Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may deal with the noble Baroness's general observation. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, we are not analogous to running a public company. We do not attempt to run our business exactly replicating the directors of Enron or of WorldCom; we are doing something infinitely more important. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, rightly said, we are attempting to discharge our duties as a House of Parliament.
The noble Baroness, and many other speakers, asked about the costs involved in these changes. The answer is that we cannot say because, by its very nature, the process is incremental; and, indeed, is intended to be incremental. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, persuaded a large majority of noble Lords of his viewI am offering no comment of my ownthat a significant injustice might well have been done to two dead members of the Royal Air Force. That was the noble Lord's view. Assisted by other noble Lords who were of the same view, the noble Lord persuaded your Lordships that a committee should be set up to investigate the fatalities in the Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre. I am taking no position as to who was right, or who was wrong. Did any noble Lords think that they should challenge the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on how much such a procedure would cost? Indeed, due to the nature of things, how could he have answered? It would have been quite impossible for him to do so.
Time and again, we have said that we hope to reform this Chamber gradually and incrementally. There is a hope expressed in the recommendations of the Leader's Group that, eventually, virtually all major government Bills will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. All those in the Leader's Group knew perfectly well that that would be a matter of years, not months. Unless I know which Bill will have pre-legislative scrutinywhether by the House of Commons, the House of Lords, or by both Houseshow can I conceivably cost it? We know that there will be significant savings, because the cost of staff overtime will decline if we finish business at about 10 o'clock at night; and that applies also to the cost of transport, and so on.
I echo what my noble friend Lord Graham said. At the end of the day, it comes down to this fundamental question: do we wish to improve our practices to make our true work achievable? If that is so, we need to go forward incrementally. I accept the challenge put forward, but it is not possible to cost such reforms. The noble Baroness and I both participated to our mutual benefit in the Grand Committee proceedings on the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, but I could not possibly have costed that process before we knew how many days that committee would sit.
As the noble Lords, Lord Geddes and Lord Elton, along with other speakers, have said, we are not simply talking about cash resources; we are talking about
accommodation. That is why, when your Lordships were all engaged on a beach somewhere last August, my noble friend Lord Carter and I obtained authority to buy Fielden House for quite a significant sum. We did so because we believed that we would need that accommodation resource. It will take a little while for it to be refurbished, and the final plans have yet to be completed.We need to take a view on such matters. Are we going to bring about reform in this Chamber? I accept that we need resource by way of training the Committee Clerks, who are admirable in quality, extremely diligent, and very often overworked. But we already set up committees without costings. I can give other examples, but I fear that I would be straining noble Lords' patience.
I am sorry to put it quite so plainly, but, at the end of the day, we must decide whether we want these changes to take place. Thereafter, incrementallypatiently sometimeswe will have to will the resource. I shall give noble Lords but one example. The Liberal Democrats, the noble and gallant Lord the Cross-Bench Convenor, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, all put forward their bids and the resource has been obtained. I do not say that by way of self-congratulation; I say that because I think that it was a worthy, moral purpose to bring about. We can do it if we want to. But if we want to clad ourselves again with the carapace of the past centuries, we are all in the wrong place.
Lord Geddes: Will the noble and learned Lord be kind enough to tell us how any Members of your Lordships' House can broach a subject in this Committee that is not actually the subject of an amendment?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There are two points at issue. First, I wish that they would not do so; and, secondly, if they do, your Lordships' ingenuity knows no bounds.
I have considered the noble Lord's point about questions being too long and answers too lengthy. I believe that to be a general view, of which the Procedure Committee took note. I am sure that those who are guilty in that respectthat is, of course, anyone but oneselfwill pay due regard to those comments.
Lord Trefgarne: With the Committee's permission, I shall bring to an end the debate at least on this amendment. Surely it is common ground that these proposals will cost something. It is common ground that they will be introduced over a year or so. Similarly, it is common ground that no doubt the Treasury will provide the funds being sought. I seek only to ask noble Lords to inquire what it is that we are asking for.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 192.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Grocott: This may be an appropriate moment to take the Statement. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page