Role of the Lord Speaker
Lord Fowler Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I think I do have a role here: that the House do now adjourn.
London Attacks
Lord Fowler Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I associate myself with the thanks and tributes paid today, and especially our prayers and thoughts for PC Keith Palmer and for his family. I also acknowledge the work of so many members of the public who pitched in and did what they needed to do when faced with things for which they had never been trained or prepared. Yesterday afternoon one of our own security staff at Lambeth Palace, a Muslim, arrived at the gate having been very narrowly missed by the vehicle and having spent time helping those who had been injured. It was typical of this community and this country that he refused to go home until the end of his shift and simply spent the time doing his job as he expected.
This was typical of so many in this city, including the emergency services who contained the incident within six minutes and the staff at this extraordinary place who give so much of themselves on both normal occasions and extraordinary occasions. Especially in our hearts today are those who wait at bedsides, who are suddenly caught up in things for which they could never have been prepared and which they never expected. Our prayers continue for them on this day. Much shock has been expressed, but we know from the reactions we saw yesterday that we have the strength to persevere through it. We will talk more generally about that later.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, perhaps I may add my condolences to those already expressed today to those affected by these tragic events. A book of condolence has been placed in the Royal Gallery and in Westminster Hall. The usual channels have agreed to take the Statement on yesterday’s events before Questions. Before that Statement I reassure the House that the House of Lords Commission, which I chair, and our Commons counterpart will be reviewing with the police and other stakeholders the arrangements in Parliament relating to yesterday’s incident to see whether there are any lessons for the future. Above all, I reiterate the thanks of this House to those who work to protect us, and the others who work in Parliament, for their brave actions yesterday to keep us safe.
Tributes: Baroness D'Souza and Lord Laming
Lord Fowler Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I will add a very brief last word. I would like to thank all those who have spoken for their good wishes to myself and to the noble Lord, Lord McFall. I must admit to a certain trepidation in breaking the 10-year female monopoly on the Woolsack. I also know perfectly well that when I make my first major mistake, the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition will shake their heads and say in perfect unity, “What do you expect if you hand it over to a man?”. For me, the truth is that everyone will remember the example of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the very high standards that she set in this House and outside, such as in her work with schools. But more than that, she spoke at numerous meetings up and down the country explaining the work of this House. As the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition said, she spoke to the National Federation of Women’s Institutes to rapturous applause, which is not always the response that all politicians receive. When she spoke of the future, it was with sincerity and common sense. Dare I say that it is not exactly controversial to say that this House is somewhat on the crowded side? We look forward to her continuing campaigns now that she has returned to the Cross Benches.
The noble Lord, Lord Laming, has also made a tremendous contribution to this House as Chairman of Committees. I remember the days when he was director of social services in Hertfordshire back in the 1980s. Those were the golden years of social services in this country. Modesty almost prevents me recalling that for six of those 10 years I was in charge as Secretary of State for Social Security. As many will understand, I use the words “in charge” very loosely indeed. But what was certain was that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was a giant in that field. On his role in this House the best thing I can say is that I have never heard a critical word said about him. He is renowned for his patience, his hard work and, above all, his effectiveness in getting things done. The House is exceptionally fortunate that he will continue his work as the new chairman of the Services Committee. I ask noble Lords to note that any complaints about the food should be directed to him and not to me.
In brief, we sincerely thank two exceptional servants of this House.
Election of Lord Speaker
Lord Fowler Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I concur with the noble Baroness’s comments. We welcome the opportunity at a later date to pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and to thank her for it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said, we warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. His election shows the high regard in which he is held in this House. He will know that he has the support of the entire House as he undertakes his duties. He will bring both his personality and his political skills to the role.
What we have seen today is a parliamentary first in that this is the first time that a man has been elected to the role of Lord Speaker. Nowadays, there are few positions in public life of which that can be said. I add our sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for not only having put themselves forward as excellent candidates and given us an excellent choice but for the way in which they conducted themselves during the election, which was a great tribute to them and, indeed, to the whole House. Therefore, we thank them and offer our very warm congratulations to our next Speaker.
