House of Lords: Facilities
Earl Ferrers Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, we will have a debate very soon. When we have organised a date we shall let the House know. It is of course entirely up to the House and its committees to make recommendations on implementation, but I am hopeful that some recommendations can be put into effect very speedily.
Earl Ferrers
My Lords, would my noble friend the Leader of the House agree with me that the Government are perfectly mad to increase the size of the House to 800?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, my noble friend was a Member of the House when it had a membership of well over 1,000.
Clerk of the Parliaments
Earl Ferrers Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is extremely grateful for the fine and well deserved tributes which Michael Pownall has just received. We all know how genuine are the feelings that have been expressed on behalf of us all about Mr Pownall. That makes it particularly unfortunate that Mr Pownall is, I believe, the first Clerk of the Parliaments for centuries—I have been unable to discover how many centuries—to be retiring without a knighthood. I happen to think that that is extremely unjust to him personally, as well as being undeserved and unreasonable. I also happen to think that it is very much not in the interests of Parliament.
As we know, Parliament, the House of Lords as much as the House of Commons, depends absolutely on the high calibre of our Clerks and on being able to attract into the cadre of Clerks young men and women of the greatest ability. They do not get much opportunity for public tribute to be paid to them, but the tradition that whoever rises to the top of this profession receives a knighthood is one way that enables us to make quite clear the esteem in which we hold the profession as a whole. Perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House to have a word in the right place to see whether this matter can be rectified.
Earl Ferrers
My Lords, only the very best of the best become Clerk of the Parliaments. I am taken back to the time when the late Lord Soames was Leader of the House and was then made the Governor of Southern Rhodesia. As a result, I found myself being made the acting Leader of your Lordships’ House. I was set up in the room that the Leaders use, a very large and frightening place, but I was there and got used to it.
The then Clerk of the Parliaments, the late Sir Peter Henderson, asked whether I would interview a young man who he thought would be good as the private secretary to the Leader and the Chief Whip. I said, “Of course I will”, because I could not really say anything else. “Send the young pup along”. The young pup who came along was, of course, Michael Pownall. After the interview, Sir Peter asked how I got on. I said that Michael Pownall was a charming and delightful person, but that he had not said very much. Sir Peter, in defence of his newfound protégé, rounded on me and said, “Nor would you because that is the most frightening room to be interviewed in”. I knew it was, but on that occasion I was on the other side of the table.
As Michael Pownall’s progression went on, I am glad to think that my modest intervention of a non-offensive nature resulted, some 30 years later, in a Clerk of the Parliaments who has been one of the best, the nicest, the most courteous and dignified Clerks who we have had the good privilege to see. We are all very grateful to him for that.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
My Lords, I saw Michael Pownall on virtually every sitting day when, as Clerk of the Parliaments, he would come to brief me before the House sat for business. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, was quite right to talk about the particular role played by Clerks in relation to Speakers, even in this House. Not only did he pull me out of holes, but perhaps more important, he stopped me falling into them in the first place. He did that, as the Leader of the House has said, with an unfailing courtesy and kindness. I owe him a debt of gratitude.
The phrase I heard him use most frequently was, “Is there anything we can do to help?”. It was always “we” because Michael is a very modest man who never took on himself that he was the person who would solve everything; he saw himself as leading a team. The phrase that came a close second to that was, “I am sorry I am late, Lord Speaker, but I was waylaid on the way to your office”. He was inevitably waylaid on the way to the office because he was incapable of discourtesy to anybody whether it was staff or Member. He took their issues seriously and he did what he could to help. He had time for everybody. I hope that, now, he will have time for himself, for Deborah and for the daughters whom he loves so much.
Interim Report: Leader's Group on Members Leaving the House
Earl Ferrers Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Ferrers
My Lords, having listened to the remarkable contribution of my noble friend Lord Alderdice, it made me realise how complicated this whole issue really is. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, who has shown today how conciliatory and understanding he is, has done a tremendous job with his committee to produce this interim report. However, I am not going to be very helpful for I am bound to say that I find the whole subject totally disagreeable.
We have all experienced some riveting debates in this House. I look back on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which always sticks in my mind. Contributions were made to it by, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who I see is in his place, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. They have produced some of the most stimulating, intellectual and philosophical debates to which one could ever aspire to listen, everyone trying to find a way through a deeply difficult ethical subject. No other House, no other Chamber, in any other parliament in the world could produce that form of debate and one of that quality. Many people know this and acknowledge it.
