Queen’s Speech 2006: Ming Campbell’s reply

I begin as is all too often necessary by joining the Prime Minister and the Right Honourable member for Witney in their expressions of sympathy and condolence for the families and friends of those who have most recently died or been injured in Iraq.

I also join them in paying tribute to those members who have died since the last Queen’s Speech.

All of them made a unique contribution to the work of this House.

Peter Law was a man independent of party, and Eric Forth was a man of independent spirit, and lancing wit.
Rachel Squire was a diligent member for Dunfermline and West Fife, who was both loved and respected by her constituents.

I would like to make special mention of Robin Cook for the progressive politics which were the basis of a successful career in cabinet, and a dignified departure from it.

Patsy Calton was a brave and valued member of the Liberal Democrat team, who is greatly missed by her colleagues on these benches.

Mr Speaker, we will never forget your kindness to her on the day she courageously came to take the oath when she knew that she had not long to live.

I also join in congratulating the right honourable member for Cardiff South and Penarth and the honourable member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth on their speeches today.

One from Wales, one from Scotland. A happy coincidence or a recognition of the importance to Labour of next May’s elections in both countries?

But they both deserved the honour in their own right because of their significant contribution to Welsh and Scottish devolution.
It is no surprise that the right honourable member for Cardiff South and Penarth made such an assured and lucid contribution.

A man who has helped to create the Welsh Assembly and then coped with the Countryside Alliance has a rare talent.

The honourable member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth also made an excellent contribution.

She has a formidable political reputation, which she combines with unstinting devotion to her family and friends.

This is a remarkable Parliamentary occasion.
The Prime Minister is introducing a programme of legislation which he knows he will not be here to complete.
This is truly power without responsibility.
This speech does not meet the needs of the country.
There are plans for an 11th education bill.

A 12th health and social care bill

An 8th terrorism bill.

And a 24th criminal justice bill since the Prime Minister took office in 1997.

After nearly ten years in office the government and the Prime Minister are still chasing the same elusive goals and the same elusive headlines.

This is a rush from judgement towards legislation.

This is a Prime Minister trying to legislate his way into history.

The government suffers from statutory addiction.

Since 1997, this government has passed 365 Acts of Parliament and more than 32,000 Statutory Instruments.

The legislation that they have passed runs to more than 114,000 pages.

Before the Prime Minister was elected he told us that his priority was education, education, education.

Since he was elected his priority has proved to be legislation, legislation, legislation.

By legislating less, the government could legislate better.

By devoting time, resources and scrutiny, complex problems such as anti-social behaviour could be more effectively addressed by one piece of legislation rather than the four already passed and the one proposed in this Queen’s Speech.

We need a regular effective system for repeal of legislation which has served its purpose.
That is why we have proposed a Freedom Bill, designed to facilitate the systematic removal from the statute book of laws which are no longer required.

Consider this, since 1997 this government has created 3,000 new criminal offences – to the profit of the lawyers and the bewilderment of the citizen.

We need to repeal outdated, unworkable and unnecessary legislation.

Parliament has a duty to consider every one of the proposals made in this speech on its own merits.
Where the government’s proposals promote freedom and fairness, we will support them.
And where they do not, we will oppose them.
Home Affairs dominate this Queen’s Speech.
And the proposed Terrorism Bill will be central to the government’s legislative programme.

Terrorism threatens liberal democracies.

In the physical damage and human suffering it causes.

But also in the political and legal responses it provokes.

Terrorism and the threat of terrorism are used in totalitarian countries to justify repression and the extinction of human rights.

In liberal democracies they provide a more subtle temptation for draconian legislation.

But we should support the presumption that individual liberty and personal freedom will be maintained unless there is overwhelming evidence that they need to be restricted because the very existence of the state is threatened.

The freedoms I am talking about were not handed out by benevolent monarchs or generous governments.

They had to be won – often against apparently insuperable opposition.

And if they are once taken away they will have to be fought for once again before they can be re-established.

I will not support the erosion of these liberties where the government cannot provide conclusive evidence that their proposals are essential for the security of our citizens.

I will listen and assess the contributions of the head of MI5 and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

But we should remember that they are advocates not arbiters.

The ultimate responsibility rests here among members of parliament.

We are elected for our judgement in these matters.

Who doubts that the Terrorism Bill will return to the period of detention without charge?

There was – and is – no evidence to justify a ninety day detention period.

The government’s previous proposals on these matters were rejected by this House – as indeed was the proposal to remove the right to trial by jury in fraud trials.

And yet both threaten to re-appear in the legislative programme.

Unless there are new and persuasive arguments they should both be rejected again.

If the government wishes to pursue an effective way of combating terrorist activity, it should change its position on phone tapping.

