, have found an equilibrium. Although highhanded at first, the Government for their part have come to respect rather more the advice of this place. Although its judgment can always be made final, it is a good thing for another place to take time to reflect on what your Lordships say, rather than coming out with knee-jerk reactions that whatever is suggested here today will be overturned tomorrow. I hope that it will stay that way. But the system also works because we, the unelected House, whether the Opposition was the largest political party or not, have respected well established conventions. We do not disrupt; we do not wreck; we do not claim a rival mandate; we do not delay. My party guarantees that, win or lose next year, that respect between the Houses will remain.

From the position of Leader of the Opposition, on this the last gracious Speech of this Parliament, I should like to thank Peers on all sides, in this world where politics is so exaggeratedly derided, for their constant commitment and dedication to the work of this House. From our different perspectives, I like to think we have come together to give good advice and to make better law. I fear that this speech before us has little to be made of it. But I know that in the serious tasks ahead in future Parliaments, your Lordships will approach the great responsibilities of this House with the same good sense, good will and balance you have shown these past 12 years. I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

My Lords, before I go into the meat of my speech, I should comment on what I thought was a rather muted cheer from the government Benches when the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, paid tribute to the Chief Whip.

Oh!

Listen, my Lords. I have a definition of being a Chief Whip:

“Being chief whip is a case of endeavouring to give information early and being very pleasant to people”.

That is the opinion of my noble friend Lord Shutt. It certainly fits, especially with an enforcer like Josie.

My first and most pleasant duty is to add my congratulations to the proposer and seconder of the humble Address. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, reminded us, has had a most distinguished trade union career, followed by an equally successful ministerial career. She is now one of the grandes dames of the House, sitting usually on the Privy Council Bench like a Baroness Trumpington in waiting. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, comes to us with an outstanding record of community and educational service on both sides of the Pennines. I can bring to the House the information that that record is approved by no less a person than the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, of Pendle. Ministers will know that it is not the easiest thing to get the seal of approval from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, of Pendle. Indeed, successive leaders of the Liberal Democrats have found that it is not that easy.

Although he is no longer in his place, I shall use this opportunity to welcome back to the House the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who gave us a scare a few weeks ago. However, it has now been made clear to him that in no way can he leave us until he has given us the answer to the Barnett formula.

One of the pleasures of speaking in this slot at the very beginning of the Queen’s Speech debate is that it gives me the opportunity to follow my very good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. As he has reminded us, it is his 11th speech as Leader of the Opposition. That continuity encouraged me to do a little historical research. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has now been Leader of the Opposition for longer than the 10-year record in the 20th century of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I researched further and found that only Lord Derby in the 19th century spent longer as opposition leader—17 years. Tom, I tell you with all sincerity that there are many in this House who would like to see you go on and beat Lord Derby’s record.

Last year I introduced the concept of “boing” into our study of politics. For those noble Lords who were not awake at the time, “boing” is the phenomenon, rather like the echo of Big Ben across the Thames from St Tommy’s hospital, whereby a good idea from the Liberal Democrats is played back a short time later as government policy. The concept is now so fully accepted that I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is running seminars on it at the University of Hull.

This year I should like to bring another concept—“pouffe”. “Pouffe” is what happens when a notable talent joins the Prime Minister’s Government as one of the GOATs. They appear at the Dispatch Box; we all admire them—and then “pouffe”. The noble Lord, Lord Jones—“pouffe”. The noble Lord, Lord Carter—“pouffe”. The noble Baroness, Lady Vadera—“pouffe”. The noble Lord, Lord Darzi—“pouffe”. The noble Lord, Lord Malloch-Brown—“pouffe”.

There are two notable exceptions. Who can read the first lines of the epic poem “Casabianca” without bringing into mind the behaviour of the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead? We all know the first lines:

“The boy stood on the burning deck,

Whence all but he had fled”.

The admiral, good sailor that he is, has clearly decided to go down with the ship. In contrast is the case of the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, who seems to have gone from landing stage to lifeboat without bothering to join the ship at all. [Laughter.] The Benches opposite are not supposed to laugh at that. The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, is not laughing.

