The appointment of Peter Mandelson has rather overshadowed the appointment of Stephen Carter and Paul Myners, both appointed ministers and elevated to the Lords. The appointment of Paul Myners is noteworthy because of the position to which he has been appointed – Exchequer Secretary in the Treasury.
Given the financial privilege of the Commons, and the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911 as they affect money Bills, it is not surprising that ministerial positions in the Treasury are almost always allocated to MPs. The Government Front Bench in the Commons is known as the Treasury Bench. No such description applies in the Lords.
Given this, one colleague did ask me whether the appointment of a peer to the Treasury constitutes a first in modern history. It doesn’t. Lord Cockfield, who prior to being elevated to the peerage had been a Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Managing Director of Boots, and an adviser on taxation policy to the Chancellor, served as Minister of State at the Treasury from 1979 to 1982 (he had been made a peer in 1978); he later served as Trade Secretary and Vice-President of the European Commission. Lord Caithness served as Paymaster-General and a Treasury minister from from 1989 to 1990.
Drawing on peers in this way reflects the expertise in the House. In order to utilise this expertise, an Economic Affairs Committee was created in 2001. It has a Sub-Committee on the Finance Bill, with a high-powered membership, which has been issuing reports on each Bill since 2005. However, as Lord Bilimoria, a highly successful businessman (among other things, he founded Cobra beer), argued in the House on Thursday, we could do even more. As he said: “One of the greatest strengths of this House is that we have experts in every field. What more could we ask for when considering global business? … We are not tapping into all the expertise of this House enough.”
We will doubtless see greater pressure to build on that expertise. It is likely to be in evidence when the new Exchequer Secretary faces the House.
“we have experts in every field..”
In what fields would you characterise Lord Mandelson as having experience ? Are they ones which really benefit the House ?
Bedd Gelert: while he has proved politically divisive, he actually has quite a good reputation as a minister; he gained respect especially for his work when he was Northern Ireland Secretary.
Lord Norton: I agree entirely with your sentiments. Peers in the House act in an independent non-partisan way to serve the greater good of the nation.
We must thank the government’s executive for the appointment of Lord Mandleson to the House. However, it does evoke two thoughts: firstly that the he comes to the House naked as an emperor with new clothes.
Secondly, it seems the Prime Minister now keeps his friends close and his enemies even closer; joined at the hip according to media sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes
On constitutional matters I am conservative so I have always been against abolition of the House of Lords. The appointment of Peter Mandelson has changed my mind.
In the past the existence of the Lords was toxic to those with misplaced notions of fairness: socialists, idealists etc. Let me assure you I am a long way from their point of view (I am a fan of Milton Friedman, Karl Popper, von Mises, Ayn Rand). I combine my economic liberalism with a constitutional conservatism, borne of the belief that stability and continuity in politics best allows markets and productive members of society to get on with creating wealth and making the world a better place.
Congratulations. I really wouldn’t have dreamed it possible but in a single stroke you have added me to the ranks of the disaffected who want the Lords abolished because they have a chip on their shoulder. Consider my shoulder now to be well and truly chipped.
You still had the opportunity to salvage some dignity even as Mandelson was sworn in. You all could have walked out the Chamber in disgust. But you didn’t. He’s now one of you, and let’s face it, that ain’t much to brag about is it ?
I think a lot of right-leaning people will have undergone the same change in perception as me. One month ago: in favour of the House of Lords, somewhat bugged at all the tinkering of Blair and his cronies but basically of the view that while not ideal, the House was part of a bigger system which is the least-bad form of government. Today: an enemy of the Lords openly calling for its abolition at every opportunity.
philmo: You should have more faith. Lord Mandleson is just another footnote, albeit a contemporary one, in the history of the House of Lords.
If ever you visit Nunninton Hall in Yorkshire you will no doubt become aware of the extinguished line of Lord Preston. What wiki does not say is that the family tree of Lord Preston begins as rumour has it with the purchase of a peerage by reevers or cattle rustlers.
I support the purchase of peerages, at say ten million pounds per annum, it would go a long way towards maintaining our heritage of stately homes but alas those days have gone forever never to return, our stately homes just crumble away.
The only rustlers in the house these days are the autumn leaves of the distinguished.
The People
http://www.rasnoft.net/Photos/ScotsIrish/ulster.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunnington_Hall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage_of_Scotland
philmo: I fear I don’t quite understand the logic. Just because you take a particular attitude to one member, it is not clear why that should affect your attitude toward the institution. Presumably you therefore favoured abolition of the House of Commons during the period that Peter Mandelson was an MP. There is the practical point, of course, that if the House of Lords was abolished, the House of Commons, as presently organised, would not be able to cope.
I should add that in the Lords, to use a footballing term, our approach is normally to play the ball and not the man.
Lord Norton,
Maybe I should apologise. Mandelson may have some redeeming merit as a minister. I can’t go as far as ‘philmo’ because, while trying to avoid being too specific, there is a well-known writer in there for whom such questions might have been raised at the time.
Bedd Gelert: The question of whether members should be excluded from the House has variously been raised. Peers who are bankrupt or held under the provisions of the Mental Health Act are excluded for the period of their incapacity. The House of Lords Bill, introduced in the current session by Lord Steel of Aikwood, includes provision for peers convicted of serious criminal offences to be expelled, thus bringing us into line with the provision in the Commons. The Bill is a Private Member’s Bill and will not be passed but many of us support its provisions. I certainly do, not least because I drafted it.
Thanks