Death of a Member: Baroness Thatcher

Lord Waddington Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler]

My Lords, listening to the radio and watching television in the Isle of Wight, I was struck by the number of Conservatives at Westminster who said that Margaret Thatcher had brought them into politics. Some even suggested that they had been Thatcherites long before she even came to power.

Although I served with her in opposition and in government for 15 years in succession, I make neither claim. Mine was rather a different journey. In the leadership election of 1975 I voted for Ted Heath, and then followed that by voting for my noble and learned friend Lord Howe. It is fair to say that that was rather an exclusive campaign. We had 25 definite promises and pledges and we ended up with 19 votes, that being entirely par for the course in House of Commons elections. We had some good quality, however, in my noble friend Lord Brittan and my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke. As we chewed over the result in a small room upstairs, none of us was convinced that the party had made the right choice. It was then, to my total amazement, that Margaret Thatcher put me into her first shadow Cabinet; it is fair to say that that amazement was widely shared. I had never done a Front-Bench job before. I was put in charge of health and social security against Barbara Castle; I think that is known as a baptism of fire.

However, that proved a point about Lady Thatcher. Margaret was sometimes seen as surrounding herself with known supporters and yes-men. She had the confidence and the self-belief not to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said, you did not have to be “one of us” to be in her Cabinet. All three of us at the time were doubters, but all three of us became members of her Cabinet, and our very good candidate—who sadly got only 19 votes—became her excellent Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom she owed so much.

The second point is that she was personally kind and generous, and much concerned that her Ministers should not lose out in any way. I learnt about that in a roundabout way. After about 18 months I was moved from health and social security to transport. It was not the move that I was looking for. “What? Transport?”, I said to Margaret indignantly. She said, “Norman, I did transport. You can do transport”. That is exactly what happened. It proved to be a lucky move, for when the new Government were formed I went into the Cabinet, never having been even a junior Minister. Margaret Thatcher had a lengthy apology to make. She said, “I’m afraid we can pay in full only 22 Cabinet Ministers and you are the 23rd, so we will have to pay you at the rate of the Chief Whip”—my noble friend Lord Jopling, who is somewhere around. She said, “I am really very sorry about that”. I thought it best not to say that I would probably have done it for nothing had she asked, and we moved on.

I was fascinated by what the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said about the visit of President Mitterrand to Downing Street. The noble Lord was lucky to face a socialist. My opposite number was a communist, M. Fiterman. The great thing was that after all these great events, you need a communiqué. It was a very genial meeting but there was nothing much we could agree on. The one thing we could agree on, at least in principle, was the need for a Channel Tunnel. The communiqué became about the Channel Tunnel. It ceased to be just an aspiration of the Department of Transport and from that moment became a proposal of No. 10 and went onwards.

My third point, on looking back on those momentous years, is that there were undoubted tragedies such as the Grand Hotel bomb. I remember as Health Secretary going back to Brighton the next morning—I had been there the night before—to visit some of the wounded. If I may say so, I remember the courage of many people, not least my two noble friends here today. There were other undoubted crises, such as the Falklands. That was the only time I remember Margaret Thatcher going round the whole Cabinet table and asking each Minister, one by one, whether they were in favour of sending a task force. Virtually everyone agreed; there was only one exception. However, I am bound to say that I at least agreed with my fingers metaphorically crossed because I joined the Army for my national service in 1956, at the time of Suez. That was not our greatest time. It seemed to me that if we could not get our forces efficiently from Cyprus to Egypt, it would be very difficult to get them to the other end of the world in the way that we did. The success of the Falklands was a tribute to our totally professional Armed Forces and to the consistency, determination and courage of Margaret Thatcher. My lesson from that was that the MPs who had voted for her as leader in 1975 had been proved absolutely right.

