Parliamentary Democracy and Standards in Public Life

Lord Parekh Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parekh (Lab)]

My Lords, we are discussing very serious issues, and therefore it is important that they are tackled in a meaningful way. One way would be to have some kind of constitutional convention, like the one that the Scots had, where we might debate these issues more sensibly and rationally.

I want to talk about parliamentary democracy and how we can steer our way out of some of the mess that we seem to be facing. When we say that we are a democracy, what do we mean? Minimally, we mean two things, which is why we desire democracy as a form of government: equal rights to all citizens and benefits to all citizens. It is a system of government where people decide things themselves and which promotes public interest and benefits to all.

Parliamentary democracy is one form of democracy. It is not the only one; there are many others. What distinguishes parliamentary democracy and makes the element of trust particularly relevant to parliamentary democracy is that power lies with the people, but it is not exercised directly by the people but through their elected representatives. It is a mediated democracy—a democracy in which power is mediated through Parliament. That means that to talk about parliamentary sovereignty would be a serious mistake. It would mean that Parliament replaces people and begins to take all kinds of decisions that should be taken by people. I suggest that what we want is a robust parliamentary democracy in which people are as well organised, alert and capable of controlling their destiny as Parliament itself.

My second point is that in a parliamentary democracy there is an expectation that Parliament will continue to monitor the system of governance and how the Executive exercise their powers. With parliamentary sovereignty, whoever controls Parliament is sovereign, so the party in power in the House of Commons becomes sovereign. That is exactly what we want to avoid. In my view, we should have a parliamentary democracy in which people control their own affairs through the mediation of Parliament and in which Parliament can control and monitor the system of governance—how Ministers behave, how public appointments are made, how government money is contracted out and so on. These have been the causes of recent troubles. It is very important that Parliament should be strengthened, but not at the cost of people themselves.

The Importance of the Relationship Between the United Kingdom and India

Lord Parekh Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parekh (Lab)]

My Lords, India and Britain’s representatives have worked out a road map to deepen the ties between the two countries by 2030. That framework gives us some idea of where the countries intend to go. Several lines of activity have opened up, such as research, education, capacity building and culture.

Two further things are particularly striking about the framework. First, under the young professionals scheme, 3,000 young Indians are to come to the UK every year for training. It is also interesting that the biennial ministerial meetings are expected to agree on priorities and set the agenda for research, science and technology. All this is fine. However, in my four minutes, I want to concentrate on what I would like to see in the framework but do not. I say this as someone who was invited by the Indian Government to be the vice-chancellor of one of India’s largest universities. I went there and headed the university for three years. Since then, I have gone there regularly and have been deeply involved in India’s education policy.

Looking at the results of my entry into the Indian educational world, and at what we achieved and what we could have achieved, there were some important lessons learned which I will list very quickly. It is important for overseas Indians not only to be at junior levels but to occupy senior positions in Indian universities. Talented people from the diaspora can head Indian universities. Joint research between various departments at Indian universities should also be encouraged. However, there is a tremendous emphasis all the time on science and research. Humanities and social sciences need just as much attention.

The exchange of staff is quite important. The Government of Wales have worked out a scheme which we can build on, where a certain number of Indian doctors come from India to work in our hospitals for a year or two. They gain experience, we benefit from their presence, and then they go back and India benefits from their experience too. Both sides benefit from this kind of exchange.

This is also important in the recent context of British universities, like other universities, being invited to open campuses in India. I like the idea, but I hesitate to endorse it wholeheartedly. For a variety of reasons that I cannot go into, I prefer joint campuses, rather than Yale, Harvard or Oxford setting up their own campus. When you set up your own campus, is there a commitment to provide it with your own staff? If you do not, you recruit locally, with the result that existing universities are funded by local people and get no benefit from the home-based staff of the great universities which initially volunteered. There are lots of difficulties which I saw in the United States when I was a professor at Harvard. The scheme can work, but it can also not work. It is very important that these provisions are made intelligently.

