House of Lords: Membership

Debate between Lord Boston of Faversham and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 14th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that is an interesting proposition and it will no doubt be dealt with in the forthcoming White Paper.

[Lord Boston of Faversham]

My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that it would not be possible for the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister to sit in this House because he is already a Member of another place? Does he therefore accept that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, should be allowed to amend his Question slightly proposing that a Prime Minister—I emphasise “a”—should be allowed to sit in this House? I say that even though I do not agree with the idea of an elected House of Lords.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, all things are possible but that is not part of the Government’s proposals.

Parliament

Debate between Lord Boston of Faversham and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 13th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the Cabinet manual has yet to be published, so I will not comment on it. As to whether or not it is a precursor to a written constitution, no, I do not think so.

[Lord Boston of Faversham]

While I normally find myself in accord with what the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, says, is it not a rather strange concept that Her Majesty's Government would wish to be called to account?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I always admire the noble Lord for his questions. However, I think that the Government have an interest in the generality of being held to account by Parliament; that is part of our support for the parliamentary process as a whole. I have to say that in this Parliament, I think that noble Lords opposite—the Official Opposition—are doing a very good job.