Above all, serving with Margaret Thatcher was always exciting. It was sometimes also great fun. Some say that she stamped all over her Ministers. It is true that if you were prepared to be handbagged she would oblige. She did not respect Ministers who came in with a proposal that they immediately withdrew when they heard the initial response from the Prime Minister. I learnt very early on that she really did enjoy an argument. Sometimes you actually won that argument as well.

She was an activist, she was a radical and she was, above all, a leader. Her death is obviously a terribly sad occasion and we all send our sympathies to Carol, Mark and the family. But above all, these days should be a recognition and a celebration of a great woman.

[Lord Waddington]

My Lords—

[Lord Thomas of Swynnerton]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Waddington]

I shall try to be brief, my Lords. I will not add to the catalogue of Lady Thatcher’s great achievements: I merely wish to indulge in one or two rather personal reminiscences, which throws some light on her character.

Margaret Thatcher came out to help me in the Clitheroe by-election in February 1974. It was a very cold day and after an hour or two we repaired to a place to have lunch. I sat the constituency chairman on her left. He was so intimidated by the occasion that he could not think of anything to say for five minutes. He then burst into song and said, “Leader of the Opposition. Don’t you think it’s time we went for PR?”. I thought that the Leader of the Opposition would explode. She choked on her prawn cocktail, gave a great gulp and then said, “Well, of course, if you never want the Tory Party to win another election that is a very good idea”. The constituency chairman slumped into his seat and never said another word.

Margaret did not suffer fools gladly but she could be immensely kind—somehow very tolerant of ordinary human failings. The other day I read a book written by Carol Thatcher. I, like others, wish to give my condolences to the family. In that book about her father, Carol said that she asked him one day what was his idea of the perfect afternoon. He said, “It is sitting in a deck chair on a hot afternoon with a bottle of bubbly by my side reading a good book, and Margaret in a reasonably calm frame of mind”.

You have to say that Margaret was not always absolutely calm when you were working with her. She was always challenging, always relishing a good argument. Sometimes, when you had endured the flame and the fire, you came out of it thinking you might have won but you were never quite sure. She was a towering figure, but I saw signs of human frailty. I was with her behind the stage in the conference hall in Brighton in 1984. She was waiting to go in front and make her great speech. She was slumped on a sofa and I think it was Gordon Reece sitting on the arm of the sofa. Margaret was saying, “I don't think that I can go through with this”. He said, “Of course you can, of course you can. When you get out there, the whole world will be cheering for you”, and so it was. She went out in front of that audience and gave one of the most marvellous speeches of her whole life.

Margaret was absolutely free of side and self-importance. Once, I had an argument with her as to whether the BBC licence fee had been discussed in various committee meetings that we had had on the Broadcasting Bill. I said that I was absolutely sure that the licence fee had never been mentioned; she said that she was sure that it had. The minutes were called for; a man came into the room with a great bundle of documents. She seized the documents, threw them on the floor and flung herself on the floor to read them, bidding me to join her. After three or four minutes of fruitless search, someone knocked on the door and came in. Seeing that extraordinary sight, they might have been quite embarrassed. Margaret was not at all embarrassed. She got to her feet full of bad temper, not embarrassment. She flounced out of the room saying that the discussion would soon be resumed and that she would soon prove how pathetic was my memory.

She was a great person, a great person to work with, and I am immensely proud to have had the opportunity of serving under her.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Waddington Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Waddington]

My Lords, I seem to have travelled a rather different road to the one travelled by many noble Lords, but at the end of the day I have arrived at precisely the same destination. We have had quite enough constitutional change in recent years. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord MacGregor that, with the country facing so many pressing problems, it will look quite extraordinary if we spend days and days of parliamentary time on legislation on the lines of the draft Bill.

Then there is the matter of the Parliament Act, already mentioned a few times in this debate, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. If this House were to reject this Bill, could the Parliament Act be used to force it through second time round? The question is simple: could an Act passed with the consent of both Houses to resolve disputes between an elected and an unelected House be used to change entirely the composition of the second Chamber so that it was no longer even based on the peerage whose wings the Parliament Act was passed to clip?