The sad fact is that the Prime Minister is now a very lonely goatherd. There is a death rattle about the Government that the gracious Speech did little to dispel. On both the economy and constitutional reform, there is a desperate scramble to get on the record intentions to do things that have been left undone. On the economy, recent events have made a mockery of the Prime Minister’s hubris in his decade-long claim to have removed boom and bust from the economic cycle, based on a housing bubble and loose credit. On constitutional reform, the Government do not have even the fig leaf of world events to cover their failures. It is almost beyond belief that a Labour Government, equipped with large parliamentary majorities, which would have been increased further by support from the Liberal Democrats, waited until the last six months of their third Parliament to bring forward ideas on electoral reform, Commons reform and Lords reform.

The rush of good intentions is easy to understand. The electorate now see clearly that reform is a matter not just for anoraks who attend Constitution Unit and Hansard Society seminars. People now understand that there is a direct linkage between the quality of the rules that govern our politics and the quality of governance that such rules provide. As one newspaper put it the other day, if the Conservatives emerge from the upcoming election with a 5 per cent lead in the popular vote but without a parliamentary majority, even they might concede that the present voting system frustrates rather than reflects the will of the people.

As for Lords and Commons reform, the sad truth is that this Labour Government have missed the boat and the Conservatives have never wanted to catch it in the first place. Voters in the general election will be left in no doubt that only a vote for the Liberal Democrats will guarantee that electoral and parliamentary reform are pursued with the vigour that the present crisis of confidence in our politics demands.

In the mean time, we will look at the constitutional measures in the Queen’s Speech and those presently before Parliament with an eye to the national good. We are not interested in simply making running repairs to the reputation of a Government who have spent 10 years arguing in Cabinet and dithering.

As my right honourable friend Nick Clegg has pointed out, this gracious Speech is no more than a charade concocted by a Government who have run out of ideas but who dare not go to the country. As a result, we find ourselves in a political never-never land of the Government’s own making. We will co-operate with those measures where urgency is required—for example, the digital revolution mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. The technological changes around it do not work to a government or parliamentary timetable, so we will help where we can with the Digital Britain Bill.

Let me lay down a marker, however, to both Labour and Conservative parties: whatever Faustian pacts for electoral support they try to make with international media moguls, we on these Benches will fight tooth and nail to protect the integrity of our public service broadcasting. The battle will go beyond the Digital Britain Bill and the general election and into the next Parliament, but I am grateful to Mr James Murdoch, the Sun newspaper and the behaviour of Fox News in the United States for so clearly drawing the battle lines. I find it shaming to watch the government and opposition parties fawning over people to whom Mr Baldwin or Mr Attlee would not have given the time of day. I know that times have changed, but being the best politician a media mogul can buy does not seem to me to be a qualification for high office.

I have reached the point in my speech where I usually promise the Government support where we think that their proposals are good and constructive criticism where we think that they are bad. However, over the next week, my colleagues will use the debate on the gracious Speech to look beyond this charade within a charade. We will expose the quite literal bankruptcy of the Government’s case, but we shall also point out that a Conservative Party that aspires to lead must explain how it intends to defend Britain’s interest in trade talks, climate change, energy security or the war on drug trafficking, people trafficking and terrorism while alienating itself from the broad centre right in Europe and making common cause with its more eccentric fringes. Indeed, there was a timely warning on that from the Lord Mayor in this week’s Mansion House speech.

My party has a more solid bedrock of support than it has had in over 80 years. It has demonstrated its capacity to take responsibility in government in six out of our eight largest cities. It has been shown to be right on the major issues of the day—on the environment, Iraq, the economy and the urgent need for radical constitutional reform to bring fair votes and a clean Parliament. Like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, we will do our job on these Benches as long as the Government keep us here, but we are ready to take our case to the country whenever the Government dare to go. In the mean time, new Labour can take satisfaction in the fact that the song that it came in singing is now sung by the whole country—“Things Can Only Get Better”.

My Lords, it is again an enormous pleasure and privilege for me to follow the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord McNally. I very much hope that the electorate will allow me to be able to say the same next year. As we all know, we are now election bound, so every political journalist has been saying that this is the final gracious Speech and the final programme from this Government before the general election. Some have gone further in their use of the word “final”, insisting that the programme set out in today’s gracious Speech will be the final programme from this Labour Government. Well, we shall have to wait and see. The media may well be powerful and may see themselves as the fount of all wisdom, but the actual decision will not be for the media. In this country, the decision is taken by the people, not the papers.