Lord Fowler (Con)
My Lords, as the Leader of the House has just said, the election may be run but I do not take over responsibility until 1 September. In the meantime, the Lord Speaker continues to preside in the excellent way we have all admired for the last five years. I would like to make three very brief points. First, I thank the House very sincerely for the exceptional support it has given me. I will do my utmost to live up to this trust.
Secondly, I thank the other two candidates: the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, and my noble friend Lord Cormack for the way in which the election was conducted. With the election over, the good news is that the bar on offering hospitality comes to an end and we can buy colleagues drinks. The bad news is that I seem to have inadvertently mislaid my wallet today.
My third, and entirely serious, point is this: my whole purpose from now onwards is to serve all the Members in every part of this House in times which may be crucial for the very future of the House of Lords. My aim quite simply is to be the loyal servant of this House. I thank noble Lords for their support.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I, too, add my warmest congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. While I am somewhat sad to step down, I do so in the sure knowledge that he will be a most distinguished Lord Speaker and will bring new ideas and freshness to the job. I know, too, that he will be wonderfully supported by all the Members of this House, the administration and the staff of the House. I particularly thank the clerks and the doorkeepers, who are the most excellent—perhaps the world’s best—timekeepers. I offer the noble Lord my congratulations once again and hope that he has a very good innings.
House of Lords: Domestic Committees
Lord Fowler Excerpts(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I particularly agreed with the point that he made on the working relationship between the two Houses, which I will come to.
I will be very brief. I very much support this report and congratulate my noble friend Lady Shephard and all her colleagues on the substantial work that has gone into this over a six-month period. It is precisely work such as this that too often, and quite wrongly, goes unnoticed outside this House. Perhaps not even everyone inside this House is interested in the governance of services and facilities—at least not until something goes wrong or we are confronted with an issue, such as the future of this building, that we can scarcely avoid. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, said, this is a crucial time and we should regard it as such with the kinds of decisions that we all know are coming up.
I will concentrate on two underlying themes in the report: the mystery that surrounds some committees, and the difficulties in consultation and accountability to Members generally. At paragraph 33, the report states:
“The operations of domestic committees appeared shrouded in mystery to many members who had not served on them”;
and, not surprisingly, that some Members complained about “insufficient accountability” to the House. Perhaps I may give an example of both the difficulties and the solution from a committee which is not part of this review, because it comes under procedure, but which nevertheless illustrates the point exactly.
Ten years ago, a number of colleagues and I wanted to set up a communications select committee. We were summoned to a meeting of the Liaison Committee to put our case. I for one had never come across the Liaison Committee—indeed, I am not altogether sure that I knew there was a Liaison Committee. Having met it, it seemed to me that its main function was to knock down the bright ideas of Back-Benchers—which, I am bound to say, it duly did. However—this was the instructive part—the committee was required to report to the House. It was up to the House to approve.
It became clear that in the preparation of the report, at the very last moment, unknown to us, the then chairman of the Culture Select Committee in the other place had submitted a letter which said, roughly: “Keep off our pitch. These are not matters for the likes of you”. Frankly, all I had to do at that stage was to read out the letter. The House rose as one and the committee’s recommendations were totally overruled. In celebration of the letter without which we would not have succeeded, we subtitled the new committee the Whittingdale committee, for it was John Whittingdale who had signed the letter. Given some of the later reports of our committee, in his new role as Secretary of State, he probably feels that his reservations were entirely justified.
The point is this. Without accountability to the House built into the system, the proposal of a committee shrouded in mystery would have held sway. What is important is to ensure that there is utmost transparency and a route whereby Members of this House can have their say. As the committee states, the best way to ensure that is to have a structure which is as clear and straightforward as it possibly can be. For my money, the organisation set out on page 20 achieves that.
