Electoral Registration Data Schemes (No. 2) Order 2012

Baroness Boothroyd Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, the Bill is not on the Order Paper or in Forthcoming Business. Therefore, I have nothing more to add to announcements that I have made in the past.

[Baroness Boothroyd]

My Lords, I was not able to be in the House when this matter was raised recently but, of course, I have read the exchanges and the related documents. I hope that the House will allow me to put a few comments on the record.

During my time as Speaker, I worked with three Clerks of the Commons. I believe that I had their great respect and support. They certainly had mine. If there was any success in that Speakership, much of it was due to their support and advice. Much of the time, the Clerk and I were as one with the way in which we should proceed. But, if I recall correctly, there were a couple of occasions when I overruled that advice. The decision was a very difficult one, taken against considerable professionalism and precedence. But I took it in what I believed to be the best interests of the democratic process, and to provide debate on a contentious issue of public interest and concern—and the roof did not fall in.

For us, of course, there is no Speaker here to make that ultimate decision. We all know what the Companion tells us; it has been repeated many times recently in this House. But by its very nature, it is advice that is offered to us and it is only advice; it is only expected to be taken. It is not a command, nor is it written on tablets of stone. I put it to the Leader of the House that, as there is no individual in this House to make the ultimate decision, is it not for your Lordships’ House to make that final decision? Certainly, such a decision and the order of the business of this House should not rest with the Leader nor with the Opposition, nor should it rest with any other individual who does not carry the authority to do so.

We are an integral part of the democratic system. The way in which your Lordships conduct their business is a matter for the House itself. I concern myself at this stage not with the substance of the amendment itself, or its merits or demerits, but with the question of admissibility. That is the principle question. Should this House not initially deal with the question of admissibility? I accept that it would be difficult to do so without discussing the substance, but it would not be impossible. Of course, following a decision on the principle, the substantive amendment would then either fall or be dealt with in the usual matter. That is surely the common-sense way of approach.

We are constantly being reminded that we are a self-regulating House. Let that be demonstrated, and let us carry out that self-regulation and operate the democratic process that we are here to perpetuate, for goodness’ sake.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be interested in the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and I look forward to the Leader’s response to what she has said. I thank him for his earlier reply.

It is now a full fortnight since the Government told your Lordships’ House that they had not concluded their considerations on the issues in relation to the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hart of Chilton, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord Rennard and Lord Wigley, to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, asked the proposers of the amendment to see whether they could try to find an amendment which would be considered to be admissible. I was grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion. It is my understanding that those who propose the amendment stand by the merits of their amendment and its admissibility. But in order to go the extra mile, and to respond to a reasonable request from the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, they have indeed given consideration to the suggestion. I understand that they have been in further detailed discussions with the clerks, and have sought further legal advice from Queen’s Counsel to see if there is an alternative way forward. I understand that their efforts to do so are continuing. These actions show that they have shown, and are showing, their readiness to be reasonable, and to leave no stone unturned on this issue, as I believe the House would want them to do. That is the right attitude and the right approach.

The Government should conclude their considerations and bring this Bill back to this House. As the noble Baroness suggested, they should let this House—this self-regulating House—decide what it wishes to do in relation to this amendment and get on with its job, its constitutional role, of scrutinising legislation, however uncomfortable that might be for the Government.

House of Lords: Reform

Baroness Boothroyd Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we will publish a Bill before the Summer Recess. When we do, we will have a full estimate of what a reformed House would cost. However, noble Lords would be wrong to assume that this will necessarily be an enormously expensive enterprise. After all, part of the purpose of reform is to reduce significantly the size of the House. However, we will make a full cost estimate when we publish the Bill.

[Baroness Boothroyd]

My Lords, the Prime Minister recently said that he had not ruled out a referendum on Lords reform. Bearing in mind that this House was told last May, after the country had rejected the AV system, that the cost of that referendum was around £120 million and still counting, what estimate have the Government arrived at for a referendum on Lords reform in these hard-up days?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the Government are not convinced of the case for a referendum, even though it was a recommendation of the Joint Committee of both Houses, which reported earlier this year. The noble Baroness will have to be patient until we publish the Bill, which we will do relatively soon.