Today, we as the Government have set out our legislative programme for the coming Session in the gracious Speech. The Leader of the Opposition in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—as well as helpfully informing the press this morning what he will and will not be allowing through this House—represents a political party which at least would like to be presenting its programme in the gracious Speech today. However, I think it is discourteous, to say the least, for his party leader to describe today the gracious Speech of Her Majesty as “a waste of time”. But the noble Lord, Lord McNally, represents in this House a party which apparently would, according to the noble Lord’s party Leader—though even he admitted it would be a “tall order”—have cancelled today’s gracious Speech and put forward no legislative programme at all. Welcome, my Lords, to the weird and wonderful world of the Liberal Democrats.

Leaving aside the politics, in following the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord McNally, I do want to thank them both for all that they do—not so much for their parties, obviously; politics is politics, after all—for the House as a whole. The nature of this House, and one of its very many plus points, is that we, as Leaders, work closely together—but not too closely. Sadly, both the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord McNally, were absent from the House a little earlier this year when they were both, separately, struck down with swine flu. From the amount of time which as Leader you spend with your opposite numbers from the principal opposition parties, I clearly might be categorised as being in a high-risk group. However, I have managed to avoid catching it thus far.

They have a close and interesting relationship themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has something of a reputation for punctuality, one that from time to time he pushes to extremes, and even perhaps occasionally beyond the extremes. Just before last week’s Prorogation ceremony, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was testing his devotion to punctuality to the very limits of the concept, and had not yet arrived in the Prince’s Chamber while everyone else was robed up and ready to go. Perhaps slightly curiously, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, then likened the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to the classic crooner, Bing Crosby, pointing out that Bing was widely known in the recording business as “One-Take Crosby” for his habit of turning up at the very last minute, and making a single-take but definitive recording. At that moment, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, arrived and we processed into the Chamber for our single take at Prorogation. Not many of us have, I think, previously noticed the similarity between the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and Bing Crosby but we are, as ever, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his insights.

If the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is Bing Crosby, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McNally, could be seen as his long-time partner in the “Road To…” films, Bob Hope, with all the jokes if not quite yet all the longevity. Hope is, after all, pretty important to opposition parties. After the Conservative Party’s defeats in 1997, 2001 and 2005, a win in next year’s election for the party of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would be a triumph of hope over experience. Given that the last Liberal Administration in this country were elected in 1910, the outcome of the coming general election for the party of the noble Lord, Lord McNally—ever hopeful, ever optimistic and ever just on the point of breaking through—is, sadly for them, much more likely to be a triumph of experience over hope.

In paying tribute to both Tom and Tom for everything that they do for your Lordship’s House, however, I would very much like to associate the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, with my remarks. As well as being an excellent convenor of her flock, the noble Baroness plays an essential part in the running and operation of this House. She is wonderfully sage and steady, and manages extraordinarily well the difficult balancing act of involving Cross-Bench Peers as fully as possible in the work and running of the House, while at all times strenuously maintaining strict political neutrality and independence. It is a remarkable achievement for the benefit of the whole House.

In the leadership that all three demonstrate, they are a credit to their respective groupings and to this House, which has an enormous amount for which to thank them. Yet with the general election coming up, there will be little or no room between the principal political parties for political neutrality. It will be an important and a hard-fought election. It will be an election where we as the governing party on these Benches will be proud to stand and fight on our record. If the opinion polls are right, however, we go into the election as the underdog. We know that we have a hill to climb, but we know too that we will be presenting the public with a clear choice: between this party, which will offer change for the mainstream middle of the country, and the party opposite, which will offer change to the benefit of the privileged few—change of the right kind against change of the wrong kind.