I know that there are questions about the position—indeed, the title—of the Chairman of Committees, and we all know the recent problems, but we should acknowledge that it has been a role, certainly during my time in the House, carried out by noble Lords with extreme distinction, as it has by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, when he generously stepped into the breach. It seems to me that there will be a small gap before this part—certainly the title of this part—of the report is implemented. We might also want to see the result of the referendum and how the title of chair of the European Union Committee fits in to that.
I just point out two further points. The first is the previous report of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and his later review, together with my noble friend Lord Hunt. They had intended the domestic committees to act as user groups. Committee members were expected to report to their party groups on the activities of their committees and then feed back their views to the relevant committee. That is an extremely good idea but, frankly, it has not happened. Indeed, many committee members were unaware that that was expected. If that is what we want—I suggest that it is—we must, as the report suggests, make the role of committee members extremely clear.
The second point I pick out is a very basic one. Members of committees in this House are both Members of the House and, often, clients for the services provided. Decisions involve the use of public funds, and it is important that there should be no perception of conflict of interest. Therefore, good non-executive directors would have an important role here. My guess would be that we would have no difficulty in recruiting some very good men and women. All my experience as chairman of four or five companies is that the role of the non-executive is vastly important and essential for this House, if we are to demonstrate outside the importance that we place on that.
When I was reading the report, I was struck—this point was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—by the amount of joint working in services between the two Houses. In so many ways, we are 200 yards from each other but operating in different worlds with, at times, little knowledge of what is happening in the other world. That was certainly my experience and, I think, that of many others when we were in the House of Commons, so it is undoubtedly good news that about two-thirds of the resources of the two Houses is already spent on shared services. The committee now reports other areas of shared services, such as Hansard, internal audit and several others. Of course, the really big issue for joint decision is the restoration and renewal programme, which involves a decision of immense importance and an immense amount of money. For a Member like me, who has worked in the Palace of Westminster for the last 45 years, it is particularly difficult, but I am only glad that we will have the guidance of a Joint Committee, which will be reporting on the position and which I hope and know will maintain the interests of the House of Lords.
On one last point, looking down from above, the late Lord Roper would not forgive me if I did not mention the position of the Library. Like me, he thought it rather eccentric that we had two different Library organisations; like me, he benefited from the exceptional service we received in the Commons and Lords alike and, like me, he totally supported the staff here in the service that they give. What we missed, and miss, was the ability we had to phone an undoubted specialist in something like social security to explain an apparently unintelligible measure in words that could be understood. They were truly excellent—and we need to look at that particular area. I realise that I could be accused of some bias here in that my wife worked as a clerk in the Library department for many years, in the House of Commons, just like the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews—they worked together. But there is a potential for an increase in service to the benefit of everyone concerned.
The report is excellent and first class. I congratulate my noble friend and the other members of the committee and hope, above all, that it will be implemented in the new Session.
BBC Royal Charter
Lord Fowler Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to consult the public on the renewal of the BBC royal charter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is currently considering a range of options for how the charter review might be conducted. An announcement will be made in due course. There is no set process, but of course we are determined to conduct a robust and thorough process with significant opportunities for the public to contribute.
Lord Fowler (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister, but did she see the reports of 12 May, which appeared in every newspaper and clearly resulted from an official briefing, that the Government intended, in the words of the Daily Telegraph, to declare “war” on the BBC? Does the Minister recognise that many people in this country profoundly disagree with such a policy, value the high standards of the BBC and its international reputation and will strongly oppose any attempt to undermine these?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, war has not been declared on the BBC. The BBC makes an enormous and valuable contribution to many people’s lives as the nation’s broadcaster and in its overseas services, with 308 million people around the world and 96% of the UK population watching it each week. It is also a very well-understood and supported cultural institution, which I know is important to this House. The arrangements will be looked at fully and from every perspective in the charter review. I think the process starts today with the kind of comments that I know will be made in this House.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Fowler Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to propose this Motion and pay my own tribute to the Queen. Some, perhaps many, of us had our first introduction to the medium of television as we watched her coronation in 1953. In the years that have followed, this nation could not have been served more magnificently and with a greater sense of duty than by the Queen, always supported with dedication and style by the Duke of Edinburgh, to whom—slightly early—we send greetings on his 93rd birthday, next Tuesday.