It would be very strange indeed if the Parliament Act could be used and I would like to hear the Government’s view on this. When the Deputy Leader of the House sums up, I hope that he does not just brush the matter aside and say that no one can know now whether or not a Bill will get through this House. It would be very difficult to find anyone in this place who thinks that the Bill would have much of a chance. If it really would not be possible to use the Parliament Act, should the Government not be considering whether they are justified in pressing ahead and wasting a lot of time on this matter?

Having said that, I am not in principle against an elected second Chamber. I can see the case for creating an elected House so that it can have powers that would not be proper to give to an unelected House. I am dead against creating an elected second Chamber and then requiring it to do no more than we can do perfectly well now. Let us look for one moment at the opportunity we are missing. Noble Lords have been very polite about the Commons in this debate—with the exception of my noble friend Lord Higgins. In truth, the other place, which is supposed to be a check on the Executive and whose primacy noble Lord after noble Lord has determinedly championed, has become pretty feeble in the role that it is supposed to perform.

Governments, particularly those with big majorities, are able to get almost any measure through the Commons. The Commons is often little more than a tool of the Executive—and things are getting worse, not better. It is not just a matter of the power of the Whips, and the power of patronage—which of course has grown much bigger as a result of the introduction of life peerages. Governments and Oppositions nowadays even busy themselves with trying to dictate who can stand for their respective parties, regardless of the wishes of local people. People have even been thrown out of Parliament for appearing to voice disagreement with party policy. That happened to my noble friend Lord Flight, when he was Howard Flight, back in 2005, and it was a disgraceful affair. Systems have recently been set up to prevent people who have fought good fights under the party banner from being able even to offer themselves for reselection. That has just happened to the person who fought, and fought well, in the constituency where I live. Of course, a more powerful second Chamber would not stop that sort of abuse of power, but it does show how great the power of the Executive is over the Commons.

There is a case for an elected second Chamber but it is not the case being put forward by the Government. There is a case for a second House which would not be just a revising chamber, still less one dedicated to no more than making the legislative sausage machine run nice and smoothly. There is a case for a Government having to win not just the support of the Commons but of another body composed and elected in a way that would make it far more independent of government than the Commons has become. There is a case for an elected House having new powers with regard to legislation; but also perhaps specific powers for the House to exercise on its own, like some of the powers given to the US Senate.

However, none of this is on offer. Out of fear that any hint of an increase in powers would scupper the Bill, those who have brought it forward have bolted the door against worthwhile reform. As a result they are trying to win an unwinnable argument. They have set themselves the task of trying to convince the public that it is good in itself to create more elected politicians even if they are not allowed to do anything that is not done perfectly well now. They are on a hiding to nothing.

Interim Report: Leader's Group on Members Leaving the House

Lord Waddington Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Waddington]

My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate. All sorts of views have been expressed, but there is one thing on which we can all agree—that the House is too big. I am not saying that its size prevents it doing its job properly. Obviously not. But I am saying that it could still do its job properly if it was half the size and that, as a matter of principle and common sense, this House should be smaller, not bigger, than the House of Commons, whose Members have to represent constituents. But while the House of Commons is coming down in size, this House is growing. Unless something is done, it will grow with each succeeding year.

This continual growth is an inevitable consequence of our being a nominated rather than an elected Chamber, because after every general election resulting in a change of Government, there must be an influx of new Peers if only to correct the party balance and give the new Government reasonable representation. We are not here today to discuss the respective merits of a nominated or elected House, although, clearly, after a transitional period, a wholly elected House would present no numbers problem. But we are here surely to recognise that, if we remain a nominated House, the size of the House and the cost of running it will go up and up and the public’s blood pressure will go up correspondingly. Those who wish the present set-up to continue had better try to do something about it; otherwise those who do not wish to see the present set-up continue will be rubbing their hands, because they will see us sow the seeds of our own destruction.