That choice will be spelt out in the key issues on which the Government will continue to focus in this new parliamentary Session. There will be a relentless focus on the economy, moving Britain out of a recession generated by the world economic slowdown, and back toward growth and jobs. We will continue to fight hard against crime and against anti-social behaviour. We will focus on public services, especially parent and patient rights, cancer and national social care. We believe in the enabling power of the state—a smarter state—unlike the party opposite, which seeks to use the recession to shrink the state and diminish its role. We will focus on environmental issues, especially in the wake of the outcome of the Copenhagen summit next month, on Afghanistan and on the new Europe, following the commencement next month of the new arrangements following the ratified Lisbon treaty.

On all of those issues, our position is clear. I am much less clear about the position of the party opposite, but that is because the party opposite is much less clear on them and, indeed, on many, many other issues. That, too, will form part of the choice before the British public: a clear programme and a serious record under Labour, and a shadowy punt in the dark from the party opposite. The vision for Britain of the party opposite is fundamentally pessimistic, of a Britain that is broken. Our vision is the opposite: forging a stronger, fairer Britain for the many not the few, with action against inaction, solid achievement against slick salesmanship, policy-driven politics against personality-driven politics and substance against superficiality. That will be the choice.

That choice is also the principal theme behind the Government’s programme as set out in the gracious Speech—a programme of tough action on the big issues that matter to people, in line with the Government’s core values of fairness and responsibility. In line with this argument, the Government’s programme for the coming Session is substantial, so, as well as ensuring protection for savers and lenders by continuing to reform the regulation of the financial services industry, we will bring forward legislation to strengthen governance in the financial sector and to deal with excessive bank bonuses. We will bring forward legislation enshrining in law the objective to halve the current deficit. We will ensure that debt is at a sustainable level.

I am particularly focused on the Personal Care at Home Bill, which will be an enormous step towards a new national care service. This will be an important issue for my party in the coming Session and the coming election; and an important issue, too, for the hundreds of thousands of carers in this country, who spend too much of their time still battling with the system. Our legislation on the digital economy will modernise our communications infrastructure, helping to create jobs and growth in this vital sector. Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I also believe that my party wishes to defend public sector broadcasting.

We will continue to enshrine in law our commitment to abolish child poverty over the next decade. We will bring in legislation to support carbon capture and storage, and to help the most vulnerable people in society with their energy bills. We will legislate on gang crime, pupil and parent guarantees, bribery and further reform of this House. Further to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, which the Government have already introduced in the other place, my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor will bring forward legislative proposals to provide a democratic mandate for this Chamber—a policy that I know the party opposite is on record as fully supporting. I note the very right question of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about how this House will be fully involved. I will inform the House when I can of what its involvement will be. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said at our party’s annual conference earlier this autumn, at the forthcoming election we will ask the public for “a clear mandate to make this House an accountable and democratic second Chamber for the very first time”.

This is a good programme and a substantial programme. It is a programme ahead of an election, of course, but it is a proper legislative programme, laying foundations for the future. A number of Bills in the Government’s programme will begin their parliamentary passage in your Lordships’ House. I can confirm that these will include a Bill on bribery, a Bill on the digital economy and a Bill on cluster munitions. I want to thank the Members of this House, especially my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for all the work that they have done over many years, which has helped to bring this Bill about.

Other Bills may also start in this House, depending on the outcome of discussions. A good deal of the House’s time immediately, though, will focus on the Government’s Bill on equalities—and a good deal of my time, too, as I will be the Minister with principal responsibility for taking the Bill through this House, together with my noble friend Lady Thornton. Of course, we look to all sides of your Lordships’ House for support for this very important Bill. It may well be that, for all I know, the Bill’s provisions against the scourge of discrimination on grounds of age will prove particularly popular in this House. We shall see.

I am genuinely delighted to congratulate my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean on her excellent speech. My noble friend’s timely and enormously important emphasis on the value of public service—very much including the Members of this House—was a significant and essential corrective to what at times recently has been said about both this House and the nature, value and importance of public service generally. I happen to know that my noble friend Lady Symons was, at the weekend, preparing her remarks for moving the Motion today at the same time as making, stirring and cooking her Christmas cake and Christmas pudding. I cannot tell you how I know this, obviously; wild horses would not be able to tear from my lips the name of my source. From my knowledge of my noble friend it is only remarkable that she was merely doing two things at once, rather than the many things that she manages to do at the same time in what is, for her, the normal run of things.