Procedure of the House

Baroness Boothroyd Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Crickhowell]

That is rather an interesting exchange. It has magnified what I had intended to say. However, it was also a little unusual. This is a House matter, and normally we leave the introduction of such measures for individual Members of this House. It is a little unusual—I am not saying it is unique—to have a letter of that kind. It is also slightly unusual to receive an urgent message to get in touch with the Leader’s Office. I was on the train up from Wales, and I was asked to go and meet him. As usual we had the most civilised and delicate discussion about these matters, in which we agreed to differ. I explained that I would be opposing this Motion because I think that the timing is catastrophically unfortunate. I do not think that it should be introduced as an experiment when we are going to have this major Bill before us, with the suspicion that will inevitably arise—and has arisen—that the decks are being cleared.

I also support almost everything else that my noble friend Lord Cormack said. He referred to the possibility of the kind of disciplines being introduced into this House that have been introduced in the Commons. Indeed, the letter from my noble friend the Leader says that this measure is being introduced in order to avoid,

“having to introduce Commons-style restrictions on members’ ability to table amendments”.

Is it a threat? I hope not.

I am totally opposed to doing this at this time. I am glad that the proposals that we should sit in the morning, which I spoke against long ago, have been withdrawn. I do not think that this set of proposals is any more acceptable. The wisest thing now would be for my noble friend the Leader, and those responsible, to listen to what has been said and to take the proposals away and reconsider them. If he will not agree to do that and my noble friend Lord Cormack presses his amendment to the Motion, I will vote for it, and I hope that it will be widely supported in the House.

[Baroness Boothroyd]

My Lords, I rise to inform the House that I have not received a letter, either from the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition, or from my own Convenor. I wish to speak to the report of the Procedure Committee, and I do so with considerable concern as to the changes it proposes to our proceedings.

The proposition is that most Bills coming from the Commons should be referred to a Grand Committee, rather than be taken on the Floor of this Chamber. We have heard that the exceptions to this proposition will allow Bills on major constitutional issues or those dealing with emergency legislation to be taken on the Floor of the House. I would not expect any Government to have the audacity to deny this Chamber the ability to debate and decide on such legislation. However, the report also tells us that there should be a “presumption”—that is the committee’s chosen word; it is not my word—that all other legislation, including controversial, but not “exceptionally” controversial, Bills be also committed to a Grand Committee. As far as I am concerned, most Bills are controversial in varying degrees, and it depends on our personal knowledge of, and hopes and fears for, the legislation proposed therein. I ask the Chairman of Committees or the Leader of the House—whoever is to reply to this debate—what type of Bill will be regarded as controversial, and what will be regarded as exceptionally controversial?

The Health and Social Care Bill was hard-fought legislation—most of my colleagues would agree with that—but under the terms before us today would that Bill have been regarded as controversial and committed directly to Grand Committee, where an interested and involved public would have had great difficulty in witnessing the debates? Or would that Bill have been regarded as exceptionally controversial, and dealt with in this Chamber? Who defines and clarifies that legislation is exceptionally controversial, as opposed to that which is controversial but not exceptionally so? I need to know. Perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us when he winds up. I imagine that I shall be told that the matter may be for the usual channels to define and clarify, or that it may be a matter for the Leader of the House, but I believe that there is some value in posing this question and getting an answer that will be recorded in Hansard so that it can be referred to.

There are times when this Chamber is so crowded that Members have no place to sit and we are standing around it, or shoulder to shoulder behind the Bar of the House. This applies particularly when amendments are being moved and when we wish to hear Ministers wind up on them. To start with, the current situation here is most unsatisfactory. I should therefore like to know what arrangements have been made in the Moses Room for accommodating Members who wish to contribute or listen to debate. That is not an area that lends itself to even a small proportion of the membership of this House, and certainly not to the numbers that would wish to attend during a controversial debate. I would like to hear how we will be accommodated there and, equally importantly—this is very important to me—how members of the public who wish to witness our proceedings will be accommodated.

Last Thursday in this House, the government Chief Whip told us,

“that it is the Government’s intention only to make proposals with regard to Grand Committee that will enable the House to have more opportunity to scrutinise legislation without having the late finishes or early starts”.—[Official Report, 22/3/12; col. 1027.]

That is a fine ambition indeed. However, there are those of us who see the presumption to put government Bills into Grand Committee as an act of stealth to clear the way for a constitutional Bill bringing about the demise of this House. There are those on the red-carpeted corridors out there who think that that is so; but I could not possibly comment. No doubt the Leader of the House will do so, and I look forward to what he has to say on that point.

