Covid-19: Economy Update

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

I am not aware of an analysis of this kind. We have to be realistic. It is easy for people sitting in a dark room with spreadsheets to say how many deaths we are prepared to accept for the balance of the economy. Frankly, it is extremely difficult. So far, we have had more deaths than other European countries, which has brought us a great deal of criticism. It is extremely difficult to balance lives against livelihoods. I might have a completely different view from that of Members opposite. We have to try to strike what we consider to be a reasonable balance—protecting lives where we can, but also protecting livelihoods.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it would be churlish and wrong not to salute the efforts made by the Chancellor to boost the arts, and indeed I do. I also understand that not every job or venue can be saved. In Sunday’s Observer, Simon Rattle articulated the real worry that freelance musicians and artists at the workface could be so depleted that the cultural life of this country and its significant contribution to the economy could be seriously curtailed—especially if, as the Chancellor has suggested, considerable numbers leave the profession and retrain. Have the Government assessed this potential damage, given that their own figures found that out of 187,000 creative freelancers only 64,000 were eligible for and accessed SEISS? Will the Government look at this and the remaining 65% who fell outside the package?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

I am not aware of the specific figures. It is clearly very worrying that we could lose the creative capacity of our economy and our society. We are in the most unprecedented situation, certainly in my lifetime and probably going back to the end of the Second World War. Whenever this crisis ends, there will have to be a period of rebuilding and regeneration. I absolutely affirm the Government’s support for this very important part of our society.

EU Trade Agreement

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned, parliamentary scrutiny is very important here. Many Members of your Lordships’ House have raised concerns—especially regarding secondary legislation—that the Executive are taking more and more power for themselves. Is this another example of that, and will there be adequate parliamentary scrutiny of any changes?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the first two sets of proposals will be in primary legislation. That will give Parliament full opportunity to debate them.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 7th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, should reflect on it as well. He knows perfectly well that the one thing he dare not do in the proceedings today is to put any of these in many cases ridiculous amendments to the vote, because he would be defeated overwhelmingly, as on previous occasions. Just for the record, in this group, Amendment 11 states that:

“Standing Orders must provide that vacancies amongst the 90 excepted hereditary peers are filled by a method which ensures that the excepted hereditary peer is younger than the average age of members of the House of Lords at the time the vacancy occurs”.


Quite simply, that means that we would continue to have by-elections. This is a proposal to defeat the Bill. The Bill is to end the by-elections; this amendment would ensure that they continued. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will beg leave to withdraw his amendment but, if he does not, I hope that he puts in tellers and votes this time and no longer abuses the procedures of the House.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, to my shame, I invited a young political student to observe this debate. I am embarrassed that I did so. This debate reflects appallingly on this House and I hope that the Government will seize the nettle. We need to get on with it; it is disgraceful that we are trying to advantage one small section of society over another, as my noble and learned friend Lord Brown has pointed out. I am deeply ashamed to have been a part of these proceedings.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard]

My Lords, I shall try again. I support these amendments because, unlike the opinion expressed by other noble Lords, I do not consider that the Bill represents a modest change. It is a very significant change. As my noble friend Lord Hague said in his speech to the Centre for Policy Studies in February 1998,

“The Government is now embarking on what is potentially the most damaging step of all— removing the main independent element in the House of Lords by excluding the hereditary peers. Mr Blair’s justification is his dislike of the hereditary principle, although he sees no contradiction”—

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

If I heard the noble Viscount correctly, he said that this would remove the largest independent sector but I thought the Cross-Bench Peers were independent.

[Viscount Trenchard]

The noble Lord is correct in saying that the Cross-Benchers are independent of the political parties but they are nevertheless appointed to this House by much the same process as Peers from other parties are nowadays appointed.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton]

That is absolutely not correct. I will tell the noble Viscount how I was appointed to this House: I was asked if I would care to have my name looked at but to do that I, along with 400 other people, had to submit my name to the House of Lords Appointments Commission. There was then a rigorous process of weeding out. I finally went to a long and exhaustive interview before my name was put before the Prime Minister and Her Majesty the Queen.

Surrogacy

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to the timely debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. Not being a lawyer, I want to focus on the particular aspect of public perception of surrogacy and the law surrounding donation.

My parents had a great friend who was a doctor. He was a huge inspiration to me as a child and young man. Patrick Trevor-Roper, brother of the historian, Hugh, was an eye surgeon who helped to pioneer cornea grafting. He went round Africa restoring sight to thousands by removing cataracts. When I expressed my interest in what he did, he immediately invited me to watch him operating at the Westminster Hospital. I realise that it is not a prospect that might appeal to many noble Lords, but I was mesmerised. As he worked, I realised that we were listening to my father’s guitar sonatina, played by Julian Bream.

