Lords of the Blog » Queen’s Speech

Queen’s speech and the constitution

Lord Soley — Mon, 14 May 2012 19:38:11 +0000

I spoke on House of Lords reform (again!) in the Queens speech and like a growing number of members indicated that the way forward should be to set up a constituional convention as recommended in the alternative report on the draft Bill. This would allow us to look at the need for reform of the Commons as well as the Lords.
Electing the Lords begs the question of who will do good scrutiny of legislation if the Lords becomes another chamber dominated by the political party’s. You can read the speech here – I spoke at 4.52pm.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/120510-0002.htm

Law in Action

Baroness Deech — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:04:57 +0000

In 2007 Parliament passed the Legal Services Act, which might – or might not – revolutionise the way lawyers work, especially barristers. The law allows for, but does not insist on, barristers being able to enter partnership with solicitors, or with each other, instead of carrying on in the time honoured fashion as self employed. I chair the Bar Standards Board which has the discretion to decide about barristers’ working structures, and after two years of deliberation, and listening to passionate pleas from one side and from the other, we decided to permit them to work in these partnerships. The meeting was quite exhilarating; at last the Act is having an effect on that branch of the profession. But we are not going the whole hog, to what is called “Tesco law”: one-stop shops combining barristers with, say, solicitors, surveyors, estate agents, accountants and so on, as we are still concerned about protecting the consumer properly in such a set up. Is this what consumers want and will it make legal advice more affordable?

I have also been lecturing at Gresham College on Lord Lester’s Cohabitation Bill, which ran out of time in the Lords in April. For over 30 years as a law teacher I have been saying that women ought not and do not need to be kept by men, (or vice versa), save that of course children should be maintained (there is a law for that). Floods of appreciative comments have come in, for the first time in my life – I seem to have caught the mood of the times, finally!

The state opening of Parliament is a wonderful occasion and I am a loyal follower of tradition. But do the roads around the Palace of Westminster have to be closed for so many days by so many barriers, irritating pedestrians, motorists and tourists alike? It is after all quite a short ceremony and a day of closure ought to be enough; any more than that is a gift to the republicans . . .

Debating the Queen's Speech

Lord Norton — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:55:00 +0000

The House has begun five days of debate on the Queen’s Speech. I have been sat in the chamber listening to today’s debate, which focuses on foreign and European affairs, international development and defence. Though different topics are allocated to each day, the five days of debate are deemed to constitute one debate on the Speech. As a result, a peer can speak only once during the five days. The number who are speaking is remarkably large: a total of 187 over the five days. No less than 43 peers will be speaking in Monday’s debate on home, legal and constitutional affairs, and 41 in next Wednesday’s debate on business and economic affairs, consumer affairs and culture. There are 38 speakers in today’s debate. Each back-bench speaker is limited to a maximum of fifteen minutes, but even so the debates are likely to be lengthy.

No less than eight peers will be making their maiden speeches in the debates. They include three bishops, the Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, and – one to watch – Lord Sugar. Lord Sugar will be speaking in next Wednesday’s debate on the economy.

The Lords Resume – and reforms

Lord Soley — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:32:15 +0000

Monday sees the return of Peers to the chamber of the House. The recess always leaves the House feeling a bit empty even if you do see Lords there from time to time – usually dealing with correspondence, using the library or having meetings of one type or another. We will be dealing with some final bits of legislation before hearing the Queen’s speech in November.

Baroness D’Souza and Baroness Murphy make some points about the reform process in their posts below. I am in agreement with the points they make. Like Baroness Murphy I have only worn robes on the day I took my seat. Changing traditions often runs into strong opposition. I have heard visitors, especially from overseas, saying that our traditions are very colourful and important. Yet traditions about dress in the Lords make me feel uncomfortable. It does enable the media to present us in a way that questions the seriousness of our work.