It was also an enormous pleasure to have with us Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall. Over the years, Prince Charles has shown himself to be not just a man of action in his efforts to help the employment position of young people—as I well remember—but a man of sound judgment. Perhaps I could add this: I would like to applaud the help and support that the whole Royal Family has given to the many voluntary organisations in this country. As many in this House will know, its support is utterly invaluable.
2014 is a year which sees many anniversaries. Next year, we have one which goes to our heart—the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. As your Lordships will recall, this was the culmination of the barons’ revolt. Indeed, our gallant allies, the Liberal Democrats, appear to have started commemorating that part already.
Last year, the proposer of this Motion, my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton, made an exceptionally elegant speech, but there was one point with which I disagreed. He suggested that the kind of people who make this speech—“old codgers” I think he rather offensively called them—have abandoned all ambition for an advancement. I contest that particular statement. I have been patiently sitting by my phone for the past 13 years, waiting for the call to come. Although it has not rung yet, I still have my hopes.
Noble Lords
Lord Fowler
I am very grateful.
Consider my qualifications: instant recognition in the street. Only last week a gentleman outside this very House came up to say, “How very nice to see you, Mr Rifkind”. Think of my experience: I was in Margaret Thatcher’s shadow Cabinet back in 1976, when she called me in and said she wanted me to move to transport. “But I know nothing about transport”, I protested. She fixed me with an icy stare. “Fowler”, she said—we always had this close personal relationship—“Fowler, I did transport; you can do transport”. So I did, eventually becoming Secretary of State, which was hugely enjoyable, thanks partly to the high quality of the shadow Ministers, such as the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, with his wonderfully engaging transport policy of “Jaguars for all”. As a Westminster MP, I strongly agreed with this; when I can afford it, I personally follow it as well. A little later I went to Health and Social Security and stayed there for six years, with the help of some brilliant Ministers of State, such as Ken Clarke, with his dark brown Hush Puppies and his smelly cigars—or perhaps it was the other way round—John Major, who I have to say we very much hope we will see at some stage in this House, and Tony Newton, who we all very much miss to this day.
In this House I had tremendous support from my noble friends Lord Elton, Lord Glenarthur and Lord Trefgarne. Then there was my noble friend Lady Trumpington—no hand signals, please. She was a formidable ally, but if she had one fault it was a slight tendency to go occasionally off message. She did not really have her heart in Edwina Currie’s healthy living message. We could never persuade her into the woolly hat that Edwina prescribed for cold weather. It was even worse when one day she went off to a press lunch to extol the virtues of our health policy and our success in bringing down waiting lists. The next day the headline was, “Health Minister proposes licensed brothels on the NHS”. No. 10 was not amused. I loyally tried to placate them by saying that we would not expect everyone to be covered by free prescriptions, but I received the reply that the objection was rather more fundamental than that.
My noble friend is genuinely a great lady and it would be entirely inappropriate of me to use this occasion to say that you can read about her adventures in her recently published book. That would be doubly inappropriate, as I have a new book of my own coming out this week and actually it is cheaper than hers.
Obviously when I came to this House I expected my record to be noted and promotion to beckon. I then noticed one or two barriers. My last ministerial job had been in employment, where I was helped by John Cope, now my noble friend Lord Cope, who was absolutely superb and who achieved—I am sorry, John, I cannot read the rest of what you have written here. My second Minister was John Lee, now my noble friend Lord Lee of Trafford, making at that time a guest appearance on the Conservative Benches. Since then he has written an entirely useless book for many of us in this House: How to Make a Million—Slowly. We do not want to know how it can be done slowly; for some of us, speed is of the essence.