Finally, when two countries co-operate—both countries proud of their history—there is always a danger of disagreement. This should be welcome. They should be honest in their criticisms and in pointing out where one country has gone wrong, but at the same time each one should be able to appreciate the other’s difficulties and the constraints within which they function. Here I suggest that we in Britain have not been particularly civil or careful. When we talk about the Hindu-Muslim riots and all that, we tend to forget that these are a result of the partition of India, which left behind a very painful memory in the minds and hearts of all the people. That is something that we did as a colonial power; for decades when we ruled over the country, we determined the structure of relations between various communities, and we corrupted the relationship. While we ought to be aware of what we did, we should also be careful in how we criticise people.

My final point, following what the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, is that despite all of our differences with Mr Modi, I think that he is doing good work and representing India’s pride. Lots of Indians see their self-respect restored and, while we may continue to disagree with him, we should also continue to welcome him.

Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration

Lord Parekh Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parekh (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a painful privilege to participate in this debate. It is a privilege because it is one of the most momentous debates in our history; it is painful because the situation that has triggered it is deeply to be regretted. I wish we were not in a situation where we are forced to debate an issue of this kind.

I am the 101st speaker in this debate and, naturally, many of the points I would have liked to make have already been made, again and again. There is a broad consensus that the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration are inadequately thought through. During the 30 months of negotiations, we have not been able to work out an alternative conception of our place in history. The protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland ties us indefinitely into a backstop arrangement. During the transition period, which is likely to go on for a very long time, the joint committee has the power—about which I am rather concerned—to amend the agreement, correct errors and take care of unexpected situations. It will function without changing the essential elements. The joint committee has all the power and we will not know what kind of agreement we will be left with in two or three years’ time after the joint committee has worked on it. Given that there will be a long transition period, there is also the fact that for many months we will be governed by rules, in the making of which we will have had no share.

While all that is taken for granted, as I think most of us, even those who strongly support the agreement, would agree, I want to concentrate on a different question: why all this has happened. We have had good negotiators—the people who went to Brussels to negotiate were very talented—so why have we not been able to achieve an agreement that is acceptable to most people with varying degrees of enthusiasm?

I think that at the bottom of it all is the deeply ambiguous, almost ambivalent, attitude to Europe that we have had since after the Second World War. It started with Enoch Powell—perhaps even earlier but certainly then—when he said very firmly that we are not a European country. Throughout our history, we have stood with our face to the seas and with our back to Europe. With Margaret Thatcher there was a slight change. She was a politician in a way that Enoch Powell was not. She said that we are a European country in the sense that the affairs of Europe concern us, but we are not a European country because the history and pattern of Europe are totally different from ours. The history of European states is post-Napoleonic; ours goes back much further. They have not known liberty, whereas we have; they have not known democracy, which we have; and they talk about the state, whereas in our legal vocabulary there is no concept of the state.

For all those reasons, we must co-operate with our neighbours but should never make the mistake of thinking of ourselves as a European country. So if we are not a European country, what on earth are we doing being part of the European Union? That ambiguity has systematically paralysed us and prevented us making a sensible response to our responsibilities and obligations within the European Union. Added to that has been the rather unfortunate press. Certain parts of the press have not supported the European Union or its activities as faithfully as it should. Therefore, with a deep ambiguity of attitude, constantly reinforced by parts of the media, we end up with a demon on the other side of the channel.

The only questions are: should we stay and, if we stay, how should we stay? As Margaret Thatcher once said, “We go there to civilise them”. Just as we civilised the rest of the world, we are now going into Europe. The memory of the Second World War has not disappeared, either. During that war, we “saved” Europe and stood for European civilisation. Likewise, we have civilised the largest number of colonies in the world, yet the Brexiteers keep saying that we should not be a colony of Europe.

For all these reasons, our attitude towards the European Union has been extremely disappointing, with the result that in our negotiations with the EU we have displayed—I say this with great humility—a condescending, if not patronising, attitude and a certain degree of superiority. There have been references during the debate to asking European countries to show gratitude to us. Gratitude for what? For what we did during the Second World War. In other words, the whole drama of the Second World War continued to be fought during the debate, and that certainly alienated large sections of Europeans, including our friends. However, that is history. What we need to do on an occasion like this is to reflect deeply on the roots of our attitude towards the European Union and ask ourselves how we can be a member of an organisation, treat its members equally and not expect to be treated in a special way.