Her career before she entered your Lordships’ House is testament to that, as is her distinguished career in government. In your Lordships’ House she of course served as Deputy Leader and, indeed, in my opinion was the best Leader that this House never had. I take an opportunity to pay special tribute to my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington, a former Leader who has a very significant birthday today; I am sure we all wish her well. Since stepping down from the Government, my noble friend Lady Symons has been equally energetic. As well as her extensive work beyond this House, she is a highly active and involved Member of your Lordships’ House—a formidable debater, a tireless diplomat and a complete advocate of and for this House. From time to time I look at my noble friend and thank my lucky stars that she is on this side of the Chamber. As Lord Wellington remarked, “I don’t know what effect she has on the enemy, but by God, she terrifies me”. She is, and has been, an extraordinarily wise and generous counsel to me, and—if I may speak personally for a moment—I know all too well the impact on her family life of the day-by-day, week-by-week, weekend-by-weekend work carried out on behalf of this House and all its Members. I am proud to call her a friend.

And so too with my noble friend Lord Patel of Bradford. I also thank my noble friend for his delightful speech. He rightly and courageously referred to his own trajectory in this House. Though that caused some comment at the time, his contribution today and all his work in the House as a Cross-Bencher, a Back-Bencher and a Front-Bencher clearly demonstrate what an important asset he is to your Lordships’ House. His work in social care, healthcare, mental health, on the drugs issue, equality and diversity demonstrates a range and a commitment, as well as formidable knowledge and expertise, which single him out in your Lordships’ House. What he has done before coming to your Lordships’ House is astonishing. There are few, if any, ambulance workers who go on to be university academics, rather fewer still who then come into your Lordships’ House. His advisory and then Front-Bench work with the Department for Communities and Local Government on community relations and drugs-related issues was powerful and of real value. He is now pursuing work of great importance at his university. The pressure of that work has drawn him away from the Front-Bench work he had been carrying out in this House, and his university’s gain is unquestionably this House’s loss. That point has been very much reinforced in his speech to your Lordships’ House today. His wit, range, erudition and optimism were all to the fore, and I, and I am sure the House as a whole, are grateful to him.

I thank my ministerial colleagues on these Benches for the work that they do. We have seen the departure of some ministerial colleagues this year, including some of the so-called “goats”. As the principal goatherd in this House—I do not feel at all lonely—I believe that these Ministers certainly add a dash and a verve to the House. Recently, when appearing before a Select Committee in the other place, my noble friend Lord West of Spithead was asked whether he had in fact brought a touch of glitter to your Lordships’ House. My noble friend, whose sense of style and dress is far from being confined to an annual appearance in ermine on the day of the gracious Speech, confessed, with appropriate modesty, that perhaps his appointment had indeed added a certain glitter.

My noble friend Lord Adonis, once outrageously described by one of our journalistic friends as “more Andrew than Adonis”, was also giving evidence, and was faced with a question from the chair of the committee saying, “I do not want you to think, Andrew, that the glitter question does not apply to you”. My noble friend Lord Adonis replied with his characteristic self-deprecation that he thought he perhaps had not been brought into your Lordships’ House solely for the purpose of adding glitter. All I can say is that my noble friend Lord Adonis is indeed an adornment to these Benches, and to the whole House.

I am glad to see some of the newer Members of your Lordships’ House getting on so well. I was especially struck by how quickly one particular newcomer, my noble friend Lord Mandelson, who does not do fawning, had moved from being The Spectator magazine’s newcomer of the year last year to the same magazine’s politician of the year this year—a move with something of the speed of an express train and, like an express train, without, as it were, stopping at any intervening stations. It even indicates that he may perhaps have had just a touch of experience of politics before entering your Lordships’ House.

I pay tribute, too, to all the government Whips, ably led by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, for the enormous amount of work and responsibility that they take on. I give especial thanks to all in the Whips’ Office for the, I hope, unseen but essential contribution that they make to the running of this House. Though the Lord Speaker is far from unseen in this Chamber, she, too, makes an essential contribution. I am delighted to see her in her place today, and I thank her for all the help and support that she has given me in particular over the past year. All those who work in and around this House to help make it what it is deserve and have our heartfelt thanks, especially on a day like today when they pull out all the plugs.