One thing could be done at once. It would not reduce the size of the House but would make a modest contribution towards limiting its future growth. Legislation could and, in my view, should be introduced to alter the terms on which new Peers are appointed. They, or some of them, could be appointed without the right to sit in the Lords. That was hinted at as a possibility by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. They, or some of them, could be appointed with the right to sit if, and only if, a vacancy occurred when, as a result of deaths, the membership of the place fell below a cap set by legislation. The right reverend Prelate hinted at that. I then wonder whether various devices could be used to stop incoming Governments being able to use the excuse that they had to pack the place with new Peers just to give themselves proper representation. For instance, an outgoing Government could say that a number of their Members, while keeping their right to attend, would happily give up their right to vote. I am sure that there would be no shortage of volunteers. Sensible arrangements like this could do an awful lot to ease the pressure.

In my view, we have to think up ingenious schemes like that because the only real alternative—compulsory retirement on age or other grounds—would be fraught with difficulties and dangers and, in some cases at least, cause real unfairness. Let us be clear: it might be thought right to deprive a long-standing non-attender of the right to sit or, as suggested in the Steel Bill, to deem that he has taken permanent leave of absence. Surely, it would be another thing entirely to remove from the House a person granted a peerage for life by Her Majesty when he or she is willing and able to continue carrying out the duties of that office. To do so would, in my view, be nothing less than a constitutional enormity. I also wish to point out that it would be unfair to the House, because it is very difficult to think of any cull that would not sweep up and out of the House the useful with the not so useful: the elderly statesman along with the Peer of declining powers; the Peer who only comes to draw his allowance along with the Peer who comes rarely but, when he does, speaks on a subject on which he is the acknowledged expert.

I simply cannot imagine that my noble friend Lord Tyler would really like that outcome, although it would be the result of what he suggests. I really do not think that my noble friend Lord Hodgson would want that outcome, yet it is what he is suggesting. No: compulsory retirement could also, incidentally, result in actions in the courts, but whether or not that is a real possibility, it would be quite wrong to deprive an individual of the right to sit here, whether on grounds of age, limited attendance or, least of all, because in all-party arrangements to reduce numbers proportionately, he has lost a party beauty contest. I really part company with my noble friend Lord Hamilton here; that is the biggest nonsense of all. To have compulsory retirement and then make it the result of a party beauty contest is the biggest nonsense one can possibly imagine.

As for voluntary retirement, I am sure we can all agree that legislation to provide for this would be entirely proper and that there could be nothing wrong at all in the powers that be trying to persuade people to go voluntarily. In my view, however, such persuasion would not be very successful—I share my noble friend Lord Kirkwood’s views on that—and it was for that reason that I wrote to that group suggesting some modest financial incentive.

Obviously my noble friend Lord Alderdice is thinking along those lines as well, but I have to disappoint him: I have changed my mind, like the Deputy Prime Minister. Originally, I thought of only a modest payment, not more than the equivalent of what an individual had drawn in allowances in the previous year, and I concluded that at the present time, of all times, it would be quite impossible to persuade the public that compensation, even at that modest level, would be appropriate. In short, such payments would be much more effective in inflaming the public than in persuading colleagues to go.

So, no compulsory retirement; no offers of compensation; legislation to provide for voluntary retirement; arrangements between the parties to change the party balance by some Peers, after an election, giving up the right to vote; and, most important of all, a change in the law so that becoming a life Peer does not necessarily carry with it the right to sit in this House—that is my modest contribution to a difficult problem. I close by thanking my noble friend Lord Hunt and his colleagues for all the work that they are doing on this matter.

European Council

Lord Waddington Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, on the second question, if a tragedy occurred and we needed to be bailed out—as we have been in the past, sometimes—there is no reason why we should not go to the IMF. That is what the IMF is for. I think the point behind the noble Lord’s first question was that if we were in a different position and budgetary environment, would we be ideologically opposed ever to seeing an increase in the budget? Some of us would be very opposed to seeing an increase in the EU budget when there are still so many uncertainties and inefficiencies built into the process of budget-making, grant-making and handing out money. We would like to see a comprehensive review of how this money is spent so that there is firm control by member states and the Commission over how it is all done.

