In a previous post, I mentioned the humour exihibited by Lord Hart of Chilton during his speech seconding the motion on the address at the start of the session. When he was made a peer, he was a special adviser to the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, and continued in that role for his successor, Lord Falconer. That provides the context for one of his opening comments. This is but one of several extremely funny extracts from his speech:
‘I should tell your Lordships that, when I entered this House, I went immediately to the ever-helpful Clerk of the Parliaments to inquire about making maiden speeches. “As you were a government adviser”, he said, “I think it would be quite inappropriate for you to speak”. “Oh dear”, I said. He replied, “Don’t worry, you’ll have plenty of time. One of their Lordships took 35 years before troubling the House with a few words and, even then, the general view was that it wasn’t worth the wait”. I went to the Whips and told them the news. I said, “I’m afraid that I won’t be able to speak”. “That’s the best bit of news we’ve had for some time—it’s a pity there aren’t more of you. Always remember: less is more”.’
Which of the current members of the Lords has sat in the house longest without speaking? I know Baroness Falkender has never made her maiden speech since being made a life peer in 1974.
It must have been more common when there were hereditary peers, as they may not have wanted to sit in the house in the first place!
Dear Lord Norton,
Another excellent witty post! Thank you so much for blogging it.
Howridiculous.
Jonathan: You are quite right that this was more of a feature when the House comprised predominantly hereditary peers. Some inherited their titles and seats and had no interest in the House. Some lived abroad and so had difficulty in attending. (One hereditary peer, who lived in Tasmania, flew over to make his maiden speech just before the 1999 House of Lords Act took effect.) Some did attend but did not speak. It is now rare to have life peers who do not speak or attend. There are a few who have been ennobled on the basis of the positions they have held and who we rarely if ever see or hear. One or two are quite well-known names. I don’t know of anyone among the current membership who has served as long as Lady Falkender without speaking. Though she does not speak, she does occasionally attend.
Howridiculous: Thanks. The good news is that there are some more to come from Lord Hart’s speech.
Dear Lord Norton,
I have to be honest I dont believe that people who do not attend the lords when they have a seat and important matters of state to consider should keep them. Im not saying that they shouldn’t be a peer I am only saying that if I didnt turn up to work i would get fired. It doesn’t exactly look good.
What do you think about this? Especially considering that people point to this as a reason for reform.
Thankyou
James Clarke
James Clarke: I am very much involved with the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, which supports reform but is opposed to election of the second chamber. We favour reforms that will strengthen the existing House in fulfilling its tasks. This past year, Lord Steel introduced the House of Lords Bill designed to implement the reforms we favour. I drafted the Bill. It provides for a statutory independent appointments commission, removal of the by-election procedure for hereditary peers (when one of the elected hereditary peers dies, a new one is elected to replace him or her), provision for permanent leave of absence (in effect, retirement) and for members who fail to attend to be deemed to be no longer members of the House. In short, it seeks to give effect to what you suggest. There is a feeling among many members of the House that having been made a member, one has an obligation to contribute to the work of the House. Most do contribute – the average daily attendance is over 400 – but there are some we never see (some of them rather well-known figures). If they are not prepared to contribute, I see no reason why they should remain as members. Deeming them no longer to be members would not affect their titles. The Bill itself is a Private Member’s Bill and will not achieve passage – but it makes the points we seek to make and will be continuing to promote.
Dear Lord Norton,
If your private members bill is acted on and the government makes the changes you suggest do you think that will change the character of the house? Especially due to the fact that the members removed would be replaced by others. Have you seen anything that has affected the character and mannerisms of the house since you entered the house?
Thank you
James Clarke