By allowing the admissibility of evidence obtained from intercepts, the government would give police and prosecution a powerful weapon.

Other European countries have employed this method.

With suitable judicial safeguards the UK should follow suit.

We read too that the government intends to “proceed with the development of ID cards.”

We remain firmly opposed to the introduction of mandatory ID cards.

They are an expensive and unwanted intrusion into the private lives of the British people.

And there is not a shred of evidence that they would prevent terrorist activity in this country.

We shall consider carefully our response to the detailed proposals of the Criminal Justice Bill as and when they are explained to the House.

But we will find it difficult to avoid scepticism because of past experience.

Of the government’s last criminal justice act in 2003, 52 sections and 5 schedules have still not been brought into force.

Two sections have been repealed without ever being brought into force.

And a further three were brought into force and then repealed.

This is no way to legislate in areas where the liberty of the individual is at stake.

Now we have Ministers arguing to amend a law which has yet to come into force on the basis of a failed prosecution which proceeded on another law entirely.

I hope that the proposed Criminal Justice Bill will look at sentencing.

But this should not be about favourable headlines.

It should be about clarity, honesty and consistency in sentencing.

It should provide for the proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Sentencing should not be automatic but discriminating and specific.

Serious or persistent wrongdoing should not be ignored, or treated lightly.

But prison sentences have become longer and more common in this country.

This has not cured the problem of reoffending.

We have the worst reoffending rate in Europe.

60% of our prisoners reoffend within two years of release.

We have massive and expensive overcrowding in our prison system.

The government has presided over a paradox – there are too many people in prison who should not be there, and under the provisions for automatic release, too many have been released who should have been detained.

The government should therefore use this Bill as an opportunity to look at ways of rehabilitating prisoners and reducing reoffending.

We welcome the decision to include a Climate Change Bill in the government’s programme, but why is it so limited in scope?

Is this the government’s response to the Stern Report?

A legislative framework and an independent review body are welcome proposals.

But how can progress in tackling climate change be seriously measured when there are no annual targets?

And targets alone are not enough – if they were, Britain would be the best run country in the world.

We must also hear more about proposals for achieving them.

Constitutional affairs are also covered by this Queen’s Speech.

The government has indicated that it will work to build a consensus on House of Lords reform and will bring forward proposals.

But where is the commitment to legislation?

Lords reform has proved a thorn in the side of all governments for over a century.

We need a mainly elected second chamber, elected by a fair voting system.

Now that would be a legacy for this Prime Minister.

Finally, let me turn to foreign affairs.

On the opening day of this Queen’s Speech Debate, it has rarely been the case that much time is devoted to foreign affairs.

But today, for me at least, is an exception.

For behind the almost bland words in the speech, “…to support the new Iraqi government in its efforts to build an enduring constitutional settlement” lies the flawed prospectus upon which military action was taken.

The continuing cost in lives and resources.

And the sense of drift and hopelessness that so many feel about the continuing presence in Iraq.

When Britain’s most senior soldier questions that presence in language we all understand – leave aside the propriety of him doing so – then surely it is the responsibility of government and all of us to respond.

My complaint is the absence of a British strategy based on British priorities.

My complaint is an apparently uncritical acceptance of a United States strategy which has self-evidently failed and which no longer commands the support of the American people nor domestic support in the UK.

My complaint is the use of vapid clichés like “we will not cut and run” or “we will stay the course” or “we will stay as long as the Iraqi government wants us to”.

These are meaningless expressions when judged against the complexity of circumstances in Iraq.

I acknowledge a moral obligation towards Iraq’s people although I voted against military action but we have a moral obligation to our young men and women as well.

We have no right to ask them to risk their lives if there is no realistic chance of success.

We have no right to ask them to risk their lives if British interests are not being served.

That is why I believe that the only strategy available to us is phased withdrawal, and to echo General Dannatt, sooner rather than later.

Efforts to engage Syria and Iran – yes.

Efforts to give the UN a greater role in the stalling reconstruction programme – yes.

Efforts to persuade moderate Arab nations to contribute forces for internal stability – yes.

But not against the background of an open ended commitment.

The Iraqis have to take responsibility for themselves.

That is why all these efforts have to be undertaken against the stated inevitability of withdrawal.

And at the heart of all this lies the overwhelming need to find a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, which the Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday.

The first George Bush knew this.

He and James Baker were the architects of the Madrid Conference which produced the Oslo agreement which so nearly succeeded.

There is no chance of long term stability in the Middle East until there is a settlement of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians.

This is the Prime Minister’s last appearance at this annual occasion. There have been many glad confident mornings in the past but there is none today.

This is a sombre occasion.

For all his achievements Suez defined Eden.

For all his achievements, Iraq will define Blair.