| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Denham: The "rational, working way" according to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is that which he defines as a natural way. But what both he and his noble and learned friend are asking for is to enable Members of the House who may live far away to finish on a Thursday afternoon. However, while that is a perfectly valid request, it does not compare like with like. What we seek is that those undertaking outside work on a Thursday morning should be able to carry out their duties in this House during the afternoon. The noble Lord wants noble Lords to work during the morning so that they can get away in the afternoon, home to their beds.
The noble Lord has spoken of "taking the House seriously". Members of this House have always taken the House seriously.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but I have been provoked into doing so because I made heard the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, so many times before. I have not heard it in this House, but in another place. When I entered the House of Commons 32 years ago it had in it a large number of people who had outside knowledge,
outside experience and outside work. Increasingly, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was made there. One of the consequences is the other place as it exists today. Its Members have practically no outside interests. Indeed, they have voted themselves increased pensions on the grounds that they have no outside experience and are therefore unlikely to get other employment.If the noble Lord's principle were to be followed here, there would be similar consequences in this House. Instead of possessing the wealth of experience from which we have benefited—and still benefit—it would become more and more like the other place.
I am coming to the end of my outside working interests and I have no strong views about the issue, but the noble Lord, Lord Peston, should not think that no consequences will flow from his kind of attitude. His speech is not new, and there is the evidence of the other place to tell us what will be the result.
Lord Elton: Does my noble friend agree that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston—so often heard before—heralds the creation of a Parliament consisting entirely of a political class, which will be distinct from the rest of the country, not understanding and eventually not trusted by the people?
Lord Crickhowell: I agree entirely with my noble friend. I shall leave the matter there.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I believe that the Leader of the Opposition said that this had had a popular response from Members. Noble Lords on the opposite side of the Chamber, who claim to be democrats, may not believe in focus groups, but the best focus group here is the membership. Some people have responded—not everyone—and we now have a benchmark. Given the option, which they never had before, of working potentially between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. on a Thursday night or from 11 a.m. onwards, the Members have chosen to do this. For the life of me, I cannot see why Members opposite are so tenacious in defending the status quo come what may.
This is a recommendation of a committee on which we were all represented. It has come from the Leader's Group and from the Procedure Committee. I said earlier that I trust the usual channels. They seem to have been besmirched by those who were themselves part of the usual channels at one time but who are now saying there is something dirty and unclean about their work. That is not true. They do their best and are responsible for their parties.
From my experience in another place and here it is quite clear that the problems, not only for the Government but also for the Opposition, of maintaining a full House on a Thursday night are getting worse—not least because of the passage of time and what is happening in the other place. We do not affect what happens down there but it is a fact of life that the dining rooms in the other place are empty after seven o'clock on a Thursday night. The House is not dead, but it is very, very quiet.
Why do we not trust the usual channels, the Leader's Group and the Procedure Committee to carry out an experiment? As I understand it, this will be for an experimental period. It may work out. I said earlier that people are hinting darkly and snidely that this is being done to benefit the Government. It may be that the Government will find that they are not the greatest beneficiaries of these changes, but in 2002 we should at least drag our procedures out of the 19th century and into the 21st century.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I had no intention of joining in this debate, but have been encouraged to do so by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which I still believe were supporting his self-interest.
Let me make it clear that, as a retired person, it would suit me very well if the hours proposed were to be adopted, just as it would suit the noble Lord, Lord Peston. But my concern is with the effect of this proposal on the House as a whole. Once we introduce morning Sittings, it will not be long before we have morning Sittings on other days as well.
The great advantage of this place is that its Members are active in business, in medicine and in other professions. They have various kinds of jobs which require them to work for part of the day. They then commit themselves to come here for the latter part of the afternoon and the early part of the evening. I believe that we shall lose sadly if we find ourselves in a situation where we are working a normal working day, and if when approached those people say, "I am terribly sorry. I believe that I have something to offer, but I am afraid I cannot possibly commit myself to those hours".
I support the point that the commitment made by existing Members of this place was made on the basis of the hours that then existed. It is not a question of commitment. I believe that those on all sides of this Chamber are totally committed to what this House can achieve. However, if we start sitting in the mornings, we shall lower the standard, or lose many people who might otherwise be willing to come here. It is for that reason, and certainly not out of self-interest, that I shall support the amendment.
Lord Marlesford: Apropos the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, quite apart from the fact that he seeks to paint matters all black and white when most of the time they are grey, and most of the time it is possible to fit in both activities, is he not aware—as a distinguished economist, I am sure he is—that the demographers have worked out that, because of the changing age pattern of this country, it is desirable and indeed necessary that we should continue to work until we are 72 in order to earn money to pay taxes to keep those who are over 72. Some of us who have not yet reached that stage are trying to make our contribution.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I agree with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. She said, and I marked her words, that duty to the House should take precedence over individual convenience.
On a number of occasions, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, referred the idea that the proposals were what I wanted. I remind him and the noble Baroness that this proposal was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and he gave his reasons for doing so: it is a compromise; the reason for having the break from 1.30 to 3 p.m. was that a large number of colleagues said that they wanted to attend their party meetings during that time; therefore, that was the agreement. It was the most popular outcome, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rightly says, when opinions were canvassed.
The idea of having a questionnaire was not mine either. In fact, I was horrified to think that people's views might actually be taken. But on this occasion the questionnaire was unambiguous. This was the popular way of dealing with matters.
A number of other Peers made the point that they had commitments in the mornings but wanted to be here for Question Time—hence the proposed timetable on page 7 of the Procedure Committee's report. That is the reason why Question Time remains at three o'clock.
I take the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I shall give careful attention to the points he has made. I personally advise Members of the Committee to accept the proposal made by the Procedure Committee as outlined here today. It is on a trial basis for two Sessions. Let us see whether we can make it work.
I personally do value the variety of experience that we have in this House. However, I also welcome the ability of the House sometimes to regenerate itself. We are simply offering that.
Lord Trefgarne: I believe that the arguments for and against these proposals have been fully canvassed. I think that I had better take the opinion of the Committee.
10.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 95.
Blaker, L.
Blatch, B.
Bledisloe, V.
Boardman, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville,
L.
Burnham, L.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Colwyn, L.
Crickhowell, L.
Denham, L.
Elton, L.
Fowler, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Higgins, L.
Jopling, L.
Kingsland, L.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Lucas, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
Mancroft, L.
Marlesford, L.
Northbrook, L.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Roberts of Conwy, L.
St. John of Bletso, L.
St John of Fawsley, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller]
Seccombe, B.
Skelmersdale, L.
Trefgarne, L. [Teller]
Acton, L.
Addington, L. [Teller]
Alli, L.
Amos, B.
Andrews, B.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Brett, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Burlison, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L.
Chandos, V.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Crawley, B.
David, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Desai, L.
Dixon, L.
Dubs, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Watford, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Goodhart, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]
Gray of Contin, L.
Greaves, L.
Grocott, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jones, L.
Judd, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Lipsey, L.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Nicol, B.
Orme, L.
Pendry, L.
Peston, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rea, L.
Renwick of Clifton, L.
Rooker, L.
Roper, L.
Rotherwick, L.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Simon, V.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Tomlinson, L.
Tordoff, L.
Turnberg, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Old Scone, B.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.5 p.m.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page