Soon after I arrived in the Lords I took a visitor who was going to assist one of the charities I run to lunch in the Peer’s guest room. He was very smartly dressed but as so often nowadays he was not wearing a tie. I didn’t register this but someone did and shortly after I was quietly reminded that guests should always wear a tie. Only a cold climate nation like Britain could invent an item of clothing that in summer builds up the heat below your collar to boiling point! That is why I am a strong supporter of Baroness (Lola) Young’s campaign to promote ethnic clothing. Maybe I can’t wear a Sari but I do admire those cool and colourful outfits worn by many Indians and Africans!

Fortunately the House has been taking reform much more seriously in recent times and the changes have made a big difference. I hope we will see changes in the language used soon. Why do we have to refer to senior military officers as noble and gallant when other ranks are not referred to in that way? (I should declare an interest as an ex national serviceman!) Why do we refer to lawyers as noble and learned when I would happily pay some rather unlearned ones not to represent me?! Why do we refer to Bishops as Right Reverend Prelates? I asked a group of school children once what a prelate was and they didn’t know but they knew what a Bishop was!

I also hope we produce a version of Hansard in edited form soon. With good editing and with pictures it might sell in the shops and provide people with an alternative to the gossipy and trivial news coverage of Parliament in some of the newspapers.

So lets keep reforming – good reform creates new traditions and gives future generations an opportunity to argue their case for reform. It’s what keeps society moving and stops it getting stuck in a self perpetuating rut!

Constitutional change

Lord Norton — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:02:21 +0000

I realise that in my earlier post on last week’s debate on the constitution, home affairs and legal issues, I omitted to provide a link to my speech, which dealt with the Government’s approach (or rather lack of one) to constitutional change. Anyone wishing to do so can read it here (at columns 315-17).

I would like to say that the link is added by popular demand. I would like to say that, but I can’t. I’m just assuming….

More wit of Westminster

Lord Norton — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:04:38 +0000

As regular readers will know, the peers who propose and second the motion on the loyal address (thanking the Queen for her speech) are expected to inject humour into their speeches. The speakers yesterday – former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Labour back-bencher Baroness Ford – did not disappoint.

Baroness Ford recalled the occasion over 20 years ago when she was appointed a member of the Scottish Parole Board:

‘I learnt a lot. My first visit was to Barlinnie prison in Glasgow, and I studied my brief assiduously. One of the first points in the brief—this being the west of Scotland—was the number of Roman Catholics and Protestants in the jail. I soaked up all the information. When we toured the canteen, I noticed a large blackboard high on the wall. It said, “RC 344 and P 227”. Brimming with enthusiasm, I said to the governor, “How odd, for everyone knows that there are more Protestants than Catholics in Barlinnie”. “Don’t be so stupid”, he said, “that stands for rice crispies and porridge”. ‘

State Opening of Parliament

Lord Norton — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:32:15 +0000

The State Opening of Parliament is always a grand occasion. We do ceremony extremely well and this morning everything proceeded according to the timetable. The programme lists very precise timings: for example, ’11.08 The Lord Chancellor proceeds from the Prince’s Chamber to the foot of the Sovereign’s Staircase. 11.11 The Peers appointed to carry the Cap of Maintenance and the Sword of State enter the Royal Gallery from the Prince’s Chamber’.

The ceremony often confuses broadcasters and others. The judges sat in front of the Queen, with their robes and wigs, for example, are not the Law Lords. Members of the diplomat corps, as well as wives of members of the House, sit in set places in the chamber.

The occasion, though, is not just a ceremony for the sake of it. It has great symbolic relevance. It is the one occasion in the year when Parliament as a legal entity – the Queen-in-Parliament – meets. The status of the Queen as someone being above politics is symbolised by the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, handing the speech to her and then being given it back once it has been delivered. The meeting marks the start of a new session of Parliament and allows the Government to announce its programme for that session. The programme announced this morning was fairly short – this session will be a shorter one than the last one – with no great surprises. Various Bills, expected to be included, have been omitted.

The significance of the State Opening of Parliament is discussed by the Lord Speaker in a video on the Parliament YouTube channel at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enJRPX1P1Ng