But now what is going to happen? Reform of your Lordships’ House is being peddled around the political arena again, in an effort to find some so-called perfection. All that we have is going to be thrown to the birds if we are not careful. Now we are debating how your Lordships can leave your Lordships’ House when your Lordships have had enough—or, worse still, when others think that your Lordships have had enough. If I were not in this Chamber, I would suggest that we have all gone stark staring mad, but that might be considered to be somewhat inappropriate language for your Lordships so I will temper it by saying that I think that your Lordships may be misdirecting yourselves.
The fact is that anyone who is made a Peer is in receipt of a huge honour, one that is bestowed on them by the monarch. When your Lordships are made a Peer or inherit a peerage, the patent that each Peer receives says that he or she is elevated to,
“the state, degree, style, dignity and honour of Baron”—
or Earl—
“to have and to hold unto him for his life”.
Those are pretty clear and trenchant words. That is what the patent says, it is what the constitution says, and it is what each of your Lordships is bound by.
It is difficult to see how a Peer should henceforth be able to say, “I think I’ve had enough now. I should go off and do something else”. Frankly, I find the proposal little short of offensive. Even if we were—wrongly, in my mind—to allow Peers to go, how would you get them to go? The usual way, I suppose: offer them money. A thousand pounds? No, there would not be any takers there. Five thousand pounds? None there either. Fifty thousand pounds? Well, there might be a flicker of interest. But how can you be paid not to do that which you have not been paid to do in the first place? The public row would be something terrible. Can one imagine how the Daily Telegraph would love it, and would probably misdirect us all at the same time? Or would we have a Star Chamber, in which various Peers sat in judgment on their colleagues and said, “He’s past it, poor fellow. He’s over 80”? I suppose that at this point I should declare an interest. All I would say is that there is nothing wrong with being over 80.
If you say, “Get rid of those who don’t attend”, that is fine, but they are not the problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said. If you say, “Get rid of those who don’t speak”, that is fine too—but they are not the problem either. It is the chattering classes who are the problem. Of course, there are too many people in the House; we have had to billow over to below the Bar. That is a pretty humiliating fact, but whose fault is it? It is the politicians’. That applies to the leaders of all the parties, including my own, and we have to live with that and realise that that is what has happened. They have made the absurd mistake of making too many Peers. That does not mean that we do not welcome each new Peer as he comes—of course we do—but it is a question of numbers.
They now say, “Help, help, we’ve got to do something about it”. People say, in that curiously absurd phrase, “Well, we are where we are and now we must proceed from here”. That is a way of saying, “We have made an appalling mess of things but let’s not refer to it. Let’s find a way out of the hole”. It seems pretty elementary: if your house is being flooded with water, first turn the hosepipe off. If you have too many Peers, the first thing to do is to stop making any more. But no—not under this arrangement. Another 50 or more are on their way, which will merely exacerbate the problem. I find that unbelievable. It is bringing your Lordships’ House into disrepute. Maybe it is the idea of some to make the House of Lords unworkable so that it has to be abolished and replaced with a senate. I do not know if that is what people intend, but let us be careful. If we are not careful, that is exactly what will happen.
As usual, it is the politicians who have mucked it up. You cannot continue to alter the constitution just because politicians have played fast and loose with the arrangements. I hesitate to say it but these absurdities never happened in the “good old days”. By the “good old days” I mean the very good “good old days”, before the Life Peerages Act 1958, which some of us remember, even though most of your Lordships were only in knee pants. Then there were arrangements such as the Salisbury/Addison rules, which enabled the House to get over the problems of the day. But along came a Labour Administration which got rid of practically all the hereditary Peers, the Law Lords and the Lord Chancellor. Some of us were ridiculed as silly old right-wingers when we said that if you start tinkering with the constitution in this way you do not know where it will end—and it is a fact.
There were around 1,200 Peers before the House of Lords Bill was passed. The number then dropped to 666; it has now got to 738 and rising. The result is that more than three-quarters of the Labour Peers who now sit in the House and more than half the whole House were made Peers under the Labour Administration. If we start messing around with the House again by inviting or allowing people to leave, with or without a cash handout, we will invite total ridicule. I am almost certain that we will also do so by allowing the House to be wholly elected. For reasons that we need not rehearse today, I am totally against that.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach properly let the cat out of the bag last week. He was followed today by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. My noble friend Lord Taylor said that it was the coalition Government’s aim to have a mostly elected but partially appointed House. I find that an astonishing announcement. It was never what the Conservative Party wanted. I suppose it is the pound of flesh that the Liberal Democrats extracted as part of forming the coalition. The Liberal Democrats, bless their hearts, have some very funny ideas. We may be bound together with them but they are a pretty arm’s-length body—to remind noble Lords of a phrase used by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe last week about quangos.
