Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300-319)
RT HON
LORD THOMSON
OF MONIFIETH,
RT HON
BARONESS DEAN
OF THORNTON-LE-FYLDE
AND MRS
GAY CATTO
26 FEBRUARY 2004
Q300 Kevin Brennan: Picking up the Chairman's
point, in terms of your personal views on the issue, do you think
that being appointed to a legislative chamber like the House of
Lords should be regarded as an honour in the same way as receiving
a gong of some sort for worthy service to the community? Is it
not an entirely different theme?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I personally
think that with the abolition of the automatic right of the hereditary
peerage to sit in the second chamber of Parliament, that there
is an opportunity to tackle that question face-on. I personally
would very much welcome if it were to be decided that the question
of peerage as a pure honour. Let us take an individual example
from the past: Yehudi Menhuin, the distinguished artist, was made
a peer as a pure honour. He came and took his seat in the House
of Lords but nobody expected him to be in any sense a working
participant in the work of the House of Lords. I think most people
would feel that some kind of recognition is very appropriate for
somebody of his standing. Therefore, the hereditary peerages are
taking their place in history. The House of Lords as a second
chamber is a working chamber. It is a political question of a
different kind as to exactly how the workers in that chamber should
be selected and composed and so on but it is a working chamber.
I would separate the peerage as an honour from the membership
of the House of Lords as a part of the working of Parliament.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde:
I would agree entirely with that. I was on the Wakeham Commission
and that was one of the recommendations they put forward.
Q301 Kevin Brennan: Sir Sydney earlier
described very candidly, as he always does, and in a very disarming
way, how he received his knighthood. It is the one case which
perhaps we can discuss, since he gave it himself in the Committee.
I am looking to see if he is nodding or not! Do you think some
of these political honours—and again this is a personal
view I am looking for—are sometimes—and I am sure
it is not true in Sir Sydney's case—not so much for services
rendered but for going quietly?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: First
of all, a political honour for those serving in Parliament, for
services rendered, for long service, in any society that values
its parliament, I think is a very appropriate form of honour.
When they come to the more naked cases that happen, as we all
know, where somebody is given the honour, above-all the supreme
honour in the past, of being moved out of the House of Commons
into the House of Lords for the political convenience of the government
of the day, I am afraid I take a rather unromantic and brutal
view that governments of the day have terrible problems and if
they wish to redistribute their members in a way that makes their
government more successful I think it is unreasonable to stand
in the way of that. But one must be very clearheaded as to which
is which. I would not kill the knighthood for a working member
of the House of Commons, someone who has done good service in
the House of Commons and is getting it for the good service, for
the sake of the kind of comment that inevitably is aroused by
the political convenience appointment.
Q302 Kevin Brennan: There is this phenomenon
which you have perhaps obliquely referred to, which I sometimes
call "last-minute-seat.com", where somebody retires
very late in the parliamentary cycle or announces their intention
to stand down and then miraculously, after a period, a decent
interval, reappears on the red benches at the other end of the
building. Do you think there is any relationship between those
two?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I think
that falls into the second category I mentioned. I was the Member
of Parliament—
Q303 Kevin Brennan: But you approve of
that, you said.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: As
I said, I think governments have to govern and it is reasonable
to expect them to be able to move people around. But I do not
think it is an admirable thing at all. I was a Member of Parliament
for Dundee for a long time. The only person who nearly served
Dundee as long as me was Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill
only became the MP for Dundee in extremely controversial circumstances
because the liberal Member for Dundee was kicked upstairs into
the House of Lords. It is part of the history of Dundee and I
have made many a speech about it, so I am rather on your side
in your emotions on it. But governments are governments, and I
rather think governments are entitled to a bit of the benefit
of the doubt in deploying their own people.
Q304 Kevin Brennan: I just want to pin
this down. There is nothing wrong, in your view, in the Prime
Minister calling in someone a few years before a probable general
election and quietly, privately and out of public view, saying
to them, "Look, I need your seat. I have a young up-and-coming
special advisor or somebody who is a prominent person within the
party. We need them in the Commons rather than in the Lords. If
you were to do the decent thing"—nod-nod, wink-wink—"you'll
be comfortable. We'll make sure you're all right at public expense.
You can claim your expenses and have membership of one of the
nicest clubs in London for the rest of your days. Is that all
right?"
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: You
are asking me my personal view. My personal view is that governing
is a rough trade and I think governments are entitled to some
benefit of the doubt on that. It is not an admirable practice
and of course they must face the flak of it and do face the flak
of it, as they did in the case of Winston Churchill all those
years ago.