[Lord Waddington]

My Lords, an undertaking was given that the setting up of the European External Action Service would be revenue-neutral. Have the strongest representations been made to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, that the overall overrun that has been announced is quite unacceptable and, if one looks at some of the expenses now contemplated by the European External Action Service, clearly avoidable? If representations are not made about this clear breach of faith, I shall be very disappointed in Her Majesty’s Government.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Waddington Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Waddington]

My Lords, it is both a pleasure and a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate. I am sure that he knows that I do not underestimate the important role played by the Bishops’ Bench in this House. However, this afternoon I will raise another matter of great importance that we are in danger of overlooking. It shows clearly that we cannot duck the question of what should be the powers of a reformed House by saying that it can be left as a marginal matter.

I remind your Lordships that our constitution has been rickety since 1949, when the Government of the day, rightly or wrongly, upset the quasi-settlement of 1911 and used the Parliament Act to drive through a reduction in the delaying powers of the Lords without the consent of this House. It is arguable that with that precedent a Government could further reduce our delaying power; indeed, could so reduce it as to make it virtually valueless and render this Chamber incapable of fulfilling its most important role as the ultimate guarantor of the rights and liberties of the subject. Therefore, what is required is not a second Chamber that is an ever more efficient part of the legislative sausage machine, and not a second Chamber that does no more than—to use the jargon—add value to the legislative process by amending bills that have not been properly considered in the Commons, and by scrutinising EU legislation. We need a second Chamber that can block legislation for a meaningful period and stop a Government using their temporary majority to drive through irreversible change before the country has had time to grasp and digest its true consequences. That was precisely what the settlement in 1911 was about. We need a second Chamber that can stop a Government using their temporary majority to extend their own life, which is another thing that the 1911 settlement was all about.

That is what the country needs but, the way we are going, it is very unlikely to get it. This House with its present powers is, as I have shown, a very frail barrier against arbitrary government, and it is absolutely clear that, because it lacks democratic legitimacy, it will never get additional powers. However, if we do not look out, an elected House will also be denied meaningful powers in the name of preserving the primacy of the Commons. My noble friend the Leader of the House said as much when he hinted that there was no chance of any increase in the powers of the second Chamber.

After all the inglorious constitutional meddling of recent years, it would be surprising if many people did not feel now that the best course is to leave well alone. If an elected House comes into existence, we do not know how the relationship between the two Houses would work, and how the inevitable tension between them would be resolved. So why, many say, take a leap into the unknown?

I am afraid that the answer to that is very plain: the transition to an elected House is, in my view, well nigh inevitable. Lords reform is not, just now, a burning issue in the Dog and Duck, but when measures are taken to cut the number of MPs, surely it will be almost impossible to argue that people should be required to support an unelected House growing ever bigger and costing ever more, for I have seen no evidence to suggest that if a proposal were brought forward to encourage noble Lords to retire, there would be a great rush of people to the door. I do not believe for one moment that that would happen.

Therefore, I think that our job is to see that by the method of election to the new House, by a limit on the period for which anyone can serve and by other devices we create a House far more independent of the Executive and therefore a better check on the Executive than the Commons has proved to be in recent years. Of course, we must see that the new House has meaningful powers and at the very least—this has not been mentioned yet today—the power to veto a Bill that seeks to further amend the Parliament Act.

I have not much doubt that a change to an elected House will cause much trouble and strife, with the new House using its democratic legitimacy to challenge the primacy of the Commons. However, there is perhaps some reason to hope that out of it all will come in time what is really needed: a new constitutional settlement with a written constitution granting the second Chamber specific powers different from those of the Commons—powers such as were mentioned very briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, a few moments ago—and with it becoming something akin to the American Senate. That, indeed, would be a happy outcome.