I very much appreciate the work that goes on in the committees of this House, particularly the Procedure Committee. I note in its report that some of its Members dissented from the recommendations. I certainly cannot support the report and will therefore, when the time comes, support reference back.

Procedure of the House (Proposal 1)

Baroness Boothroyd Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grenfell]

My Lords, I am not particularly happy with this proposal and never have been. My views have been somewhat confirmed by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has just said. However, I wish to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, who has several times in recent times referred to the “slippery slope”. I simply do not buy this argument about the slippery slope for the following reason: in a properly self-regulated House, the House does not need to go anywhere it does not want to go. It has the power to say, “This far and no further”. Whatever changes might be made, they do not automatically mean that we are living in fear of a slide down a slippery slope because they can always be stopped.

My second point is that I am not very keen on trial periods. The trouble with a trial period is that the determination of whether that trial period has yielded positive or negative results is very difficult to judge and can be extremely contentious because we do not have clear criteria about how we judge whether they have been positive or negative. Making that determination could simply cause more problems for the House.

On the whole, I feel that the House works well enough with the system it has, provided, as the noble and learned Lord said, the Leader of the House and others on Front Benches take the responsibility necessary to make it work. If they do not, then you are inviting a tsunami of requests for some sort of reform which would probably in the end destroy the self-regulation of the House.

[Baroness Boothroyd]

My Lords, I intend to support the proposal before us this afternoon. I am in a great minority of one in believing that this House is self-regulating. I have not found that to be so. I have found it alien to me that a member of a political party who sits on the government Front Bench, whichever party may be in power, as a Minister of the Crown intervenes, interferes and determines which group in this House should be next to put the question. That is not a decision for a Minister of the Crown—a political animal, if I may put it like that—to take. To me that is for the judgment of an independent body, and that is the Lord Speaker, in whom we all have confidence. We would abide by the decisions of that Lord Speaker. I would therefore like to see this for a trial period, and I favour the proposition that is before us this afternoon.

House of Lords: Reform

Baroness Boothroyd Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boothroyd]

My Lords, the draft Bill before us confirms my worst fears. Never in my experience has an institution at the heart of the British constitution been marked down for destruction on such spurious grounds. Never in all my years in public life has the bicameral role of our Parliament been so wantonly put at risk by such disregard of the nation’s best interests.

In one of his interviews last week, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, talked about reaching a milestone in history—if only that were true. Instead of a milestone, I foresee a millstone around the necks of future generations if this House is mangled in this way. In their joint foreword to the draft Bill, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister repeat the fallacies on which their coalition agreement on this issue is based. There can be no misunderstanding of what is at stake. This is not reform of the House of Lords, as they would have us believe. They are set on abolishing this House. If this draft Bill becomes law in any shape or form, it will wreck this place as a deliberative assembly and tear up the roots that make it the most effective revising Chamber in the world. Worse still, the balance between our two Houses, which has already been touched on by many of your Lordships, on which our democracy and the rule of law depends, will be lost for ever.

Why is this? Is it because the Government’s muddled thinking stems from the argument that both Chambers must be elected in order to be legitimate? That is the only reason offered. No other reason is on offer. It is certainly not the inability of Members of this House to do their job to the highest standards. The foreword admits as much, when it says:

“The House of Lords and its existing members have served the country with distinction”.

Mr Clegg, the chief advocate of the demise of this House, acknowledged our “wisdom and expertise” when the Commons debated the draft Bill last month. I tell noble Lords that if this House was judged on its record in a court of law, our acquittal would be sure and swift.

So what is the problem? I refer again to the foreword, which claims that we lack “sufficient democratic authority” —nothing more. According to Mr Clegg, our fatal flaw is that we are not directly accountable to the British people. That is absolutely true, but nor are the monarchy, the judiciary, the chiefs of the armed services, the Prime Minister, his deputy Mr Clegg or—let us face it—the Cabinet directly accountable. We in this House must be resolute in our determination and ready to resist, come what may from that government Front Bench.