What do we do now? The common answer is to let Parliament decide on a free vote, but what if it cannot decide on a free vote or with a simple majority of one or two? Is it enough in a momentous issue of this kind for a decision to be made with a majority vote of 1%, 2% or 5%? It might be said that Parliament does not have to decide because the people made the decision in the first referendum, and this is where I want to suggest an alternative.

I suggest that a referendum is needed to elicit public opinion but, at the same time, we should not call it a second referendum, because that implies that it is tied into the first referendum and the so-called second referendum would be seen as an attempt to overturn the first. The idea is not to do that but simply to complement the first referendum. The question in the first was: do you want to be in the European Union or not? The answer was, “We do not want to be in the European Union, so go and negotiate”. We negotiated this deal, so now people should be asked whether they want it or not. Therefore, it would be not a second referendum but an independent referendum with the same validity and status as the first—although by calling it the first referendum, I seem to be making the same mistake.

I want to make a final important point. In the debate surrounding Brexit, there has been a great deal of polarisation and name-calling, and that has opened up divisions in our society. Each side demonises the other. That is most unfortunate and no society can be cohesive or continue on the basis of deep-seated divisions of this kind. It is very important that we restore mutual respect, mutual esteem and mutual trust, and that is the spirit in which we should approach this debate and its outcome.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Parekh Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parekh (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a momentous debate, in which the House and Parliament as a whole are trying to turn our back on over 40 years of our history and strike out on our own in a highly dangerous and volatile world. This is the result of the referendum. Some people outside the House, and some of your Lordships as well, have tried to question the democratic legitimacy of the referendum on the grounds that only 39% of the people voted for it, and because all the lies told and falsehoods spread meant that the campaign was not as honest as it could have been. I am afraid that that is water under the bridge. It does not amount to any kind of electoral malpractice and can be ignored.

The referendum poses three extremely important questions. First, what is its constitutional status? Secondly, what does it commit us to? Thirdly, once we have achieved what it wants us to achieve, what next? In the five-odd minutes that I have, I will address those questions in that order.

The constitutional status of the referendum is that it is largely advisory. Although the Prime Minister and others have said differently, this is not part of the Bill—and only the Bill carries its own meaning. More importantly, to suggest that it is mandatory is to question the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, which is the constitutional linchpin of our political system. That means that, as an advisory proposal rather than a mandatory one, it requires every MP not simply to give in to what the referendum says but rather to give it serious thought and to give his best judgment to the question in hand. It is quite important that the MP is never entirely helpless. With an advisory referendum, the MP retains the freedom and responsibility to make sure that he exercises his mind as wisely as he can and delivers a judgment.

The same applies to your Lordships’ House. Although we are not elected, we are nevertheless representatives. As I teach my students in my political philosophy class, being elected and being representative are not necessarily the same thing. In certain contexts, the Queen represents us without having been elected. So the fact that we are sometimes threatened with extinction if we exercise our judgment need not worry us. During the 17 years that I have been in your Lordships’ House, I have seen those threats wielded again and again, and I am afraid that they do not really amount to very much—and if they do, we shall see.

I want to concentrate on the second question, which is: what does this referendum commit us to? Some people seem to think that it commits us conclusively and exclusively to getting out of the European Union. I am afraid that it does not. If 52% of the people want to get out and 48% of the people want to stay in, the message of the referendum, as I understand it, is to leave the European Union in such a way that we remain a member—to leave the European Union but not give up the best that it has given us and the gains we have made. That means that we should not do anything to, or settle on terms that, lower the standards that we have come to expect during the past 40-odd years that we have been a member of the European Union.

We should protect workers’ rights, we should not weaken the UK, we should respect human rights and we should respect the rights of EU nationals resident in the UK. This is what is being said when we are told that we are leaving the European Union but not Europe. What does that mean? What does Europe stand for as different from the European Union? Europe stands for certain social democratic values. So when we are told that we are not leaving Europe, we are saying that we are committed to those values and that they must at all costs remain our guiding star.

It is also quite important that we should not be too obsessed with the question of immigration, which was really the issue in the referendum. Immigration is bound to remain high, partly because of our labour market situation and partly because trade deals that we enter into with individual countries will involve clauses about the movement of people.

