Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-199)
LORD STEVENSON
OF CODDENHAM
CBE AND RT
HON LORD
HURD OF
WESTWELL CH CBE
11 OCTOBER 2007
Q180 Mr Walker: I have one final
question. In the seven years that you have chaired this—and
I obviously do not want you to give names, that would be totally
wrong—how many times have you written a note to the party
leader or the Prime Minister saying, "I'm sorry, not this
individual. We cannot approve this individual to the Lords"
as a result of your investigations?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: Never
to a party leader. We do write to the Prime Minister. We are advisory,
so it is not quite like that. We do not say, "No, Prime Minister";
we say "You need to take into account the following things"
and I should not tell you how often. We have fed back on a number
of people over the years, never to the party leaders. We have
gone back to parties and asked them to give us more detail, the
citation, et cetera.
Q181 Chairman: We may ask you to
do slightly better than that. I think Charles is entitled to ask,
simply numerically: "Over seven years how many people have
you advised about?"—that is, made the warning lights
flash about. That is what your job is, is it not?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: I
do not know, I would have to come back to you about how many people
we have advised about. "Warning lights" introduces an
emotive phrase. Can I take that one back and I will try to be
as helpful as I can.
Q182 Chairman: I wonder if you could
write to us and tell us how many names over these seven years
you have asked questions about and then perhaps another category
of those you have advised against.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: We
will reflect on it, discuss it with my colleagues and come back
to it.[4]
Q183 Chairman: If we are testing the
robustness of the regulatory system that is one of the tests that
we might apply to it. I think we are entitled to ask for that.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: The
point is noted and we will reflect on it.
Q184 Paul Flynn: How many divisions
did you take part in in the Lords last year, Lord Stevenson?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: I
think none, because I took the decision six years ago that, while
I was Chairman of the Commission, unless there was some overriding
reason, I would not take part in political or parliamentary life.
Q185 Paul Flynn: You do not consider,
as a legislator, that you should.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: No,
I am not saying that. I think I may have shared with this Committee
before that it was an irony that a member of the House of Lords
was appointed chairing this Committee. It was a post-Nolan, if
you like, cock-up, because the Chairman was not supposed to be
in the House of Lords. That is why they had nominees from three
parties. I had just been put in the House of Lords. The head-hunters
who were employed did not realise I was a lord, and I am given
to understand that two other people on the shortlist were not.
I was not appointed for my knowledge of the Lords at all, quite
the reverse, and, having done the job for a year, I took the view—and
in view of what has happened in recent years, I am extremely glad—that
it would be best that I just played no part in political life
or parliamentary life. When I am no longer Chairman of the Commission,
please ask me the question again.
Q186 Paul Flynn: You are a member
of this legislature. You do not vote there. Do you speak there
at all?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: No.
I told you, I took the view that, precisely so that I was completely
independent—and, believe me, over the last year it has been
jolly important to be independent—I should not play any
part—and there has been no secret about this: I have said
it to this Committee before—in either political or parliamentary
life, and I have not.
Q187 Paul Flynn: I find that extraordinary.
Would it not be the sensible thing to withdraw from the House
of Lords?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: It
could be. I am beginning to learn about being lapsed and things.
I am not very sophisticated. It seemed to me that it was, if you
like, morally and in terms of proper governance and behaviour
the right thing to do not to take part. You could be right, but
I did not.
Q188 Paul Flynn: It is not surprising
people did not realise you were a lord if you have never voted
or spoken.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: The
reason they did not is I had only been a lord for a few weeks
when they headhunted me.
Q189 Paul Flynn: What is your justification
for calling yourself a lord and accepting the title?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: I
was appointed as a lord, and then was head-hunted for this a few
weeks later.
Q190 Paul Flynn: By someone who did
not realise you were a Member of the House of Lords.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: Yes—which
is not very surprising, because I had only been appointed for
a few weeks.
Q191 Paul Flynn: Why do you like
being a lord?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: Pass.
I do not know.
Q192 Paul Flynn: This seems to be
a very interesting point to me. I think we are all aware, all
the ermine, the ritual humiliation that people go through when
they are introduced, which anyone with a sense of the ridiculous
would find a dreadfully painful experience, all the titles and
the coats of arms and all that crap that is going on, has nothing
at all to do with the legislature of running the country. It is
all something that appeals to people's vanity, is it not?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: There
was a question from the Chairman earlier on to which we gave a
personal view, because it is not part of the Commission. I personally—and
I think we are rather in the same place on this—think it
would be a good idea to separate the honorific side from the working
legislative side.
Q193 Paul Flynn: Perhaps I can call
you Mr Stevenson then.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: You
may, indeed.
Q194 Paul Flynn: I would be happy
to do that.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: You
can call me Dennis.
Q195 Paul Flynn: Call me Citizen
Flynn! I think we all know, from talking to people in the Lords,
how important this is, what it means to people. Would it not be
better if we did separate that and they were called Lord Perkins
or Baroness Perkins rather than some member of the second chamber:
MSC.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: Just
to tell you, Citizen Flynn and Mr Stevenson, it might surprise
you, have rather a lot of common ground. I personally think it
is most unfortunate, the ermine type thing in the Lords, whereas
the Lords is doing a hugely important job, 80% of which is amending
legislation in the public interest. It is a hugely important job
with a lot of detailed work. A lot of human beings work very hard
at it. It would be much more appropriate to be in normal clothes
and offices and so on and so forth. As I said earlier on, speaking
entirely personally, I am basically in agreement with the direction
you are moving in. Did you call them MOLs? Was it not put that
Members of the Lords should be MOLs. Like MPs, MOLs. It is a rather
interesting expression, MOLs.
Q196 Paul Flynn: You have said you
are happy with the nominations that you have made so far, that
you put forward for what we call the people's peers.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: No,
we do not call them people's peers.
Q197 Paul Flynn: No, I am sure you
do not. You call them lords.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: No.
People.
Q198 Paul Flynn: With some of them—and
we will give you Baroness Finlay, who is doing a splendid trade,
not a find by you—
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: Not
what?
Q199 Paul Flynn: A find by you. I
mean, she was someone who came along and you nominated her and
she has been a very distinguished baroness in the Lords, but there
were a large number of others who took months to make their speeches,
who take a similar view of the number of times they need to vote
as you do.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: I
do not think anyone takes a similar view to me because I am the
only Chairman of the Appointments Commission.
4 Ev 64 Back
| 
