18/05/2016 Wednesday in Parliament

Hello, and welcome to Wednesday in Parliament.

On the day the Queen came to Westminster for the state

opening, unveiling the bills the Government wants to make

into law in the next few months.

And the day politicians began their arguments over

the rights and wrongs of what's proposed.

This Government does not team to understand that cuts

have their consequences.

We are building a greater Britain again, with a sound economy, strong

defences and opportunity for all.

But first -

Her Majesty the Queen carried out the State Opening of Parliament,

reading out a speech that contained 21 bills.

The day began with the traditional pageantry of the State Opening,

with the Queen travelling to Westminster.

Parts of the annual ceremony date back as far

as the 14th century.

Her Majesty was opening parliament for the 63rd time in her reign,

accompanied, as ever, by the Duke of Edinburgh,

but also by the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.

As the Royal party made its way to Westminster,

in the House of Lords, peers in their traditional bright

red robes, had taken their seats.

Some familiar faces could be spotted among the sea of ermine, including

the former leader of the Commons, Sir George Young,

former health secretary Andrew Lansley and TV presenter

and Lib Dem, Floella Benjamin.

With the Lords in place, the Queen arrived at the

Sovereign's Entrance at Parliament.

In Parliament's Central Lobby came the familiar command,

shouted by a police inspector.

Hat's off, strangers.

The words that signal the start of the Commons Speaker's Procession.

The Speaker went through the members' lobby,

with MPs looking on,

and into the Commons chamber.

Then, the fanfare by the trumpets, and the Queen, now wearing her robes

of state and crown, moved through the Royal Gallery

to the House of Lords.

The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh took their places

on the thrones in the Lords.

And so Black Rod was sent to summons MPs from the Commons

to hear the speech.

Then the traditional slamming of the Commons door

in the face of Black Rod, a symbol of the supremacy

and independence of MPs.

Black Rod knocked three times and was then let in.

Black Rod summoned the MPs.

And there was the now traditional heckle from veteran Labour

backbencher Dennis Skinner.

Hands off the BBC!

Then that walk through from the Commons to the Lords.

Usually there's some chat between the party leaders,

but this year Jeremy Corbyn avoided any small talk with David Cameron.

The many MPs slowly funnelled into the Lords, some familiar

figures very visible, such as Hilary Benn, Boris Johnson

and the SNP's Westminster leader, Angus Robertson.

And with MPs gathered at the bar of the Lords,

the Lord Chancellor Michael Gove handed the Queen her copy

of the speech to read.

And the contents of the Speech revealed.

To spread economic prosperity, my Government will continue

to support the development of a Northern Powerhouse.

to support the development of a Northern Powerhouse.

In England, further powers will be devolved to directly elected mayors,

including powers governing local bus services.

My Government will continue work to deliver NHS services over seven

days of the week in England.

Legislation will be introduced to ensure that overseas visitors pay

for the health treatment they receive at public expense.

A bill will be introduced to ensure that children can be adopted

by new families without delay, improve the standard of social work

and opportunities for young people in care in England.

My Government will legislate to reform prisons and courts,

to give individuals a second chance.

Prison governors will be given unprecedented freedom,

and they will be able to ensure prisoners receive better education.

Old and inefficient prisons will be closed, and new institutions built

where prisoners can be put more effectively to work.

Action will also be taken to ensure better mental health provision

to individuals in the criminal justice system.

My Government will continue to work to bring communities together

and strengthen society.

Legislation will be introduced to prevent radicalisation,

tackle extremism in all its forms, and promote community integration.

My ministers will invest in Britain's Armed Forces,

honouring the military covenant and meeting the Nato

commitment to spend 2% of national income on defence.

They will also act to secure the long-term future

of Britain's nuclear deterrent.

My Government will hold a referendum on membership of the European Union.

Proposals will be brought forward for a British Bill of Rights.

The Queen, giving the speech written for her by the Government

and setting out the bills ministers plan to introduce over this session.

When the Commons reassembled a couple of hours later,

the Labour Leader gave his response, rounding on David Cameron's claim

to be striving to make a more equal society.

Still this Government do not seem to understand that

cuts have consequences.

When you cut adult social care, it has an impact on National

Health Service accident and emergency departments.

When you saddle young people with more debt,

it impedes their ability to buy a home or start a family.

When you fail to build housing and cap housing benefit,

homelessness and the number of families in temporary

accommodation increase.

When you slash local authorities budgets,

then leisure centres, libraries and children s

centres close.