So there were Messrs Cope and Lee and then came the question of the third man—the third Minister. “I am giving you Strathclyde”, said the Prime Minister. “Strathclyde!”, I protested. “That’s a passenger transport executive. I’m doing employment, not transport”. “No, no, Lord Strathclyde—he’s a quite remarkable man. He’s the only man on the Conservative Front Bench who believes in an elected House of Lords”.
After that beginning, I was not going to get very far with him, and I did not. But surely, I thought, I was owed some debt for my period as party chairman. Then I remembered my efforts to modernise the party organisation and cut back the regional organisations. There was one region which was particularly difficult. I told my chief agent to tell them politely that they were to be amalgamated. A day later I received the reply that the officers there had said that I could jump in the Central Office lake. I was outraged. “Who is behind this revolt?”, I asked. “It’s a lady called Joyce Anelay”, came the reply. As one door closed, another slammed shut.
However, there was a fresh spark of hope when my noble friend Lord Strathclyde retired after, I must say, a very distinguished period as Leader of this House. There was speculation on who would follow him. I harboured the hope that my old friend, my noble friend Lord Lawson, might make it—surely he would need a new spokesman on climate change. However, it was not to be. Instead, another old friend, my noble friend Lord Hill, took over. Now here really was an opportunity. In the 1992 election, he and I travelled virtually every day with the Prime Minister, John Major. Many people put down our surprising success in that election to our support and advice. When I say “many people”, that was certainly the firm view of myself, my noble friend Lord Hill and our close families.
However, even at that time my noble friend Lord Hill showed great skill in defending his leader. In one of the cities that we visited, John Major was pelted with eggs. It was not the headline that the spin doctors wanted. So my noble friend Lord Hill invented the line that it was quite untrue to say that the Prime Minister had been pelted with eggs—they were aiming at Fowler and missed.
For whatever reason, my claim has so far been overlooked, but I have not given up. I am still sitting by my phone, and at this point I should like to pay genuine and sincere tribute to the skill and extraordinary ability and wisdom of the Leader of the House and, of course, his excellent and efficient Chief Whip—much good though any of that will do me. So, for the time being, I have to revert to the jungle of the Privy Council Bench, where the competition is so fierce that former Cabinet Ministers squabble about who is to ask a supplementary question first. I suspect that there will be many opportunities for such scraps in the forthcoming Session—which actually is not a bad connecting sentence.
The trouble with any legislative programme is that a hundred editorials condemn you for too many Bills and, if you are more modest, a hundred editorials condemn you for too few. I have worked out that on the basis of my service in the House of Commons and in this House, and given that a Division takes about 15 minutes, I have spent more than one year of my life voting in the Division Lobbies of both Houses—I repeat, more than one year. I hope the Whips are listening to that. They can nod if they are. Just one nod: I did not get very far with that. I did not think that they would listen. Of course, my voting does not take into account the times when I have been brought in to take part in a make-or-break vote on which the future of the country depends, but the vote never takes place. I should make it clear that that happens only in the other place.
I am firmly of the view that the less legislation, the better. I also take the view that that enables us to have more general debates. I would not mind having a debate on the Chilcot report, why there has been such a delay and why we cannot have the full transcript. I also would not mind having more debates on the Floor of the House on the many excellent Select Committee reports that this House publishes. Taking all that into account, my view is that the programme for the next Session is well judged. I very much support the measures on deregulation and infrastructure. I also support the provisions on pension reform. Back in the 1980s, I introduced personal pensions and step by step the position has been reformed. It is entirely right that the public should have good advice but also more freedom to take decisions concerning their own money.
Running as a thread through all this is a strengthening economy, which is much to the credit of the Prime Minister and his Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been a tough and, at times, unpopular struggle to recover. It also has been to the credit of our coalition partners on the Benches behind me who put the national interest before party advantage.