We should remind ourselves that your Lordships’ House stands high in the opinion of people and organisations. We are part of that. Do not let us destroy it further by allowing people to choose to buzz off when they feel like it. After all, there is leave of absence. I am bound to tell your Lordships that I think it is wrong even to consider this. It would be a constitutional disaster.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, he referred during his very interesting speech to funny ideas. For the record, would he like to comment on the views that he held at the time of the Life Peerages Act about the role of women in your Lordships’ Chamber, and whether he has changed those views?
Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble Baroness has produced the old chestnut. I am bound to tell her that I was giving the views of a young man, and the views of young men are always wanted to be known, are they not? I gave the views that I held at that time, which is what I thought and what a number of other people thought. Of course, things have happened since then and I have changed my mind. Peers are allowed to change their mind; even coalition Governments can change their mind. I do not have any regrets about that and I do not have any regrets about saying it because, after all, the noble Baroness will remember that it is important to know what young people want; and I consider myself still to be in that category.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has misunderstood me. I was suggesting that it would be wrong to pay them not to come in future, because they are not here anyway. That is all I am saying. I think that the noble Lord made a similar point earlier, and I am very sorry if he misunderstood me.
Why should we now recompense people who, frankly, turn up only to draw that allowance—who do not make a contribution, do not speak, do not ask Questions and perhaps only occasionally vote as the Whips tell them? That is not a real contribution to the work of your Lordships' House. Occasionally, I hear Peers say that we can take credit for being unsalaried. As has already been said, if you are not salaried, surely that precludes any redundancy payment or pension payment, by definition.
I was struck by the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. We should consider very carefully taking a leaf out of the Bishops’ book. The idea of one in, one out, is admirable. Whether the different party groups and the Cross-Benchers would find that acceptable I do not know. As I understand it, when those on the Bishops’ Bench take retirement on an orderly basis, they do not get any golden goodbyes.
Incidentally, it is important to think for a moment about why the Bishops are here. They are not here to be the conscience of the nation; they are here because their ecclesiastical ancestors had to be in the counsels of the monarch of the time because they were hugely important landowners—feudal barons. They were important at Magna Carta. It was important to have them on your side if you wanted to go to war because they had a lot of money.
I am told on good authority that in medieval, feudal times, there were more Lords Spiritual than Lords Temporal, including abbots and abbesses. The first women in the English Parliament were pre-Reformation abbesses. That was nothing to do with the conscience of the nation, and predated the established church. I may be misled; I am a historian rather than a politician really, underneath, but perhaps there is a Henry VIII lesson for us here. If there is a political and practical imperative, that will have to take precedence over every other consideration. That is why my noble friend is so right: we simply cannot wait to have a new solution imposed upon us.
I did not think that I would ever say this, but I have to echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—that is something new for me. I thought he was absolutely right. If I were really devious—and, of course, I am not—I would support the most absurd, ludicrously generous retirement package for those who cannot be tempted to go otherwise because it would undoubtedly increase and harden the public’s support for reform of your Lordships' House, which I believe in. That seems to me to be the right answer. If we want to get this on the road, let us be ludicrously generous because that will increase the public’s support for real reforms, but I do not think that is what is here.
Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to say that he agrees with something that I said, but he came to the most astonishing conclusion. Can he tell me how what I said made him come to that stupid conclusion?
Lord Tyler
My Lords, the noble Earl should take credit for persuading me, as he has this afternoon. He said that the public would never wear a really generous package to persuade people to retire. That has been echoed by other noble Lords. I believe he is right, but my view is that if we were to go down that track, it would simply increase pressure for the real reform package that I hope will come in due course.
I come to my conclusion. I believe that we are living in a fool’s paradise if we really think there is a huge reservoir of public enthusiasm for your Lordships' House in its present form, just because the other place is so unpopular. Therefore, we have a risk ahead of us. If we were to introduce such a generous new regime to persuade people to retire in the interim period, it would damage the reputation of this House. If this issue is addressed with the usual mixture—which we have had this week—of self-satisfaction and isolation from public opinion by some Members, the public will say, “Roll on reform” and amen to that.
