Lady Meacher
Lord Patel
Lord Norton has referred to the Welfare Reform Bill defeats in the Lords, which I’ve been giving some considerable thought to. I voted with the Government against the amendment by Baroness Meacher to continue ESA for young disabled people who have resources of their own to support them and have not contributed to what is essentially a contributory benefit. The House voted to continue giving benefits to young people even if they inherited a large capital sums or lived in wealthy households. Then I decided not to vote on the other amendments by Lord Patel. I dislike the singly out of cancer as if it is a special case; there are many physically and mentally ill people with chronic distressing conditions requiring long term treatment but that don’t have the shroud-waving potential of cancer. The other matter that people forget is that 90% of people with cancer are past retirement and are not eligible for any of these benefits; older people have to make do as best they can. These small amendments will benefit very few indeed but those few rather unfairly.
So one has to ask the question, “ Of all the major changes being introduced and the opposition to them expressed by the disability lobby and other groups representing those in receipt of benefits, why did the House choose these minor issues to revolt on?” The answer is all to do with mood and general disquiet. The majority of peers agrees with the fundamental changes being introduced in this Bill, they want to see a more rigorous effective system introduced which incentivises work and acts as a deterrent to people remaining on a lifetime of benefits, including those who have had episodes of mental health problems who make up the majority of the huge increase in those on ‘sickness and disability benefits’ over this past decade. As a psychiatrist I have seen the catastrophic effect of the current regime on the lives of patients.
But peers also knows that the implementation of the changes, at a time of rising unemployment, where the system is imperfect and there is as yet insufficient assistance to individual and their families, is going to be difficult and will feel unfair to those who are culturally still stuck in the ‘I’m entitled’ box. It will take a decade at least, a generation probably, for the cultural changes to kick in. And the changes may not work as the Government intended. So with these anxieties about the outcome, the House wants to show its disquiet. That’s what it did….but when ping-pong arrives the House will accept a Commons reversal of these modest changes; they’ve made their protest and that’s enough. So I sat on my hands for two of these three votes, that was my personal small protest.
The House returned on Tuesday and it has proved already an interesting week. Both Houses had the statement on the constitutional position of Scotland, accompanied by a consultation paper on a referendum on whether Scotland should leave the United Kingdom. There was notable cross-party unity on the subject. That was Tuesday. Then yesterday, we had the Welfare Reform Bill and four divisions on amendments, with the Goverment losing three of them by clear majorities. Most defeats attract little media interest, but given that these were on important provisions of the Bill, they attracted notable media coverage.
The discussion on a referendum in Scotland may have implications for the Scotland Bill, presently before the House. The changes to the Welfare Reform Bill will have to be considered by the Commons. The Lords is also still engrossed in other significant legislation, not least the Health and Social Care Bill and the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (it was the second day in committee on Tuesday). The Protection of Freedoms Bill is being considered in Grand Committee. The Commons rises for one week in February, as does the Lords (though not the same week), and we are presently scheduled to rise on 29 March. It is going to be quite a busy time between now and Easter. Watch this space.
Here in America, the main news story is the Republican primaries. The top concern is a Pew research report that economic mobility here is less than in Europe and Canada. What a blow to people’s sense of national identity. What a blow to economic development. And this in the land of opportunity.
Everybody has their own explanation and facts.
For example, the inequality gap is now too great here – the rungs on the ladder too far apart. Fact: 400 families together have wealth equal to the poorest 60% of the total population.
Family breakdown. Fact: 3 million children have one parent in prison.
Stress. Fact: 1 person in 74 is popping pills relating to mental issues.
Health. Fact: A system based on profit and personal affordability does not take care of pre-natal and early years nutrition.
Skilled people entering work have too much personal debt. Fact: A young woman who recently graduated as a pharmacist explained how she has debts relating to her education of $140,000 (£100,000).
Other reasons given are the disappearance of trade unions, poor public education and the poor performance of charter schools, expensive childcare, racial disadvantage and the erosion of the middle class.
This is the unintended consequence of many government decisions and how public money is spent. Decisions and expenditure often unrelated to the economy. Are we thinking carefully enough about the effect on our economic social mobility of the decisions we are making? After all we are looking across to America for inspiration.
I have just watched The Iron Lady, a film about Baroness Thatcher’s life. It does not deal with her period in the House of Lords at all, but focuses on her rise to, and tenure of the position of the first and, so far, the only female Prime Minister of this country. In most ways, the title of the film is a misnomer because it is not about her lasting influence, and it certainly is not a deep analysis of her policies. It is about her life with Denis, and the tensions of maintaining a family life together with a life in politics. There are brief and rowdy scenes depicting the Falklands War, the poll tax protests, the assassination of Airey Neave and the Grand Hotel bombing, which make the film compelling viewing for anyone of my generation who remembers all of this vividly. But the most interesting flashbacks for me were the scenes showing Mrs. Thatcher, as she was then, standing as a lone woman in the Commons, and facing up to the scorn and barracking of the entirely white male MPs. I am not sure that this is historically correct – there must have been several women MPs at that time, if no black ones – but the scenes were a reminder of how the Commons has changed. Maybe not enough, but the presence of women in the House is now substantial and normal, and I think the practice of sneering and jeering has died down a bit, although not as much as it should. The Lords, by way of contrast, has about 25% women and does not often descend to rowdiness, although it is not unknown, as occasionally new peers bring with them their Commons habits and then come to realise that the Lords take a different approach.
Most poignant, and ringing true, were the film’s depictions of the union of Denis and Margaret and how much he did to support her, at some cost to himself and his expectations of family life. Nevertheless I felt uneasy that a film should be made during someone’s lifetime, purporting to show their physical and mental decline. In that sense it was rather like the film about Iris Murdoch’s Alzheimer’s, made after her death. The difference is that The Iron Lady is made during its subject’s lifetime, and that seems to me to be wrong. It is inappropriate, and the premature nature of the film prevents proper historical judgments from being made, and may even affect them when they come to be made in the future. Many prime minsters and Presidents declined and became ill in their old age (Wilson, Churchill, Roosevelt), as we all do, but that decline should not be projected backwards to make it appear that it affected them at their peak. That is derogatory, and it is ironic that the focus of the Mrs. Thatcher film is on the weaker years. But go and see it anyway.
At the Study of Parliament Group conference at the weekend, one of the panels was on the process of socialisation for parliamentarians. The emphasis was on new MPs and how the process has changed over recent years, with a far more extensive process of induction. It used to be the case that, once elected, MPs were simply expected to arrive at Westminster (some never having set foot in the Palace before) and find out for themselves what they were expected to do. They relied on some senior Members and the whips.
It struck that there were some notable differences between the two chambers. One is the fairly simple fact that peers, unlike MPs, have to share offices. As with the Commons, there is an induction process organised by the House authorities, but in terms of day-to-day queries a peer can simply ask the other peer or peers in the office. This is quite a powerful means of socialisation and ensures one learns the ropes fairly quickly. It covers the sort of questions not usually covered in an induction process. It not only helps integrate a peer into the norms and practices of the House, it can also generate a particular ethos within the room. In my room, we have a very distinct office culture. It allows us not only to enjoy some degree of autonomy, it can be very valuable in sharing knowledge and finding out what is going within the Palace. It also means one has a sounding board for ideas and querying a particular policy. The sharing of offices means we work in very cramped conditions, but it does have its benefits.