The Government already hint at using their powers of duress to get their way, but I warn them that they will not overcome the growing scepticism on all sides in both Houses and outside by cajoling Back-Benchers or rattling the Parliament Act in front of our noses. Legitimacy works both ways. Legitimate questions were asked for which Members had no convincing answers during the many debates in this House on the House of Lords Reform Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel. I again ask in the simplest and most mundane terms that I can command: in what way would the nation benefit and parliamentary proceedings be enhanced by the abolition of this House of experts and experience, and its replacement by a senate of paid politicians? I am an optimist. I live in hope of an answer from the Government before the end of this two-day debate—thank you.

The phrase “If it ain’t broke, don’t mend it” is still true. That is why we celebrate great national events adorned with pageantry and why the State Opening of Parliament takes place in this Chamber. I note that there is no move to scrap that. Why? It is because they do not dare to abolish that. Their sole aim is to preserve the coalition for five years, create 300 jobs for the boys and girls on the party lists, and send us as quietly as possible salami-style to the knackers’ yard.

The draft Bill’s proposals for electing the new breed of Peers—or perhaps I should say the new breed of senators—are the most disjointed and disconnected possible. Under the terms of the draft Bill, elected Peers and MPs will be accountable to the electorate but some will be more accountable than others. Does that not smack of George Orwell’s Animal Farm? The Labour Front Bench in the Commons dismissed the whole process as a huge anti-climax and the Back-Benchers called it a tatty roadshow, a constitutional version of fantasy football and a bag of fudge. The Tories were also restless.

No wonder the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, doubts the chances of the Bill getting through by 2015, as he stated in his interview last Saturday with the Financial Times. Mr Clegg, too, dismissed the public’s indifference in a way he may regret. He said:

“The fact that an issue is not raised with us by our constituents does not mean that it is not worthy of debate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/11; col. 161.]

But the Government are losing the debate. The Government’s Bill is so loosely drafted, so full of non sequiturs and internal contradictions that the Deputy Prime Minister himself admitted in the Commons debate that it represents no more than the Government’s,

“best guess of what would work legislatively”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/11; col. 172.]

My Lords, that takes my breath away. What an extraordinary comment to make on an issue of major constitutional importance. The governance of this country cannot depend on best guesses and burnt-out obsessions that have no relevance or public resonance.

I have no doubt that the Joint Committee will do its best, and I wish it well, but any attempt to cajole it will only further expose the weaknesses of the Government’s position. I have tabled my Motion because I believe that the Government should withdraw their destructive proposals and build on the Steel Bill on reform of this House and the relevant Select Committee reports. That would improve the way this House works within the existing legislation and conventions. Surely we cannot gamble with the constitution and Parliament’s future on the basis of the coalition’s best guesses.

Clerk of the Parliaments

Baroness Boothroyd Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I rise to associate the Bishops’ Bench with the tributes already paid to the retiring Clerk of the Parliaments. There is, as your Lordships know, a steady stream of new Bishops entering this House, since we rarely stay beyond retirement. Over the past few years, Michael Pownall has been a welcoming face and voice to many Bishops undergoing their induction into your Lordships’ House; many of them, unlike other noble Lords, arriving knowing almost nobody here and almost nothing about the ways of the House. The Church of England, even with its modernising agenda, has its own peculiarities and particularities, as you may have noticed. They are, however, different, from the peculiarities and particularities of this House. The Clerk of the Parliaments has always enabled those on this Bench to find their feet and even, in time, their voice. The Lords spiritual, to whom I have spoken, have paid tribute variously to his knowledge, compassion, even-handedness, approachability, modesty and courtesy. That is an impressive catalogue of attributes.

From this Bench we thank him for his years of service and pray that his retirement be blessed with health and happiness. Like everybody else, I should mention Italy, but also hope that he will be happy and healthy here at home.

[Baroness Boothroyd]

My Lords, some time years ago—

[Lord Boston of Faversham]

My Lords—

[Baroness Boothroyd]

Excuse me. My Lords, some years ago, as Speaker, I was lucky to attend a Commonwealth Parliamentary conference in Trinidad. Our hosts entertained us one evening at a concert, which was in a theatre hastily constructed for our special conference. It was a black, velvet, tropical evening and, on returning to our seats after the interval, and unseen by my colleagues, I fell through very flaky floorboards right up to my armpits, the remainder of me hanging in an abyss. My legs were dangling and I lost my shoes as I tried unsuccessfully to locate some foothold to pull myself out. After a time, I was spotted by my Clerk, Bill McKay, Clerk of the House of Commons, who grabbed his chum who was the Canadian Clerk, and together they came to my rescue. I tell you, it was a frightening experience. I said to Bill McKay, “I’m so grateful to you. What would I have done without you?”. He said, “Madam Speaker, think nothing of it, that’s what Clerks are for, to get Speakers out of holes”.