Queen’s Speech
Earl Ferrers Excerpts(14 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Ferrers
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
Earl Ferrers
This is a great day: State Openings of Parliament always are. Amid all the pomp and glory, they are happy, rejoicing occasions—and today has been no exception. Having had the privilege of being in your Lordships' House for 55 years, I have never before been asked to undertake this awesome responsibility. Your Lordships will soon find out why. At least your Lordships will realise that youth is on your side.
We have witnessed today what must be the greatest constitutional spectacle in the world. Its majestic procession says a hundred and one things to all of us. The uniforms in all their glory have ensured the anonymity of the wearers. Gone are the Berts and Freds of normality. In their place, as we tiptoe back in history, come the glorious titles of Bluemantle Pursuivant, Rouge Dragon Pursuivant, Maltravers Herald Extraordinary. Then there are the Queen's Body Guard, the Gentlemen at Arms and all the others. Each represents a facet of the constitution in which we all bask. We should never forget that. We live in a country full of history, traditions and peculiarities. Sometimes we get stroppy and want to change it all, but we should never forget that the intricate weave of the constitution and the majesty of the monarchy allow us flexibility to wriggle and to move within their confines. We must be careful not to snap the thread. Today, as we saw Her Majesty once again open her Parliament, there can have been few people who did not admire the grace, dignity and elegance with which she carried out her tasks.
Earl Ferrers
I, along with most other noble Lords, I fancy, am humbly grateful for all that she does for Parliament and for the nation, and for all the pleasure, pride and encouragement that she gives to people all over the country. We are indeed blessed.
It was particularly sad that his great office could not be performed on this occasion by Black Rod himself because of his indisposition. He has endeared himself to everyone in your Lordships’ House in the time that he has been with us, and we offer him our best wishes for a speedy recovery. The Yeoman Usher, if I may say so, jumped in, as it were, at the deep end and was masterly. He looked as though he had been doing it all his life and we congratulate him on that.
What had been the portents of a dull old election suddenly became one in which everyone was riveted with interest. The electorate decided to punch each party on the nose, which no one likes. The Labour Party wanted to win, but it did not. It is never a nice experience being removed from office, and I think that in your Lordships’ House we probably understand that better if only, but not only, because in your Lordships’ House there is real friendship between your Lordships, irrespective of party. I thank all noble Lords opposite, and especially those who held office, for their kindness and for the fun that they made it for all of us—at least, for most of the time.
The Liberal Democrats thought that they were sailing into a lovely welcoming port, but they were not. They received fewer seats than they expected, but I congratulate them on holding office for the first time in 65 years. That is quite an achievement whichever way you look at it. They have been at the forefront of all political jokes, especially from my party, most of which we thought were wholly justified. But not no more! We are chained together like suffragettes. When the late Lord Pethick-Lawrence, whom I remember sitting at the end of the Bench opposite, was in another place and his wife was a formidable suffragette, he made the wonderful observation that he would give £100 to a charity for every day that his wife remained chained to the railings of the House of Commons.
Then the Conservatives—they thought that they were going to win, but they did not. So everyone has had to eat humble pie, which, as Churchill once said, is not an unwholesome diet.
But then the unthinkable comes along: a coalition. The whole point of a coalition is that no one gets their way, which is not necessarily a bad idea. Parties which said that they were going to do one thing find that they cannot—at least, not without a good bit of shake and shove. It will be a case of co-operation, which is no bad thing. However, there is a gritty determination by the two young leaders to make it work. A few feet will get stamped on in the process and there will be some squeals but, as the lyricist would say, “What’s New Pussycat?”.
If the parties of the coalition will all work together to get the country straight, that will be a huge statement of statesmanship and a great reflection on the corporate wisdom of Parliament. It will, I hope, emphasise how much we all have in common with each other, rather than highlight the things that keep us separate. The gracious Speech has heralded in a new era, ensuring the fundamental importance of reducing the deficit and restoring economic growth. That will not be easy: it may be like turning a battleship around by giving it a poke with a boat hook. However, it is possible and it is essential for everything else to work.
I hope that we will get out of the modern habit of saying, when something goes wrong, that it is all somebody else’s fault. People tend to suspect that the upheaval in the economy is all the bankers’ fault. I do not believe that. They may have made some mistakes but they are affected by the upheaval just like everyone else. It is rather like blaming the captain of a ship for trying to steer his vessel through a storm for which he is not responsible. You need him to succeed; you do not have to shoot him. All the countries in the world have been affected by this and we shall have to co-operate to get out of it. There is usually a silver lining to most clouds and we must rejoice in the fact that we are not members of the euro.