Lord Fowler
I might add that, although perhaps as a resident of the Isle of Wight, I could wish that the same sturdiness had enabled them to support the parliamentary boundary proposals. At the next election on the island, we will have a constituency electorate of 111,000.
As the gracious Speech makes clear, two major issues overhang the next 12 months. The first is our future position in Europe. When I was first elected in 1970, I advocated in my election address a referendum on entry into the Common Market, much to the displeasure of Central Office. It is at least arguable that had we done that at the outset, we would have spared ourselves some of the trouble which has scarred British politics ever since. You do not have to be a Eurosceptic to support the Prime Minister’s pledge to have a referendum after a period of negotiation on the powers of the European Union. Given the results of the European elections from around Europe, it would be a brave man who argues that the structure needs no reform at all.
Even more immediate is the referendum in Scotland. I sometimes think that those of us who support the union put the case in the wrong way. Of course, the financial issues are vital but the real argument is that together we have more influence and more power to defend our interests. As I said at the start, 2014 is a year of anniversaries. It is the anniversary of the start of the First World War and this Friday is the anniversary of D-day. In those wars we fought together to defend liberty and no country played a bigger part than Scotland and its men and women. My hope is that side by side we will continue to stand together in facing the problems that the world throws at us. The problems have not gone away, as the position in Ukraine graphically illustrates. It can hardly be doubted that together we are stronger. It is not just a financial argument: it is because we have shared so much over the years. I very much hope that those historic ties and the pure affection that exists between us will not be cast aside. I beg to move the Motion for an humble Address to Her Majesty.
Press Regulation
Lord Fowler Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, as I think is very much part of the principles of Lord Justice Leveson’s report, the issue of seeking recognition is a matter for the self-regulator and the industry. The Government hope very much that the industry and the self-regulator will look at recognition. Through the Crime and Courts Act 2013, Parliament has made clear the incentives there are in looking at recognition, and I hope that with the passage of time and the Recognition Panel being set up, an application would be made.
Lord Fowler (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may remind my noble friend that 12 months ago, on 18 March 2013, the Prime Minister announced that there was cross-party agreement for a new system. He said:
“My message to the press is now very clear: we have had the debate, now it is time to get on and make this system work”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/13; col. 636.]
Will the Government now do all they can to bring this ridiculously long debate to an end? Most important, will they give an assurance that Parliament will have the opportunity to judge whether any arrangements that are agreed will be truly effective and will effectively guard the public interest?
Press Regulation
Lord Fowler Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
There was an application to the Privy Council. The cross-party royal charter could not be referred because a number of outstanding points needed to be dealt with, including making it Scottish compliant because on 30 April the Scottish Parliament asked to be included in the matter. That is the position. There is no sense of priority; it is about dealing with the matter through the procedures that are required.
Lord Fowler
In relation to the newspapers’ own scheme, was it not Lord Justice Leveson who warned that over the past half century there have been fine words and promises from the press following similar inquiries and commissions, and frankly we ended up with phone hacking and scandal? Surely what we want this time is for the reality to match the rhetoric and for the Government to ensure that that is the case.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I agree with my noble friend. That is precisely why we are going through the procedures that we are, which we must do for legal reasons. The PressBoF charter will be considered swiftly, as I said. But Parliament has already, as we know, passed two Acts of Parliament—the Crime and Courts Act and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act. All the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson will provide strong and effective incentives for relevant publishers to join a recognised independent self regulator.
Death of a Member: Baroness Thatcher
Lord Fowler Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler
My Lords, listening to the radio and watching television in the Isle of Wight, I was struck by the number of Conservatives at Westminster who said that Margaret Thatcher had brought them into politics. Some even suggested that they had been Thatcherites long before she even came to power.