Q305 Kevin Brennan: Is the public not
entitled to lift that particular slab and see what is crawling
underneath it? Should this not be done in the open light of scrutiny
rather than in that way?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The
kind of case you are describing is very much in the open. I do
not mean the original private conversation to the unfortunate
Member of the House of Commons who suggested that his time for
going to seed has come, but the actual event is highly in the
open, highly controversial, of great advantage to the opposition
party.
Kevin Brennan: But any prime minister
who admitted that that happened while they were in office would
be in serious trouble—serious political trouble. They would
be accused of corruption, would they not—
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: No,
I do not think so.
Q306 Kevin Brennan: —if they actually
admitted that they had said to a Member of Parliament, "If
you give up your seat I will put you in the Lords", do you
not think?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I had
not pursued it to that logical extent, but again I just stick
to my view that in our electoral system the government of the
day will do what it can to ensure that it gets the best possible
team in Parliament and so on and it will have to face the flak
on the ways in which it does it, but that is a public operation
that you are talking about. They do not avoid criticism by doing
it.
Q307 Kevin Brennan: Can I ask, Baroness
Dean, what your view is on that exchange?
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde:
I do not think it helps the reputation of politics to have what
you are talking about, but I think the political reality is too
[sic]. It is very difficult to define exactly. Whilst you have
got the system that you have got at the moment, the second chamber,
many Members from the House of Commons would and do make a valuable
contribution to the work of the Lords, so an MP ceasing to be
an MP, deciding to give up their seat, not standing next time
round and then coming into the Lords I think is perfectly acceptable.
I do not think it helps the reputation of politics when you get
a bunching of what you call lastminuteseat.com. I think anyone
who has got a conscience about politics feels somewhat embarrassed
about that when it happens.
Q308 Kevin Brennan: Can I ask one final
question and that is on the matter of the secrecy of the membership
of committees that make recommendations for honours, which is
an issue which we have touched on with other witnesses, and again
I understand it will be your personal view? Is it your view that
in the modern era it is sensible, prudent or acceptable to have
secret committees making recommendations for honours? Should we
not open that up to greater transparency?
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde:
My own view is no. You started off with one question and asked
a second one, a different one, at the end of what you just said,
if you do not mind my saying. You started off by asking is it
right that these committees on the names are in secret. When I
went on the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in 1998 colleagues
in the House said, "Oh, you do not discuss that. That committee
does not really exist", and then we got summoned before the
Neill Committee. I think it was the first time we have come out
of cover. First of all, I think the civil servants doing the processing
work and the background work is perfectly acceptable. You say
it should be another independent group. I do not think that would
necessarily achieve very much. I think the members of the committee
in the departments should be known. I think the proceedings of
the committees should not be in public and you should not have
transparency there for a whole host of reasons. Their discussions
should be in confidence and their recommendations should be as
well. I think in today's age to have committees that you do not
know the names of, outside of national security, obviously, really
does not sit very well with how we are as a nation today.
Q309 Kevin Brennan: Would Lord Thomson
agree with that?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I totally
agree with that. A separation between confidentiality for the
proceedings of the committees—I thought the recent leaks
of the proceedings of the Honours Committee was thoroughly damaging.
They were good for circulation for newspapers; they were thoroughly
bad for decent administration of a system but the membership of
committees should be in the public arena.
Q310 Mr Prentice: On Kevin's earlier
point, do you think when Members of Parliament are coming up to
retirement they should give their parties due notice to allow
the parties to select their successor rather than the kind of
deal for that lastminuteseat.com that Kevin was talking about,
and if a retiring Member of Parliament were to accept a peerage
in those circumstances it should be regarded as dishonourable
conduct?
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde:
I personally think no on both counts. I think the regulation of
the political parties is something for the parties unless it is
seen as in the public interest. For instance, the publishing of
donations was an admirable and right thing to do, but as regards
how political parties select their candidates, providing it is
a transparent procedure it is acceptable to me and no, I do not
think it is dishonourable for a Member of Parliament to accept
a peerage as long as that system is in being. Why would you want
to exclude people who have got an enormous amount of experience
to bring to the second chamber?
Q311 Mr Prentice: Because that retiring
Member of Parliament has decided quite consciously to leave his
announcement to the last moment to allow someone else to be shoehorned
into that seat and for the members of the political party in that
constituency to be completely cut out of the process. We are not
talking about one or two people here; we are talking about fairly
large numbers of retiring Members of the House of Commons going
into the second chamber on the back of this procedure, and we
all know that to be the case.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde:
So what is your question?
Q312 Mr Prentice: My question is, should
that be regarded as dishonourable conduct, to accept a peerage
in those circumstances?