When you close fire stations and cut firefighters jobs,

response times increase and more people are in danger

of dying in fires.

This austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity.

It is a wrong choice for our country, made by a Government

with the wrong priorities.

Mr Corbyn spoke at length, going through the measures in the speech,

with Conservatives becoming increasingly restless and noisy

as Mr Corbyn refused to give way.

Point of order, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, am I not right in thinking

that it is a customary courtesy within this House for people,

though they do not have to, to give way in speeches that last

over 20 minutes?

The essence of the honourable gentleman s point was encapsulated

in that first sentence - customary, but it is not required.

Mr Corbyn pressed on, turning to the measures on prisons.

We will scrutinise carefully proposals to give prison

governors more freedom.

It seems the policies of this Government have been to give greater

freedoms to prisoners.

That is the consequence of overcrowding prisons and cutting

one third of dedicated prison officer positions.

We welcome proposals to give greater time for education and reform

and to reduce reoffending rates.

He moved onto the counter-extremism proposals.

Everyone in this House understands the risks

posed by terrorism.

This city, London, has experienced it before,

as have other cities around the world.

We will of course support strong measures to give the police

and security services the resources they need, but we will also support

checks and balances to ensure that powers are used appropriately.

And he concluded.

Mr Speaker, if anyone want to deliver a more equal society,

Mr Speaker, if anyone wants to deliver a more equal society,

an economy that works for everyone and a society in which there

is opportunity for all, it takes an active Government,

not the driverless car heading in the wrong direction that we have

with the present Government.

Then it was the turn of the Prime Minister,

who focused on improving life chances.

When I became Prime Minister, some social workers were refusing

to place black, mixed race or Asian children with

white adoptive parents.

I think that that is profoundly wrong and we changed

the law to prevent it.

As a result of that change and the other things we have done,

adoption is today up 72%, but there is still a lot more to do.

Believing in opportunity means never writing anyone off.

For too long the young offender institutions and prisons in our

country have not been working.

They give the public the security of knowing that offenders are locked

in, but they are not doing enough to turn around the lives of people

who will one day be let out.

So in our prisons, we are going to apply the lessons learned

in other public service reforms - publishing results, giving

the people who run the services proper control over them,

encouraging innovation, rewarding success, and not

tolerating persistent failure.

I give way to the honourable from Brighton.

I'm grateful to him for giving way.

If the Prime Minister is serious about prison reform,

why have prison budgets been slashed by a third since 2010,

at exactly the same time as the prison

populations are growing?

Given that 47,000 prisoners are currently incarcerated

for offences linked to drug use, is not it time to review

a policy that treats drug addicts only as criminals,

rather than as people who need our support as well?

I would make a number of points to the honourable lady.

First, I really think that we need to get away from the idea

that you only measure progress in public services by the amount

of money that is spent.

The whole aim here is to try to do more with less.

That is what we have done with so many parts

of the public sector.

For decades, we have been cramming people

into crumbling prisons that

were built for a different age, many of which, frankly,

are now unfit for human habitation.

These buildings do not help rehabilitation.

Indeed, they are rife with bullying, intimidation and violence.

So we have made a ?1.3 billion commitment to get rid

of ageing prisons and build nine new prisons with

modern, fit-for-purpose facilities.

Once again, this is bold reform from a progressive,

one-nation Conservative Government.

I give way to the honourable gentleman.

I'm grateful to the Prime Minister, but could he explain to the House

why figures for suicides in prison, attacks on prison staff

and contraband going into prison have gone up?

Could it be anything to do with the fact that there are 7000

fewer prison officers than there were in 2010?

As we were discussing this morning, one of the reasons for these

problems is the availability of legal highs in our prisons,

which we need to deal with, but I do not think that it is right

simply to lay this at the door.

What we need is prisons that are run well, where the management

are in control, and where they are able to turn around

the lives of the people who are there.

It is all very well for Labour to ask questions, but they had

13 years to reform our prisons.

It took a reforming Tory Government to put it on the agenda.

While a Conservative intervened to ask about the counter-extremism

proposals in the speech.

Extremists are adept at grooming and brainwashing our young people.

Does the Prime Minister agree that we should be even bolder

in offering greater support and encouragement to the brave

Muslims in our community who seek to stand up and challenge

the intolerance and hatred that is exported by Daesh?

My honourable friend is absolutely right.

Why what she says is so important is this -

if we give in to the idea that spokesmen who are extremist

but not violent can somehow represent their communities,

we completely disempower the moderate voices who want us

to stand up for the liberal values that we should champion

in this House.