Afghanistan, that thorny problem, will be high on the list of the Government’s priorities. We admire all the effort, total devotion and dedication of our soldiers there and we all regret the loss of life to which so many of them have been subjected. I hope that the Government will ensure that those soldiers, who are prepared to give their lives to a cause on the other side of the world, to which at home there is not a natural sympathy, will nevertheless be properly equipped. We neglect our forces at our peril.
I was delighted at the coalition’s determination to cut down on consultants and bureaucracy. Cutting down on bureaucracy will be an almost Herculean task and one thinks that it will never be achieved, but it must be. It is not enough just to remove the heads of bureaucracy and hope that the rest will wither. It will not. If you cut off a mushroom at the top, another three will grow from the mycelium underneath. It is the mycelium that must be dug out. I hope that this will be pursued with vigour.
I was glad to see that the Government intend to get more police on the street and to do away with bureaucracy. We all want that. Some years ago I had the privilege of being an ornament in the Home Office and I visited a police force. I actually visited more than one, but there is one in particular that I remember. A police officer asked, “Can you do anything about this?”. I said, “I don’t know, what is it?”. He replied, “I have to write out this form 13 times and the person won’t even be charged”. That was 20 years ago; I do not know how many times he has to write it out now. It must be possible to remove such absurd practices. Everyone knows that they are indefensible but nothing seems to be done about them. I hope that the Government will do something.
The attack on bureaucracy must be allied to the generation of civility. Civil servants and local authorities must have it drilled into them that they are the servants and not the masters. There is too much of the police state about now—in what is said, written and inferred. “Keep out of the bus lane—fine £150” may be factually correct but it is deeply offensive. In their reform of bureaucracy I hope that the Government will remove the word “targets”. They may be fine for a salesman but they are inappropriate for policemen, doctors and others.
Out go identity cards. At least that will create some savings even if it causes disputes in other respects. Exeter and Norwich are no longer to become unitary authorities. That will save money and will please a lot of people—but not, I fear, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. A fixed-term Parliament: that is a new idea. There was a lot of talk about the Government wanting an Opposition majority of 55 per cent in another place before the Government are unseated. Your Lordships will have your own views as to whether that is wise or not. I shall content myself with saying that when the Labour Government were defeated in 1979 on a Motion of no confidence, I was watching in the Gallery. There was a sombre feeling in another place because everyone thought that the Motion was lost. Then, one of the Whips—Anthony Berry I think it was—rushed in holding up one finger. The roar was tremendous. Everyone knew that the Government had lost by one. Everyone understood that. Now, one would have to work out 55 per cent of 423—[Laughter]—and come in holding up three and a half fingers.
A second House which is wholly or partially elected is in the gracious Speech. One does not have to be a genius to realise from which end of the suffragette’s chain that idea came. I have always had the respectful temerity to advise your Lordships not to cheer too much at the removal of the hereditary Peers because the life Peers would be next. Well, that was a little premature. They got rid of the Lord Chancellor and the Law Lords first but, if there is to be an elected Chamber, now will come the time of the life Peers. Each one will have to take leave of each other and say, “Farewell, pleased to have met you”—but not yet. Get rid of everyone in the House and what are you left with? The Clerks. As Gilbert and Sullivan would say, “Here’s a pretty how-de-do”. Nobody will know where to go, what to do or how to do it, because there will not be anyone here. That is most odd. I can never understand why we always have to use up energy and parliamentary time in changing things which are working well—time which could be better addressed to the subjects which are not working well. I think that I had better not pursue that line too far, because it might be regarded as controversial, which of course it is not.
I think that there is at last an understanding by the Government that people are fed up with being cocooned with regulations, laws and obligations. Governments consider it a matter of pride to pass more laws. Actually, people want to live their lives in peace and contentment with fewer laws. It is often said that we know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. A German wrote a not dissimilar paradox on our time. It was, of course, in German, but I thought that for the convenience of your Lordships I would give it in English. He said that we have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less opinion; more experts, but more problems. We have learnt to make a living, but not a life. We have added years to life, but not life to years. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, and accomplish less. We have learnt to rush, but not to wait.
I think that that encapsulates much that is wrong with our society. If our coalition Government succeed in getting some of that right, the chances of us crawling out of the mess that is all around us are large. What a triumph that would be, and I wish them good luck.
I beg to move the Motion for an humble Address to Her Majesty.