Pat was a maverick—bohemian, unorthodox. One patient arrived in his consulting room in Regent’s Park to find him peeing in the sink. These eccentricities seemed only, by and large, to endear him to his patients. He infuriated the art world with his extraordinary book, The World Through Blunted Sight, by suggesting that El Greco’s willowy figures were the result of astigmatism. In 1955, long before it was fashionable or wise to do so, he became one of the first gay rights activists, giving evidence to the Wolfenden committee.

The relevance of all that to the important debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is that Pat taught me that, if one human being can make another whole by the gift of donation—of surrogacy—that was a completely normal and utterly joyous thing to do. He felt, 40 years ago, that too much taboo and squeamishness surrounded these most natural acts of procreation, acts which might assist intending parents who were often going through agonies of frustration as they attempted to have children.

As Surrogacy UK urges in its 2015 report we must guard the principle of altruistic surrogacy in the UK, surrogacy, as we have already heard, as a relationship not a transaction. We must learn to be less suspicious. Just as we need corneas, kidneys and hearts, so too do we need gifts from the living—sperm, for example. Here I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister to take back to her department. The law, as it currently stands, is careful to say that sperm donors are protected from pursuit by, for example, the Child Support Agency, only if they go through a licensed clinic. Clearly, you cannot have a loophole that would allow fathers to avoid their fiscal responsibilities—I completely accept that. But there are scenarios in which friends of the family, for instance, are keen to help, and where altruism reigns. I have seen this in heterosexual and gay communities, and it is profoundly touching. Furthermore, the law is discriminatory in that it favours better-off women who can afford to use expensive clinics but denies many poor ones access to donation. Wealth apart, should there not anyway be a provision for altruistic donation, one that could attract legal security and therefore attract more men to donate? It should surely be possible for a donor and a recipient to enter into a legally binding agreement without the use of an expensive clinic.

I have seen the misery and heartbreak of childlessness. When I did, I vowed to do anything I could to help—and I can tell noble Lords that there are few things in this world as rewarding as seeing, whether through surrogacy or donation, the successful outcome of this generosity from one human being to another. Are there risks? Yes, of course there are, as in everything else that we do, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—including having children in the usual way. The imperative to procreate, next to birth and death, is one of the great evolutionary acts of being human—it should belong to all of us.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I am tempted to my feet for my first venture from the Back Benches in the few days after liberating myself from the Dispatch Box.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

I think that it is the turn of the Cross Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, will be pleased to hear that I am wearing a tie that is both blue and red, and it is in that spirit that I offer these thoughts. Nothing enrages the public more than the way in which some parts of this Chamber are constituted through party-political funding. It seems to me that, until we can revamp the way in which that funding works, it would be very dangerous and unfair to change the status quo to tilt the playing field as it currently exists. For that reason, I wholeheartedly support my noble friend Lord Burns in his amendment.

[Lord Maude of Horsham]

My Lords, I first apologise to the noble Lord for inadvertently interposing myself before him. As I said, this is my first venture from the Back Benches. I am tempted into this debate because I am a veteran of discussions on party funding. I took part in the discussions under the chairmanship of Sir Hayden Phillips, then gave evidence to the Kelly committee, then had the pleasure of long hours with the noble Lord, Lord Collins. The one thing that strikes most ice into my heart is the prospect in this amendment of further talks on public funding. If they happen, please may I be excused?

There is a hugely important distinction to be made between what goes on in trade union law and what goes on in party funding law, which is at the heart of today’s debate. These are very separate issues, although there is clearly a relationship between the two. In those first talks that we had under Sir Hayden Phillips’ guidance, the key essence that we aimed for was a cap on donations. Different numbers were bandied around, but we broadly agreed on something like £50,000. The quid pro quo would have been a significant increase in state funding for parties. One reason why we made no further progress was that the Labour Party argued at that time that trade union donations would not be caught by that cap because they are individual donations, akin to membership subscriptions to a party paid by individuals to other parties. But, of course, that is not the case. First, they are not voluntary, proactive decisions, made in the way that people subscribe to other parties—or, indeed, as ordinary members of Labour subscribe to the Labour Party. They are made by inertia, as has been discussed, and there seems to be a broad consensus that this way of proceeding is not sustainable in the longer term. Equally, they are not donations to a party. The decision to give the money to the Labour Party—or, indeed, any other party—is a decision made not by a member of a trade union but by the leadership of the trade union, so of course they would have to be caught by the cap.

Even if we had moved immediately to a system of opt-in for the political levy, with subscriptions to the political fund, that would not have done nearly enough to avoid donations by trade unions being caught by any cap. The decision to give the money to the Labour Party would still rest not with the individual member but with the leadership of the trade union. That is the important distinction between the law of party funding and the laws as they apply to trade unions, which is what we are debating here today.