And he concluded.

Mr Speaker, Britain has come a long way since the depth

of Labour s recession.

We are building homes again, with over 700,000 more since 2010.

We are creating jobs again, with over two million more

people in work.

We are investing in our NHS again, with almost 10,000 more doctors...

Over 10,000 more nurses on our wards than in 2010.

We are building a greater Britain again, with a sound economy,

strong defences and opportunity for all.

These are the actions of a progressive, one-nation

Conservative Government, and I commend this

speech to the House.

Well, it wasn't what was in the Queen's Speech but what wasn't

that seemed to exercise most the speakers that followed

the Prime Minister in the first day of debate on the Government's

new legislative programme.

The SNP's leader at Westminster began by noting that nearly

all of the bills set out in the speech only affected

England and Wales.

They relate to education, to adoption, to reforms

to democratic processes.

So when the Prime Minister talks about this being a one-nation

Queen's Speech, we on these benches know which nation

he's talking about.

Mr Robertson then set out some of the things that he would rather

have heard and seen.

A Scotland Home Rule Bill, a replacement for the House

of Lords, tough new rules on arms sales.

But most of all...

At the top of our list of what we have proposed

in advance of today's Queen's Speech, is a need

for an emergency summer budget.

Why?

Because it would give the Government an opportunity to put

about an end to austerity.

It could bring about an inclusive, prosperous economy through a modest

investment in infrastructure and vital public services.

The proposals are detailed.

It would be to boost investment and halt

the austerity programme that has strangled economic progress.

And the Lib Dems had a wishlist too.

An ambitious plan for housing that actually builds homes that

are genuinely affordable.

And rather than tinkering with Parliament,

let's replace the other place with a fully elected second chamber,

as the honourable member rightly pointed out moments ago.

Governments do sometimes get tired and clapped out

and run out of ideas.

But it usually takes 12 years, and not 12 months.

Others focused on the issue of the moment.

At the heart of this gracious speech is the statement,

"My ministers will uphold the sovereignty of Parliament."

In my humble submission, the only way in which that can be

delivered is by leaving the European Union.

Because our very membership of the European Union undermines

the sovereignty of our Parliament.

I feel provoked by the honourable member for Christchurch.

To firstly declare my firm support for remaining in Europe.

But to be clear that that is for the security of citizens.

I spent three years negotiating on home affairs for the then

Labour Government for security and safety issues.

And it is my firm belief that if you're at the table,

you can make a difference, as we have done and continue to do.

But if you are not there, you cannot influence.

And if we vote out, the very next day, we will be

out for the discussions that are necessary.

One measure that was in the Speech, which many considered

to have been put on hold, was the promise of a consultation

on a Bill of Rights.

This idea of a British Bill of Rights has been knocking around

the lampshade like a demented moth for some little while.

And it may well be that if it got an armour-plated head it could carry

on knocking itself around the lampshade

for a good while longer.

I really do think it's a waste of intellectual and political energy

for this - to mix my metaphors - dead horse to be revived.

Ditching the Human Rights Act would be a comfort to would-be

tinpot despots around Europe, and I think should be resisted.

And this party certainly will be doing so.

We're not talking about this country withdrawing from

the Convention of Human Rights.

We're talking about this House asserting that the final arbiter

in terms of decision-making will be this sovereign parliament.

So that the sovereign parliament cannot be overridden,

especially when it comes to decisions which are clearly

and utterly opposed by the vast bulk of people of the United Kingdom,

right across the board.

In the Lords, Peers started their debate

on the Queen's Speech too.

Labour's Leader in the Upper House reflected on the LAST session,

which saw 60 government defeats and looked to the year ahead.

For your Lordship's House to do its job well, it

requires Noble Lords to

use their expertise, their knowledge and skills

to work effectively and

cooperatively to scrutinise legislation that often takes much

time and a lot of stamina.

Can I thank all the Noble Lords who engage

in many hours debate on bills, propose amendments and engage in

seeking to resolve a process that the Government should,

for the most part, find valuable and helpful.

We respect and will continue to respect

those well-established conventions that have served this House well.

I can pledge that we will continue to

be a good and effective and the responsible Opposition.

With a note to the reference in her speech to

the privacy of the Commons.

That is right, but let us not confuse that

over the laws which is very much the issue

and it is the importance of

the legislature, standing up to the Executive and holding

the Executive to account.

This House improves legislation.

Every minister will agree that their bill is better

for the scrutiny it receives here.

