The Queen’s Speech
Michael Bartlet considers an ancient ritual, and the programme of government, from a Quaker perspective
The ‘Queen’s Speech’ is a marriage of twenty – first century machine politics and medieval pageantry. It is read by the monarch but she has no say over its content. The ‘dignified’ and ‘efficient’ parts of the constitution unite in televised spectacle. The sword of state precedes the monarch in its own horse-drawn carriage. The yeoman of the guard inspects the cellars of the houses of parliament for gunpowder. The queen, wearing her imperial crown, addresses her lords, bishops and commons to announce political policy that has been forged in a hard-headed agreement between coalition partners, who stood against each other on opposing agendas.
The priority of the coalition remains unchanged: ‘to reduce the deficit and restore economic stability.’ The most contentious legislation has already been enacted. The Welfare Reform Act and Health and Social Care Act await implementation. There were forty-seven Public Bills passed in the last marathon session. In the present programme there are fifteen Bills and four drafts. With the exception of the House of Lords Reform Bill, it is a light programme.
Some initiatives may appeal to Friends. The Banking Reform Bill will strengthen regulation of banks, separating retail and investment services. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill will set up a ‘green bank’ to channel private investment into a green economy but will limit employment rights. An Energy Bill will introduce electricity market reform to increase investment in low-carbon energy and renewable energy. This could provide an opportunity for Quakers to press for our Canterbury commitment. A Small Donations Bill provides for a top-up of twenty-five pence in the pound for small donations of up to £5,000.
There are less palatable aspects. The Draft Communications Bill will permit surveillance agencies to collect data from texts and emails. The Justice and Security Bill will authorise MI5 and MI6 to use intercept evidence in civil courts. The Draft Local Audit Bill will abolish the independent Audit Commission and, instead, provide powers for the secretary of state to commission inspections where there are concerns over value.
There are notable silences. The coalition still plans to give 0.7 per cent of national income in overseas aid next year, but the Bill already drafted by the Department for International Development to provide a future mandate to maintain this, has been dropped. A Bill for equal marriage is not mentioned but is currently the subject of consultation.
Our Equality Statement urges us to speak out against cuts that fuel inequality – what can we say? While across the channel France promotes growth via public spending, here spending is cut to reduce the deficit. There is no specific legislation to promote growth. It is as hard to legislate for economic wellbeing as to enact virtue. The policy of cutting the deficit is not going to change without an election.
According to the High Pay Commission, pay of FTSE 100 chief executives rose 47 per cent in the last year, while that of employees rose 2.7 per cent. As members of the Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility, Quakers are contributing to the debate. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill might provide a further toehold for influence by making the pay of directors contingent on a shareholder vote. But the very dispersal of power among institutional investors makes it difficult to hold directors to account.
What can we say as Quakers? Social change requires the painstaking process of re-engagement with local and national politics. Are there areas of the budget that can be cut without fuelling inequality? There is perhaps one that is close to Quaker testimonies. A starting point might be for Meetings to invite their MPs to thoughtful discussion on the renewal of Trident. This could be part of a longer term relationship with their local MPs. The decision on the renewal of Trident will be made at Cabinet in November.
For Quakers a provisional willingness to incinerate millions is morally repugnant, cripplingly expensive and risks the long-term security of us all.