The third question is: once the terms of settlement have been reached, what do we do? Obviously they must be approved by the people. Ideally I would have liked this situation to be settled by Parliament on the principle that our system is based on parliamentary sovereignty. But, having conceded a referendum in the first instance, to go back on it or to suggest that there will be no referendum in the future would imply an act of political cowardice as well as being an act of inconsistency.

I will end by simply saying this. We are planning to go alone. We can go alone—no one in the world can stop us from doing that—but we should remember that, in wanting to do that, we run risks. We saw that, for example, when the Prime Minister had to meet the President of the United States. We need Uncle Sam to hold our hand and to make sure that we can get a better deal; we think that he will use his influence in such a way that other countries might give us one. On the one had we chafe against EU constraints; on the other hand we seem only to keen to embrace those offered by Uncle Sam. I do not think that is the way we should behave.

House of Lords: Procedures and Practices

Lord Parekh Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parekh (Lab)]

My Lords, at a rough count, I think that we spend 15% to 20% of our time on debates. The specific question I want to address is this: are our debates as effective as they could be and are we getting as much out of the time we spend on them as we should? My feeling over the past 10-odd years that I have been here is that we are not. I shall make four or five suggestions for improving the way we organise our debates.

The question to ask is: what are these debates for? Sometimes a debate is intended to allow your Lordships to express their opinions, as in the case of assisted dying. Speakers were given barely a minute or two, which did not allow anyone to develop an argument. Such debates do not allow the development of argumentative propositions; they are largely expressions of sentiment. Alternatively, debates are intended to raise major issues which are being debated in the country at large, or because they will be appearing on the horizon in five or 10 years’ time and we would like to see them being discussed. If that is so, the question then is what happens at the end of such debates. A fascinating bunch of ideas will have been circulated and one hopes that the Minister will have made a note of them, but what next? Occasionally, and nowadays more frequently, some of us will receive a letter from the Minister setting out a response to what a Peer said in a debate, but has any action been taken? If the ideas are worth while, they should be acted upon, and if they are not worth while, Peers should be told why they are not.

The first point I want to make is that we need to debate the debate itself. We must ask how to make sure that our debates and the ideas they generate are effective. A way to do that would be to look at how we select the topics for debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, pointed out in a very powerful speech, it is important to note that Back Benchers do have ideas about issues that they would like to see being debated. I am not particularly happy about the term “Back Bencher” because many of us do a lot of active things as well. Nevertheless, as I say, a large number of Back Benchers have ideas about issues that they would like to debate. It is quite important to find a way of introducing a systematic and regularised method of allowing Back Benchers to have a say in the choice of topics for debate.

Another point to bear in mind is that when topics are selected for debate, they are largely presented in the form of a general proposition. On many occasions when I have looked at whether I want to put my name down to speak in a debate, I have not been entirely clear about what the proposer of the debate wants to discuss. The result is that the topic is a kind of peg upon which we can hang our different ideas, so the debate tends to lack focus. It would be helpful if every suggestion of a topic for debate were to be followed by two or three lines indicating what it is that is supposed to be discussed—or at least two or three specific questions. As a professor, I am used to seeing questions being asked; then I know which one I am answering. It would be useful to have a topic for debate followed by two or three specific questions that the initiator of the debate would like to see discussed.

My third point relating to our debates concerns the fact that sometimes Peers have only one, two or three minutes in which to speak. It happens because the number of speakers in the list is very large, and rightly so in the case of some important topics. It is also because sometimes a debate cannot be given any more time than what has already been allocated. How do we deal with that kind of situation? We cannot cap the number of speakers by saying, “First come, first served”. That would be rather silly because many people who sign up late might have something profound and interesting to say—although it is likely that they would not be able to make their points in only one or two minutes. As I said earlier, in debates on subjects like assisted dying, Peers put their names down to speak because they want to make a point. They want people outside this place and other noble Lords to know where they stand. Would it not be possible, as I gather happens in some jurisdictions, to have a system where everyone is allowed to put their names down but in some cases the speeches are “taken as delivered”? They could be printed in Hansard even though they might not have been delivered on the Floor of the House. That would profoundly change the meaning of Hansard and what it is for, but it should be possible to find a way in which everyone can put their name down to speak while making sure that the speaking time is not so short as to make the whole thing ridiculous.