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde:
I would not be prepared to say that people are being dishonourable.
I do not think it helps the standing of politics, as I said earlier.
When you said "in large numbers", there have been a
number, I agree, but I do not know what means "large numbers"
to you. Certainly, we have seen an increase in the numbers; I
would certainly accept that because it is a fact.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I have
already expressed my views and they coincide with what Baroness
Dean has just said.
Q313 Mr Liddell-Grainger: You were a
Member of Parliament a long time, were you not?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Twenty
years.
Q314 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Can I take
you back to Mr Gregory who was fined £50—
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: It
does not quite go back as far back as that.
Q315 Mr Liddell-Grainger: It was 1933.
He served two months' imprisonment and was fined £50 for—I
am not sure whether he broked, pedalled or purchased an honour.
He obviously did one of the three. We have had Professor Blakemore
in front of us who was very aggrieved at the way things had happened.
As far as I can see, and I am talking as a layman now, somebody
tried to broker an honour. He could not take the honour because
he did not have a chance to take the honour, but that was broked,
that honour. A ping-pong went on in this place in Monck Street
or wherever. That is an abuse, is it not, under the terms of the
1925 Honours Act?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: That
was a gross abuse.
Q316 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Are you talking
about Blakemore or Gregory?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Gregory
you were talking about.
Q317 Mr Liddell-Grainger: And Blakemore.
Are they not gross abuses, both of them?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am
sorry; I cannot comment on the Blakemore thing in any detail.
I gave my own view about what would have been better to have happened
in Blakemore's case a little earlier. What happened in the detail,
I simply have no idea. In the case of the Gregory affair, he was
the man involved in the original Lloyd George business, and it
finally came out in the open, if I remember rightly, in the thirties.
Q318 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Let us wind
Mr Gregory forward now to 2004, shall we? There have been over
the last few years people who have been denied honours for various
reasons. Do you think that the 1925 Act should be brought up to
date so that there is a safeguard that people who may or may not
be pedalled honours for political (and I am just pointing at Sydney
because he has got—whatever) or other reasons—should
we not be more careful, that there is a fail-safe for people like
Colin Blakemore who have been denied it for, as far as I can see,
no reason other than what he did. Is that not pedalling and broking?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: As
I understand it, it was not remotely connected with pedalling
or broking. It was concerned with a matter of judgment by the
committee of civil servants who dealt with the matter at that
level, and I have expressed my view about that. I think if it
had been referred to ministers they would have been more courageous
about it probably than civil servants feel they can be, but that
is totally unconnected with what you are talking about in terms
of corrupt broking and I stick by my view that, in examining the
honours system and looking for modernisation and improvements
in it, which I very much support, one should not do it on the
basis that the present system is in any way corrupt. I think what
is striking about it is that, certainly at the Civil Service level,
if I may say so, in terms of our small bit of the Civil Service,
they are meticulous in their integrity in dealing with these matters
and it would do great damage to the public interest generally
if there was any sort of feeling that there is an element of corruption
and broking within the present system, and I do think, as I said
earlier, that it is to the Prime Minister's credit that he has
taken various steps that have improved the transparency of the
system and the openness of the system. From my point of view at
the end of my life in these matters that is to be quite clear
about where the balance lies.
Q319 Mr Liddell-Grainger: We had an interesting
leak in The Sunday Times, did we not, about what went on
within the scrutiny of honours, and this is how the Blakemore
thing came out and all the rest of it. You say they are completely
honest, etc, but we do not know; we do not know. How can we say
that when we cannot get the people that we need to be sitting
where you are to question? Mrs Catto very kindly came in, you
have come and obviously Lord Hurd would like to have come, and
others, but we are not able to get to the bottom of all of this.
To me, I am afraid when this situation with Colin Blakemore was
leaked on 28 December in The Sunday Times, it shows that
there is an entire raft where we do not know what is going on,
and for you to say, Lord Thomson, "I am quite happy that
the Prime Minister has opened it up", yes, we do not disagree
with that; I think we would all agree with that, but we do not
know—you do not know either—exactly what is going
on. How do we know there is not something wrong?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: An
element of confidentiality I think is both inevitable and essential
in terms of making appointments generally, whether they are honours
appointments or whether they are appointments to jobs and so on.
If everything is totally out in the public arena and the pollsters
are in whenever any selection committee of any kind is sitting,
it is, I think, both impracticable and counter-productive. Because
a thing takes place in confidence it does not mean to say that
it is taking place in a state of corruption. That is what I am
arguing really very vehemently against. I do think it is not helpful
to put it in that way.
| 