I doubt that Michael Pownall had cause to pull the Lord Speaker out of a hole—even a procedural one—but I certainly have no doubt that the sage advice given to me by the Clerk prevented me from falling into procedural holes on more than one occasion.

Parliamentary procedure may not be quite the black art it is sometimes made out to be, but the sheer size of Erskine May testifies to its complexity. The Clerk’s function, of course, is to interpret it and to advise on its application to particular circumstances. I think the Clerk could be described as the essential lubricant in the parliamentary process; he keeps the wheels of Parliament running smoothly. It would be a most unusual, not to say unwise, Speaker who did not acknowledge their debt to the Clerk who supports and keeps them on the straight and narrow. But the responsibilities of the Clerk and his staff, as we have heard already this afternoon, go wider than this: they advise Ministers, opposition spokesmen, Cross-Bench Convenors, and individual Members, like many of us here, with equal zeal and with impartiality. Quite simply, we could not manage without them. Clerks are low-profile but high-value members of the parliamentary community. What I found to be the case in the Commons is equally true here.

In recent years, of course, the role of the Clerk of the Parliaments has expanded to encompass a much greater managerial function in the administration of this House, and this has placed increased demands on Michael which he has met with energy and equanimity. Michael Pownall has served your Lordships' House and its Members with skill, devotion and fidelity, which is the characteristic of the Clerks of our Parliament. We are blessed with the best. I think the finest tribute I can pay to Michael is to quote from Chaucer’s description of the Clerk in the prologue to The Canterbury Tales. It certainly applies to Michael Pownall:

“Not one word spoke he more than was his need;

And that was said in fullest reverence

And short and quick and full of high good sense”.

In paying tribute to Michael personally, which I do in full measure, I wish him a long retirement with his family, enjoying good health and happiness in the years to come.

House of Lords: Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties

Baroness Boothroyd Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

That, in the opinion of this House, the resolution of the House of 30 July 2002 (Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties) should have effect, in relation to the giving of financial assistance, with effect from 12 May 2010, as if—

(a) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(a) the references to the second largest opposition party were omitted, and

(b) paragraph (8)(b) were omitted.

[Baroness Boothroyd]

My Lords, this is an important resolution. It is cloaked in technical terms and it affects the way in which opposition parties are funded in this House to help them perform their parliamentary duties. Sadly, no one would know that without recourse to Hansard and to the resolution of 2002 that the Government seek to amend. I regret that. Where public funds and parliamentary accountability are involved, the Government need to be more transparent.

I believe that the Motion before us is more than a tidying-up operation. Rightly, it recognises the changed fortunes of the Liberal Democrats; wrongly—unless I am corrected—it implies a severe cut in the distribution of Cranborne money to the opposition parties in this House by no less than 30 per cent. At the same time, it does less than justice to Cross-Benchers, whose independence will always disbar them from office and who operate on a shoestring.

The Cross-Benchers came late to the party when Cranborne money was distributed for the first time in 1997. They had to wait two years. By that time, the cake had been cut and they were handed the smallest slice—a meagre slice, some would say. Cross-Benchers received £10,000 out of a total allocation of £291,000. Our relative position has improved slightly, but it remains at a subsistence level. I am really quite shocked at the disproportionate way in which Cranborne money has been divided during the past 13 years. To some, the Cross-Bench share was almost a joke.

Eight years ago, when Lord Williams of Mostyn increased the Cross-Bench allocation to £35,000, he laughingly remarked:

“I stand amazed at our generosity”.—[Official Report, 30/7/02; col. 820.]

My colleagues were grateful all the same.

Last year, the Cross-Bench Convenor, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, received the princely sum of £61,003—a substantial percentage increase, you might say, but that was only because the starting point was so low. Cross-Benchers had trailed so far behind they were almost out of sight.

