---

Queen’s Speech

My Lords, in his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Bach, made much of the Government’s emphasis on making communities safer through the various provisions in the gracious Speech. In fact, the word "security" does not appear at all in the gracious Speech, although the concept of security is evoked almost daily by the Government in the context of what is happening in Afghanistan and Britain. Indeed, if one listens to the Prime Minister’s various statements, then events in Afghanistan and Pakistan are critical to our domestic security here on the streets of Britain. That shows that it is clearer now than ever before that the architecture of national security rests on the twin pillars of domestic legislation and foreign interaction. Despite the omission of the mention of national security in the Minister’s remarks today, I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, is in his place and am therefore comforted that he will indeed be able to deal with my remarks in winding up. We had the spectre, earlier this month on 4 November, of the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee telling us through the pages of a national newspaper that in his view we ought to build a fortress Britain. His vision is of a Britain buttressed by a surveillance society in which citizens forfeit their long-standing civil liberties, our borders are sealed, international commitments and treaties are renegotiated, and the free movement of people is re-examined with our partners. On the same day, the immigration Minister explained to the Commons Home Affairs Committee: ""An argument that is not aired strongly enough in my view is the benefit of the presence of our armed forces and other countries"," to help us control immigration. He was referring to the presence of our troops in Afghanistan. When we get senior people in government telling us that our national security strategy is really deeply flawed as it cannot keep us safe, hence we need to withdraw from Afghanistan, nor on the other hand can the UK Border Agency control immigration, hence our presence in Afghanistan, then we are in trouble indeed. Will the Minister be able to explain to us what exactly the Government’s thinking is on the threat from al-Qaeda, which appears to be the focus of all pronouncements at the moment? Will he also explain whether the threat from violent extremism at home, and the national security strategy, still stand in light of these messages? I turn briefly to the contents of the Crime and Security Bill. Once again, we have a Home Office menu of disparate and unrelated projects. The very different needs and priorities of improving stop and search, the rationalisation and reduction of the DNA database, gang-related violence, parenting orders and licensing private security businesses are tied together in a Gordian knot to be untied against the ticking clock of a forthcoming general election. So we prepare for legislation knowing that much of what appears in the Bill does not have the Government’s authority behind it. If the measures did, they would have come before Parliament earlier. Rather, they are campaigning pledges to titillate the voters in a few months’ time. The proposals to give additional powers to the police for fingerprinting and the retention of DNA are controversial and will merit close scrutiny. So, too, will proposals for gang-related violence and ASBOs. Here, the general approach is consistent with the philosophy of the Government: plenty of popular pledges, backed by few resources to support the various agencies working in these areas, and a general belief that virtue can be created by statute. If only the blunt tool of law were as successful at changing behaviour as our Prime Minister believes, the courts could wind down and here in Parliament we could really be gainfully employed. Apropos the force of law, we saw the gracious Speech replete with references to the enforceability of the Government’s pledges, particularly in the areas of education and health. Indeed in their draft legislative programme set out in June 2009, Building Britain’s Future, the Prime Minister tells us in his foreword that, ""in the future, patients and parents must drive the system, with real rights of redress where their entitlements are not delivered"." Yet just nine pages later, in the same report, at paragraph 47 we are told: ""We do not want this new system of enforceable entitlements to mean people taking public services to court"." I wonder whether the Minister might be able to explain which version of the paper is the one that the public can rely on—the Prime Minster’s declaratory phrase with an eye to the election, or the retreat from that later. Furthermore, if these guarantees are justifiable, can the Minister tell us whether public funds will be available for those seeking judicial review? There is much in public policy that needs to be addressed, but these measures in this humble Address leave most of those unresolved.