Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)

My Lords, there is much that is good in the measures in the King’s Speech and certainly much that is well intentioned. However, I am left with the uncomfortable feeling that, overall, the contents of the speech do not, in a phrase often used by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, rise to the level of events. I have some sympathy with the situation in which the Prime Minister and the Government find themselves. Paradoxically, they are shackled by their overwhelming victory in the last general election. The result is that the huge majority in the House of Commons contains a large number of Back-Benchers who have no prospect of ministerial office and who are alarmed by the prospect of tough measures which will harm their popularity in their constituencies and damage their prospects of re-election. In effect, the Government’s Back Benches become part of the opposition to the hard decisions which the Government need to take to achieve their objectives. A section of the gracious Speech which I warmly welcome is the passage heralding proposals to “strengthen the delivery, accountability, innovation and productivity of the Civil Service” and “to safeguard its impartiality and core values”. I have never concealed my view that measures are always needed to bring the Civil Service up to the mark. Civil servants operate with other people’s money and lack the profit incentive which exists in the private sector. On the other hand, I believe that we are fortunate in having in this country a deep-rooted tradition of public service and that our civil servants do their best to achieve the Government’s objectives, if they are effectively led. In the recently appointed head of the Civil Service, Dame Antonia Romeo, I believe that we have someone who is capable of giving that leadership. I particularly welcome the inclusion of the word “impartiality”. It is sometimes forgotten that, like the judiciary and the Armed Forces, the Civil Service is an independent service of the Crown and not the possession of any single set of politicians. If a Minister loses confidence in a civil servant, he or she is entitled to take action, but it should be dealt with by the head of the Civil Service and not through summary dismissal by a politician without due process. I expressed at the outset of my speech my regret that the contents of the gracious Speech do not, in my view, rise to the level of events. I fear that the same can be said of our political discourse generally. The Government’s present disarray is easy meat for opposition parties and the media, but this is not a game. The dangers which the country faces, both nationally and internationally, seem to me very serious. This year, we are 50 years on from the 1976 IMF crisis. The circumstances then were in some ways similar. Then, as now, we had suffered an oil price shock, although with different origins. In some respects, the circumstances in 1976 were worse, with inflation and unemployment rising simultaneously, a balance of payments in deficit and our reserves perilously low. Today, our level of national debt is unprecedentedly high and the cost of government borrowing is at an uncomfortable level. The experience of the Truss Government shows what happens if the markets lose confidence. We should remember Prime Minister Callaghan’s speech to the 1976 Labour Party Conference, when he said: “I tell you in all candour that the option” of spending our way out of a recession “no longer exists”. Today is a moment for the same realism and courage. Our country urgently needs political leaders, both government and opposition, similarly to get serious and rise to the level of events.