My last point has to do with the composition of the House. Over the years we have grown so large that it has become extremely difficult to organise debates or indeed any kind of sensible discussion about important issues. More and more Peers continue to be appointed in an effort to reflect in this place the results of elections to the House of Commons. I want to make two points very quickly. First, it is absolutely right that the results of the election in the House of Commons should be reflected here in some way, but they could be reflected not only positively, as we do, by increasing the number of Peers but negatively by reducing the number of Peers. If a party is defeated in the election, it ought to be possible for us to say, “As a result of the election, party A has lost a certain proportion of seats and therefore will lose a certain proportion of Members here, and we should leave it to the party concerned to nominate who it would like to see leave the House of Lords”.

Many of us who are past 75 or about to be 75 would be more than happy to leave the House of Lords if we were convinced that we would be replaced by people from within our own party or by people sharing our professional expertise. If there was an imaginative alternative—not in terms of money; hardly any of us would be tempted or induced by the offer of one or two years’ allowance—such as people being able to keep their title, come into the building, have a cup of tea and entertain their guests, I should think that many people would be more than happy to accept the invitation to leave. We should think of this as well as other imaginative ways in which people could be persuaded to recognise that 75 years of age or being in the House for 10 or 15 years is just about the limit of their contribution.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

Lord Parekh Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parekh]

My Lords, I welcome the report. It is absolutely right to say that there is an anomaly in our membership of your Lordships' House. I cannot think of any institution to which one can belong without having the right to resign. Therefore, it is absolutely proper that the anomaly should be set right and that one should be allowed to resign after a certain period.

My worry is about the way in which people can be persuaded to take voluntary retirement. I may be being puritanical here, but to talk of payment does not accord with the public mood or with the spirit in which your Lordships' House is run. It has been a privilege for many of us to belong to this place. It has been a privilege over the years to propose amendments, to participate in debates and, we hope, to contribute something to the well-being of this great country. Then to be told that in order to leave you must be paid a certain amount of money is like asking: “What is your price to get out of this place?” I, for one, have no price, because I am not for sale.

I should have thought that if, on leaving, Members of your Lordships’ House were to be given access to dining facilities, the Library and research—a great privilege for which people would pay hundreds of thousands of pounds—that privilege would be enough to persuade a person to say, “I am happy to take voluntary retirement”. One can also put it in a more public spirited manner. We are 700 plus. It is necessary to reduce the number. There is no other way of reducing the number than either persuading people to take voluntary retirement or bringing in retrospective primary legislation which says that anyone over 75 or anyone who had been here for 10 years should go.

If people were told it is a matter of public service—the same spirit of public service which brought us here and kept us going—that one should take voluntary retirement after having served in your Lordships’ House for 10 or 15 years, that should be enough to persuade people. I would rather appeal to moral and public spirit than financial incentives. However, if we decide at some point to bring in financial incentives, I very much hope that we will not call it either a pension or a resettlement payment. Neither of these terms applies to the role that we have played. We have not been paid. We have only been given allowances—and only those who wanted to take allowances did so. To be told that when we leave we will get a pension is not only incoherent with the spirit in which we have been here but would also look very bad indeed outside this great House.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I briefly point out to the Chairman of Committees and the Leader of the House that the root of this problem lies in the coalition agreement, which says that members will be appointed to this place in order to reflect the balance of votes obtained at the general election. If that policy is continued the membership of this House will increase to well over 1,000 and if, at a subsequent election, there is another change of government and they apply the same policy, it would grow exponentially.

I make this point because of something I read in the Times today. My noble friend Lord Ashdown, writing about reform of this place repeated something which he has said in our debates—that the political parties have appointed Members to the House in order to obtain a majority to get their legislation through. That is simply not true. This House has always operated on the basis that there should be no party with an overall majority. For that reason, it operates in the distinctive way in which it does.

To those who argue for some kind of financial incentive to leave this House, I respectfully point out that it is a funny way of trying to get and restore trust in Parliament: to inflate the size of Parliament and then ask the taxpayers to find the money to deal with the consequences.

House of Lords: Working Practices

Lord Parekh Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parekh]

My Lords, I greatly welcome the report. It is extremely insightful and makes a whole set of useful recommendations about pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny as well as about Question Time. Therefore, I shall concentrate not on what I agree with but on five or six areas where the report is either silent or does not go far enough.