It is important that we reflect a little on this system of opting in and its effects, because it is outdated. I remember that in a debate in the other place, a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament—now a former Member of Parliament, as, sadly, so many of them are—startled the House when he told it during the Labour Party’s deputy leadership campaign in, I guess, 2007, that he had suddenly received a ballot paper for the Labour Party’s deputy leadership election because he had completely inadvertently, as a Liberal Democrat MP, become a member of the Labour Party because as a union member he had not opted out. We had the absurdity at the time of many trade unions declaring that 100% of their members were paying the political levy. Even more absurdly, some trade unions were declaring that more than 100% of their members were paying the political levy. Those of your Lordships who may argue that the role of the Certification Officer needs reform should reflect on the fact that the Certification Officer at the time was content to allow that manifest absurdity to persist.

To those who, like my noble friend Lord Cormack, argue that this is in some way proceeding at breakneck speed towards reform, I say that progress has not even been glacial. There has been discussion in your Lordships’ House about the failure of the agreement made by Len Murray way back in 1984—more than 30 years ago—that the unions would reform their systems to make the ability of members to opt out much more real and visible. We know that that has not happened. Far too many unions do not make it visible in the papers and even if members opt out, in too many unions, there is no reduction in the subscription. I give way to the noble Lord.

Chilcot Inquiry

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for raising this pertinent Question. Before I make the very brief points I would like to make, perhaps I might, by way of a small tribute, say how sad it is that Sir Martin Gilbert, a member of the Chilcot inquiry, has been taken so gravely ill that he is unlikely to return to that kind of work.

We have recently been commemorating—if I may say so, very movingly—the fallen of the First World War. The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, very kindly mentioned “Private Passions”, and one of the pieces we most often get asked to play on that programme is part of the “War Requiem” by Benjamin Britten, setting to music, as it does, the poems of Wilfred Owen.

That is germane to what we are talking about because we owe it to the many people who gave their lives so bravely and to the many families that lost relatives to always look with microscopic attention at the reasons for going to war. We know now that many mistakes were made and we really should be trying to use the example of those errors to never make them again. That is why this inquiry is so terribly important. Then we have the families of those representing us who were bereaved in Iraq and—because of our actions there, arguably—the people who are still losing their lives.

This is an incredibly serious Question and the point that I put to the Minister is that in recent debates about other matters—for example, the police and, indeed, the conduct of Members of this House—the Government reassured us about the importance of the public having confidence in public inquiries, not just inquiries where people are investigating themselves, about which they are all very genuinely worried, but particularly inquiries that concern decisions that cost many people their lives.

I very much look forward to the Minister’s answers because this is a very pressing Question. The point that I put to him is that the public are mystified by what they fear are people covering their backs—by tins of whitewash possibly being opened. Perhaps this is not the case—I would like to think that it is not—but the public need that reassurance and one thing that will reassure them is to stop the shilly-shallying and get this report published.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I hope that the inquiry may have touched in some detail on that issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, said in a very strong way that we need to expose and bring to justice the guilty men. This—as Sir John Chilcot has said on a number of occasions—is not a judicial inquiry; it is a historical inquiry intended to get at the evidence as far as possible. The question of guilt is one which perhaps a number of other people, such as the noble Lord, may wish to push once they have the evidence in front of them.

I hope that I have covered most of the issues. It is ungenerous to say that Sir John Chilcot could have been bullied by the Cabinet Secretary. He and his team have been remarkably robust on this.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton]

I wish to say, not as a politician but as a member of the public, that the explanations that the Minister is giving are extraordinarily helpful—which is why this debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, is very useful. The more that that can be got across to the public—the complexity involved, and the secret documents—the better it will be. I still feel very strongly that we need to get there, but we all think that. It is very helpful that those matters are explained to a wider public. After all, we have a responsibility to the wider public, and we are sometimes out of touch with what they think.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I should also have acknowledged the important point that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made—that it is vital that we maintain and re-establish public confidence in public inquiries and in our political institutions as such. One of the biggest problems, which we all share, is the extent of public and media cynicism about the political process in this country. This inquiry is working with great care. Again, I stress that this is an independent inquiry—the Government are not in charge. The four active members of the Chilcot inquiry group are those who are responsible for what emerges, although of course a great deal of negotiation has gone on about the extent of publication. That is a very important part of ensuring that this is not in any sense a whitewashing inquiry.

On a previous occasion I was criticised by one or two noble Lords for suggesting that the Franks inquiry on the Falklands War was not entirely thorough or rigorous. I went back to the review that I had written in International Affairs on the publication of the Franks inquiry to demonstrate why I still hold that opinion. This inquiry is very thoroughgoing. It is being conducted by a number of people whom I personally trust and respect, and who are unlikely to be defenders of the “secret establishment”, so to speak. We very much hope that the report will appear before the end of the year; the Prime Minister has said that publicly. We are doing all we can—with a number of very hard-working officials, who are themselves doing all they can—to complete the final stages of the process of clearing these very difficult and delicate documents so that we can send out the second stages of the Maxwellisation process to those who will be named in the report. We will then move on from that to the presentation of the report to the Prime Minister and, we hope, to publication as soon as possible.