The £60,000 a year allows our Convenor to employ one full-time and one part-time assistant to administer her office and respond to the needs of the 187 Cross-Bench Peers. She also represents us in consultations with the Government and other parties. She sits on some nine House committees. I pay tribute to her fortitude, but it is wrong that she should have to bear so heavy a burden without adequate support.

In contrast, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats last year shared the rest of the Cranborne money on a 2:1 ratio. In 12 months, they received £770,000. If that is not lop-sided, I do not know what is. Sinn Fein received more than the Cross-Benchers for its non-performance in the Commons. Despite the refusal of five Sinn Fein Members to take the oath of allegiance, Sinn Fein netted £96,000 to finance what the previous Government described as “representative business”, a term capable of many interpretations. I take these figures from an excellent research paper on the public funding of opposition parties produced by the Commons Library. The section on the way in which the Cranborne money operates makes eye-popping reading.

Sadly, unless the Leader of the House enlightens us otherwise, this Motion makes matters worse. In the absence of further information, the Government appear intent on returning to the Treasury the funds previously allocated to the Liberal Democrats. If that is right, the total amount of Cranborne money available to the Opposition will be reduced by nearly a third, all without reference or explanation to this House.

A clever lawyer might argue that the Cross-Benchers are entitled to all the Cranborne money that went to the Liberal Democrats—not that I would think such thoughts, of course. But the pecking order set out in the resolution of 2002 is clear. Then, the Cross-Benchers were in third place; now, they are in second place. It is a position that the Government choose to ignore to save money and—who knows?—perhaps to reassure their junior partner that its entitlement to Cranborne money is secure if the coalition fails. I do not challenge Labour’s entitlement to the £475,000 which the Conservatives received as the Official Opposition last year—that is, of course, on top of the salaries paid to their Leader and their Chief Whip. Nor do I begrudge Ministers the command of resources needed to formulate their policies, run their departments and present their case as persuasively as possible. I do, however, believe in fair play and hope that the Government do too.

As the House knows, we on these Benches belong to no party. We have no common platform or agreed policies, and no leader. We speak and vote according to judgment and conscience, without the discipline of Whips to guide us through the Lobbies, and we may be swept away if this House is replaced by an elected Chamber. However, while we are here Cross-Benchers will, I know, do their duty to Parliament and to the country. They need adequate resources to do so. We are not partisans but share the same principles and, I believe, perform a useful role.

These Benches do not need the hundreds of thousands of pounds that routinely go to opposition parties. Your Lordships may be surprised to know that during Labour’s period of office, the Conservatives received over £4 million in Cranborne money, the Liberal Democrats £2 million and the Cross-Benchers £400,000. I was a Whip in Harold Wilson’s Government when the first public funds were allocated to opposition parties in the Commons. The aim was to improve the parliamentary effectiveness of parties and groups not in government. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will agree that the need to do so has not changed. He is long experienced in the travails of opposition, and I hope that he will review the allocation of Cranborne money in the light of my unashamed appeal for a better deal for these Benches. I do not seek generosity; I seek fairness. Fairness will do for me.

[Viscount Tenby]

My Lords, I support the powerful and persuasive words of my noble friend Lady Boothroyd. I promise not to detain the House for long. I have had the privilege of being closely associated with a number of distinguished Convenors in recent years. I have also had the personal experience of working in the office of the Convenor. I can testify to the difficulty of serving so many noble Lords in such a confined office area and with slender personnel resources. Indeed, it is a testimony to the professional skills of the present personal adviser and his assistant that we get the excellent service we do but, as the noble Baroness has said, the figures speak for themselves. It is surely an anomaly from the bad old days that a grouping combining over 25 per cent of our total only receives disproportionate sums of money. I should add that we are grateful for any crumbs that fall from rich men’s tables.

My guess is that the reluctance to put us on a footing with other political groups is that to do so would somehow disturb the delicate framework of our independence and make us more like the other political parties. Yet to anyone who has studied the pattern of voting in recent years, as I have, those fears can be allayed. In over 25 years, I cannot recall an occasion when Cross-Benchers have voted as one and—believe me—a 50:50 breakdown, or near those figures, is all too common. This appears to be an open season for reviews. I suggest to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that, with his customary generosity of spirit and instinct for doing the right thing, he might set up such a review—it may be in conjunction with the usual channels—to look into this whole matter so that it can be addressed and so that we can look forward to a fairer deal.