This House saw significant change this year with the departure of the Law Lords to the new Supreme Court. We rightly and properly paid tribute to that important change in October. The opening of the Supreme Court was one of the high points of the year. There have, though, been low points too, and those low points have been very low. Parliament and politics have indeed been brought low this year, principally because of the activities of a minority of Members of the other place, but not wholly so: sadly, this House has contributed too. Just because most of the public focus has been on the Commons, we in this House cannot be complacent—and we have not been. We have taken action—decisive action—which some thought was beyond us. But it was action which showed that this House has been, is and will be resolute in defending proper principles and proper practices and in not seeking to defend principles and practices which are far from proper.

I said back in January that this House is an honourable and hardworking place. We must sustain the many, many good things it does, the way it does them, and the people who do them here. However, I said then, too, that if there are wrongs with this House, they must be righted, and if there are abuses, they must be rooted out. We must put this House—our own House—in order. I meant that then, and I mean it now.

We know that there has been an unprecedented degree of scrutiny of this House and Members of this House. Some of it has been inaccurate. Some of it has been unfair. Some of it has been grossly distorted. But some of it, though uncomfortable, has provided important and legitimate scrutiny. Where that has been the case, we have taken action. As a result, we in this House face some important decisions in the immediate future.

First, on our code of conduct for Members of this House, the group I set up as Leader under the chairmanship of the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Eames, to examine and make recommendations on our code of conduct has produced what I believe the overwhelming majority of Members of this House consider to be an excellent report. Secondly, on the review into financial support for Members of this House currently being carried out by the Senior Salaries Review Body, we do not yet have a final date for publication, although my understanding is that it will be published shortly. Both issues will lead to important decisions for this House, but I know that the House will take them with its usual judgment, balance and wisdom.

We have had a very challenging year—a year in which politics and Parliament, the other place and, yes, this House too, have faced real controversy and real public anger. But it was a year in which we have, despite all the challenges, got on with the business of what we do. In this House last week, we completed a lengthy and arduous Session. We sat for a total of 134 days, and I thank the business managers and the usual channels for all the skill they applied and the hard work they put in to make sure that the Session went as well as it did. We passed 22 government Bills and five other Bills reached Royal Assent. We took 66 Oral Statements. We debated 56 Questions for Short Debate. A total of 484 Oral Questions were answered by Ministers and Whips, and, by the end of last week, a total of 6,337 Questions for Written Answer were, indeed, answered.

Only in this House could a series of Oral Questions about bees be given, quite properly, the attention that the issue deserves. Only in this House could distinguished former senior members of the Armed Forces make clear their criticism of the Government. It is not criticism that I share or like, but I absolutely support their right to voice their views in this House. Only in this House could issues such as assisted dying be considered in such a decent, learned, knowledgeable and thoughtful way.

That is the House of Lords of which we are all Members. That is the House of Lords of which we are all proud to be Members. It is not the House of Lords as some seek to paint it, week by week, in the Sunday papers, because we know that we have a House of Lords which is informed, reasonable, wise and valuable. It is a House of Lords which is a central part of the legislative process and of Parliament, and it is a House of Lords which is one of the essential checks and balances of the constitution of our country.

Like many, indeed most of its Members, I love this House: what it does, how it does it, why it does it, what it is for. And, of course, I thank the people in it, on all sides, and what they bring to the House.

I am proud to be Leader of this House, and although my loyalty to my party is fundamental—I am proud to be a member of the people’s party—I am particularly proud that my role is Leader not just of the Government Benches, but of the House as a whole. My job is to lead this House, and that is what I have tried to do over the past year. My job is to serve this House, and that too is what I have tried to do over the past year. It is a job that I am proud and privileged, and at the same time humbled, to do. It is a job that I relish, despite the difficulties we have faced together. That is why I look forward to seeing and hearing the House at its best over the next few days, when it debates the issues which will form the basis of the coming Session and of the election to follow.

I look forward to the debates on the gracious Speech; I look forward to the final Session of this Parliament; I look forward to the general election to come; and I commend the gracious Speech to the House.

Debate adjourned until tomorrow.