And our scrutiny served an important purpose.

Yes, to hold the Government to account, and to help give the

public confidence in the laws parliament makes.

So upholding our role in the chamber is important to me.

But if we want to be legitimate as an elected House, we do have to

be mindful of the limits of that role.

And I believe it must always be the elected House who have the

final say.

But there was plenty of humour, too.

A former Conservative Cabinet

Minister opened this debate.

He said it had been

"brave" of the Leader of the Lords to let him do this,

without having the slightest idea what he was going to say!

As a young light infantry squaddie, I was given a day off from

the training camp and coming up to London and finding we could slip

into the back row of these stalls for a brand-new American musical

that had arrived in London.

And I remember particularly one

part of it.

"101 pounds of fun, that's my little honeybun.

"Get a load of honeybun tonight!

"Speaking of my sweetie pie, only 60 inches high and

"every inch was packed with dynamite."

And I have to say, whatever her

height, she has grown in stature, as a member

now, a full member of the

Cabinet and one of the toughest jobs there is,

obviously coping with the

difficulties of the composition of your Lordship's House, and I pay

tribute to her and her leadership.

Then it was a new Peer's turn to speak.

The former

Scottish Conservative Leader said she wasn't sure why

she'd been chosen.

I do recall when attending one of the

delightful soirees, so charmingly hosted by the Leader of the House,

my noble friend, Baroness Stowell, making myself useful.

I trotted round with plates of canapes.

I thought I carried that off with some style, so this would

commended me the powers that be.

But if so, I have an uneasy sense of deception.

I would like to say that I was on that

occasion motivated to assist by social mores and a good Scottish

upbringing, but that would be disingenuous.

Quite simply, I had worked out it was the only way I

could obtain a regular and discreet access to the food.

This stratagem was entirely pragmatic.

Having been exposed to Edinburgh during 17 years

in the Scottish Parliament, I had no desire to find that the Edinburgh

custom, "You'll have had your tea!"

had been exported to

the Baroness's soirees!

Let's end the programme with the two MPs who spoke first

in the House of Commons.

Conservative Caroline Spelman opened the day's debate and

in keeping with tradition, she proposed the humble address

to the Queen to mark Her Majesty's speech to both Houses.

Kicking off the debate is considered a big honour and the job is always

given to a Government backbencher.

Ms Spelman reflected on the changing face of Parliament.

And that has changed since my first day here 19 years ago.

I was often the only woman in meetings.

I was one of very few women around a

Cabinet table with school-age children.

This could prove awkward.

Such as the Shadow Cabinet meeting interrupted by the news that one

of my sons

had fallen off a drainpipe at school.

In 1997, only 18% of MPs were women.

This has now risen to a total of almost 30%.

Not yet parity,

but we are heading in the right direction.

The speech was seconded by another Conservative who wondered

whether it was his experience in PR that had won him the honour.

As the House knows, I am a practising doctor.

Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, in a medical context, PR

does not stand for public relations.

But is shorthand for a type of examination

that involves putting on

rubber gloves, applying gel and asking a man to cough.

If I may give my right honourable friend the Prime Minister

a little advice, Mr Speaker?

If in the future he finds himself speaking

at a medical profession dinner, under no circumstances should he

tell the audience that in his life before politics, he was into PR and

that he found the work very stimulating.

If colleagues don't think I delivered the speech very

well today, just be grateful that we are not holding this

debate at a weekend, when I understand from some that

doctors don't perform as well.

Mr Speaker, I had hoped my medical background would be an

advantage in politics, but I have been disappointed.

My first came when I stood for election

as the Conservative party's candidate in Gwent.

I am not sure he is with us today, the current

member, but I'm sure he would agree that sporting a blue rosette

outside Kwik Save takes a certain type of character.

Mostly delusional.

Perhaps even masochistic.

In fact, the president of my consituency's

association, Mr Rob Stanton,

was elected to Wokingham Borough Council with more votes I received.

I was however able to comfort myself with the fact that my modest 816

votes nevertheless represented the biggest swing to

the Conservative Party of any candidate in Wales

that night.

In retrospect, I should have taken more note of the lady in the

market who when I asked her why she supported labour, she replied,

"Don't you get complicated with me!"

Philip Lee with his prescription for a life in politics.

And that debate on the Queen's speech continues for the rest

of this week and into next.

So do join me tomorrow at the same time for the best of the debate

in the Commons and the Lords.

But until then from me, Alicia McCarthy, goodbye.