Although I served with her in opposition and in government for 15 years in succession, I make neither claim. Mine was rather a different journey. In the leadership election of 1975 I voted for Ted Heath, and then followed that by voting for my noble and learned friend Lord Howe. It is fair to say that that was rather an exclusive campaign. We had 25 definite promises and pledges and we ended up with 19 votes, that being entirely par for the course in House of Commons elections. We had some good quality, however, in my noble friend Lord Brittan and my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke. As we chewed over the result in a small room upstairs, none of us was convinced that the party had made the right choice. It was then, to my total amazement, that Margaret Thatcher put me into her first shadow Cabinet; it is fair to say that that amazement was widely shared. I had never done a Front-Bench job before. I was put in charge of health and social security against Barbara Castle; I think that is known as a baptism of fire.
However, that proved a point about Lady Thatcher. Margaret was sometimes seen as surrounding herself with known supporters and yes-men. She had the confidence and the self-belief not to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said, you did not have to be “one of us” to be in her Cabinet. All three of us at the time were doubters, but all three of us became members of her Cabinet, and our very good candidate—who sadly got only 19 votes—became her excellent Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom she owed so much.
The second point is that she was personally kind and generous, and much concerned that her Ministers should not lose out in any way. I learnt about that in a roundabout way. After about 18 months I was moved from health and social security to transport. It was not the move that I was looking for. “What? Transport?”, I said to Margaret indignantly. She said, “Norman, I did transport. You can do transport”. That is exactly what happened. It proved to be a lucky move, for when the new Government were formed I went into the Cabinet, never having been even a junior Minister. Margaret Thatcher had a lengthy apology to make. She said, “I’m afraid we can pay in full only 22 Cabinet Ministers and you are the 23rd, so we will have to pay you at the rate of the Chief Whip”—my noble friend Lord Jopling, who is somewhere around. She said, “I am really very sorry about that”. I thought it best not to say that I would probably have done it for nothing had she asked, and we moved on.
I was fascinated by what the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said about the visit of President Mitterrand to Downing Street. The noble Lord was lucky to face a socialist. My opposite number was a communist, M. Fiterman. The great thing was that after all these great events, you need a communiqué. It was a very genial meeting but there was nothing much we could agree on. The one thing we could agree on, at least in principle, was the need for a Channel Tunnel. The communiqué became about the Channel Tunnel. It ceased to be just an aspiration of the Department of Transport and from that moment became a proposal of No. 10 and went onwards.
My third point, on looking back on those momentous years, is that there were undoubted tragedies such as the Grand Hotel bomb. I remember as Health Secretary going back to Brighton the next morning—I had been there the night before—to visit some of the wounded. If I may say so, I remember the courage of many people, not least my two noble friends here today. There were other undoubted crises, such as the Falklands. That was the only time I remember Margaret Thatcher going round the whole Cabinet table and asking each Minister, one by one, whether they were in favour of sending a task force. Virtually everyone agreed; there was only one exception. However, I am bound to say that I at least agreed with my fingers metaphorically crossed because I joined the Army for my national service in 1956, at the time of Suez. That was not our greatest time. It seemed to me that if we could not get our forces efficiently from Cyprus to Egypt, it would be very difficult to get them to the other end of the world in the way that we did. The success of the Falklands was a tribute to our totally professional Armed Forces and to the consistency, determination and courage of Margaret Thatcher. My lesson from that was that the MPs who had voted for her as leader in 1975 had been proved absolutely right.
Above all, serving with Margaret Thatcher was always exciting. It was sometimes also great fun. Some say that she stamped all over her Ministers. It is true that if you were prepared to be handbagged she would oblige. She did not respect Ministers who came in with a proposal that they immediately withdrew when they heard the initial response from the Prime Minister. I learnt very early on that she really did enjoy an argument. Sometimes you actually won that argument as well.
She was an activist, she was a radical and she was, above all, a leader. Her death is obviously a terribly sad occasion and we all send our sympathies to Carol, Mark and the family. But above all, these days should be a recognition and a celebration of a great woman.