Proceeding contribution from Lord Trefgarne (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 31 March 2008. It occurred during Debate on select committee report on House Committee: Fourth Report.
House Committee: Fourth Report
rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert ““save for the words ““the Management Board member”” in paragraph 3, ““Both post-holders would be members of the Management Board.”” in paragraph 4, and ““the Management Board member”” in paragraph 6(a), and with the addition of the words ““The post-holder would not be a member of the Management Board.”” at the end of paragraph 6(a).”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for inviting us to agree to the House Committee report, but I am afraid that I have to disagree with much of what he said. I hold no brief for the present Black Rod; he is a distinguished former officer. As it happens, I knew his predecessor rather better, having served with him in the Ministry of Defence. The plain fact is that we have benefited over the years from a succession of very distinguished former officers who became Black Rod, and I pay tribute to all of them in their time. The position of Black Rod, held as it is by a former senior military officer, reflects the competence of such people to hold that position. Our Armed Forces are a huge business by any standards. They have all the problems and all the activities that we have in this palace, so it is completely appropriate that a former military officer should hold the position of Black Rod, as he will have held similar responsibilities during his career. They all come to us with a distinguished background and great competence, so the idea that a senior officer cannot carry out these duties is absurd. I have no difficulty in providing Black Rod, whoever he may be, with the additional expertise and advice that may be required for the extensive building programme and related matters in this palace. What I object to, and what I believe is wrong, is that the new man—if it is a man; it might be lady, who knows? I see the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, looking at me disapprovingly. The new person, whoever they may be, will no doubt provide admirable new advice and support to Black Rod in the role that he fulfils. But he does not need to be set in authority over Black Rod on these matters as is proposed. Although it is proposed that he will sit alongside Black Rod on the management committee, in these matters he will be supreme and Black Rod will have no role to play in them. I do not approve of that. I have heard of a number of assurances that Black Rod will always be a military man. I am not sure who gave those assurances, but I doubt whether they were given on any authority. When the time comes, Black Rod is chosen by the House. Non-military people have been considered in years past, and may well be in the future. I do not agree with that; a military man is the sort of chap—the sort of person—that we need.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 700 c727-8
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Accountability Buildings House of Lords Facilities Management Offices Repairs and maintenance Reorganisation Black Rod Refreshment Department (HL) Director of Facilities
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 23:10:11 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_459202
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_459202
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_459202