I start with something which is extremely simple. It has to do with the quaint and sometimes arcane language in which we speak about ourselves. If I had the choice, I would propose to your Lordships' House that that the expression “your Lordships' House” could easily, and should, be got rid of. It is a mouthful and it is time-consuming. I am told that if we were to drop it we would save about nine and a half minutes a day. It is also incorrect, because it is not simply your Lordships' House; the speaker is part of it.

I would also propose to the House that we dispense with such expressions as “the noble and learned Lord” and “the noble and gallant Lord”. Everyone is gallant in his or her own way and everyone is learned. At one level, ever since I came to this House, I have thought that we academics who write huge tomes are no less learned than lawyers, QCs and judges, but we are not included in the expression “noble and learned”. My simple suggestion is that it might not be a bad idea to simplify our language and to make it more relevant to our times.

My second suggestion has to do with debates. The topics of debate are by and large a matter of party choice, chance or first come, first served. Sometimes, some extremely important issues, either because they are topical or because they are reflective and deal with the long-term trends of our country, get neglected. If I had the time, I would list half a dozen topics on which I would like to see major debates in this wonderful House.

I therefore greatly welcome the idea of a Back-Bench business committee. However, such a committee could easily monopolise the job of selecting topics. Therefore, if it is going to be set up, as I think it should, it should be bound by clearly laid down rules. The report mentions one of them: that those who have not asked a Question for Short Debate in the current Session or ever before should be given preference. The committee should also be required to choose topics of debate from those that are proposed by Members, rather than suo moto.

Many of us spend a lot of time trying to think through subjects for debate and make constructive suggestions. It is therefore very disappointing not to get well considered responses. Even when a response is made in the winding-up speech by the Minister, it is made in passing, it is fleeting, and is disposed of in about 10 or 15 seconds. It is very important that the Minister should be required to make a considered written response to all the substantial points made, and that these should either be published in Hansard, or made available in the Library.

I sometimes find it very disappointing that the debate is limited to either two minutes, or sometimes even to one minute. I ask myself what on earth one is doing speaking for about a minute, composing no more than 10 sentences. There must be some way in which we can have proper debates in which a minimum of at least three minutes is given to the speaker. That could be achieved in several ways: the number of speakers could be limited, or those who have written out their speeches and are going to read them out might simply submit copies which would be published in Hansard, but need not be orally delivered in your Lordships’ House. If they are easily available they can easily be included in Hansard.

My third suggestion is to do with Select Committees. It is very important—and I can say this from some experience on the Select Committee on Human Rights—that no one should be able to serve on a Select Committee for more than three or a maximum of four years. I have seen Select Committees where people have been there for five, six or seven years, and the result is that they tend to get dominated by one or two members, and there is no circulation of fresh blood and fresh ideas.

My fourth suggestion has to do with the State Opening of Parliament. We have been talking a great deal about the primacy of the House of Commons. That primacy is not reflected in the State Opening of Parliament. I and many people outside your Lordships’ House find it very strange that someone as dignified as the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, at the time of the State Opening of Parliament, has to stand without the Bar and listen to the speech being delivered. There must be a better way of doing things. For example, the State Opening of Parliament, at which wearing robes should not be required, could take place in Westminster Hall.

My final suggestion, which, although it might appear rather trivial, is emotionally quite important, because it bonds our House. I would have said “your Lordships’ House” but having criticised the expression I will say “our House”. When a member of your Lordships’ House dies, it is simply mentioned as a news item. I think that this is unfortunate. We must find ways of observing at least a minute’s silence. I am told—by no less an authority than the Leader of the House—that there is one death every fourteen days. That would mean that a maximum of 22 or 23 deaths a year would be announced, and 23 minutes of standing for your Lordships’ House is not too difficult an exercise to undertake. I should also suggest that before a minute’s silence, it should not be too difficult for the Leader of the House to pay tribute on behalf of the House. There is always a memorial service, but that memorial service is organised either by the family or the party to which the deceased belonged. No collective tribute is paid by your Lordships’ House, and it is sad that when someone who has served this House with distinction for umpteen number of years, disappears simply unmourned, unnoticed and unrespected.