Financial Provision for Members
Lord Dholakia Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wakeham
Perhaps it might assist the House if I said a word as chairman of the ad hoc committee. In carrying out our work, we stuck firmly to our remit, which was to stay within the principles and architecture of the SSRB report. However, is my noble friend aware that we found it a complex task to come up with a final solution, which is why we floated the idea of an alternative that would be simpler and cheaper to administer and easier to explain to the outside world? Therefore, I very much support my noble friend’s Statement. As a member of the House Committee, I shall certainly support his proposal.
Lord Strathclyde
The noble Lord is right that it did not fit into the SSRB’s original report, but that is why my noble friend’s committee chose to offer it up as an alternative—as I understand it—in the light of its discussions. If the noble Lord reads the document, as I have done, he will see a remorseless logic that took the committee from where it started to its providing this idea as an alternative. It is an alternative taken in the round, looking at the bureaucratic costs, at each Peer being treated equally and at the end of the expenses regime, which I have found attractive.
Lord Dholakia
I welcome the Statement from the Leader of the House, for three separate reasons. The first is clearly spelt out—the system itself is simple to operate. It removes the complexity of the present system, which has resulted in adverse publicity in the media. Also, it has the least resource implications for administering the system. I have two questions. First, will the noble Lord explain whether there will be a built-in review procedure? The last thing that we should ever do is to determine the allowance applicable to us; we should allow an independent element to determine that. Secondly, will he establish some system of monitoring, given the concerns raised in the past about young people, women and people from ethnic minorities in the prime of their careers? Would the type of review that we are suggesting take those factors into account so that such people are not inhibited from becoming Members of this House?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dholakia for his broad welcome. It was important to hear a senior member of the Liberal Democrat Benches on what is, after all, a House matter and I welcome his words. I have not at this stage recommended a built-in review procedure. It is my personal view that the level that we set should be the one set for the rest of this Parliament. Last week, we saw in the Budget proposals for freezing public sector pay and many other aspects, as well as cuts in the public sector more generally. I think that it is a sensible approach to freeze these amounts. As for a system of monitoring, I should emphasise that one reason why I have recommended this proposal is that it is for the interim period between now and when we potentially pass legislation for a future reformed House. That is another reason why it is attractive. Between now and then, I am sure that many people will monitor those who arrive in your Lordships’ House—new Peers. There are reasons why people from ethnic minorities and those raising a family may find the certainty of the new arrangements rather more attractive than the old expenses regime.
G8 and G20 Summits
Lord Dholakia Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for what he has just said. He reiterates the position extremely well and with a clear understanding of what the issues are. There is increasingly an appreciation and understanding that a violent and military-directed war in Afghanistan is not a winnable proposition for anybody, least of all for the people of Afghanistan themselves. All peace processes around the world have dealt with it by, slowly but surely, bringing all sides together. That will need to be the case in Afghanistan and is increasingly the thrust of our policy.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, may we from this side join the noble Lord in the tributes that he paid to the seven soldiers who lost their lives last week?
One matter of concern is the non-action on development aid, particularly the lack of action on the targets for alleviating poverty. How do the Government plan to ensure that the decisions taken by the G8 and the G20 will be actively implemented? Furthermore, why was climate change discussed only in the G8? If there is to be a global agreement on the way forward on climate change, surely the non-G8 members of the G20 will have to play a crucial role. Finally, do the Government agree that the G8 has now become an anachronism and that it would be better if its role was assumed completely by the G20?
Lord Strathclyde
My noble friend is right to draw attention to development aid, a matter which very much dominated the discussions of the G8. That delivered for the first time a comprehensive accountability report which assessed transparently the G8 progress against its development-related commitments. In the communiqué the G8 leaders reaffirmed their commitments on overseas development aid, on aid effectiveness and on HIV/AIDS. Furthermore, however cynical one is—and I am not suggesting for a moment that my noble friend is cynical when it comes to these matters—about a very serious attempt to give a new priority to these initiatives, the House will recognise that there was an agreement in the Muskoka initiative which means that funding for maternal, newborn and child health will be the new priority.
On the question of climate change, I can understand why my noble friend should feel aggrieved that this could be debated and discussed with one group but less successfully with another. However, there are those at the G20 who felt that it was not appropriate for it to be discussed at that level and that it should remain with the G8. However, there is the climate change conference in Cancun later this year. An enormous amount of work is taking place between now and then to give effect to a global agreement.
House of Lords: Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties
Lord Dholakia Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, when I was charged with putting together the Northern Ireland Assembly I came to the other place and consulted with the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, who was extremely helpful and generous in her guidance. I also drew on the experience of Clerks, Attendants and the Members and procedures of your Lordships’ House—particularly the respectful way in which Members treat with each other, because that seemed to me a very important aspect of parliamentary life.
One thing I did not draw upon was the grossly inadequate resources provided for all the Members of this House in the conduct of their business. When the Northern Ireland Assembly was brought into being, we ensured that all parties, on a per capita basis, had funding for staff for research purposes. If there is to be proper consideration of our work—policy work holding government to account and legislation—then the undoubtedly greater talents of your Lordships’ House have to be conveyed properly in the House and indeed beyond the House. It is not necessarily the case that money should be provided to groups, but resources of personnel need to be provided. Therefore, on the question of whether it is money or whether staff are employed and allocated to groups, there are various ways in which to achieve the same purpose. But the purpose must be to provide Members of your Lordships’ House with the opportunity of doing their work.
It is sometimes thought that it is purely a matter of policy research and producing amendments for Bills, but it is not. It is necessary for the groups to organise themselves in an orderly and proper fashion and to keep each other advised and informed of what is going on. But there is another purpose that has increasingly become important. At both ends of this building, we have been concerned about our relationship with the wider community, with non-governmental organisations and charitable bodies, with special interest groups and campaigns of various kinds, as well as with individual citizens of our country. One way in which your Lordships’ House has become particularly successful is that these groups have found your Lordships accessible. Very often, they have been brought together with members of different groups in your Lordships’ House by the very researchers paid for by Cranborne money. That has been the case not just with Liberal Democrats but with Cross-Benchers and members of other parties in your Lordships’ House.
As long as we have the adequate resources in all the parties—it is not a question of the Government and the Opposition in this regard—as in Northern Ireland, where money is allocated to parties whether in or out of government, on a per capita basis, that will enable us, as it has in the past, to engage properly with those charities, NGOs, interest groups, professionals and ordinary citizens who want to convey their message to Parliament. One great satisfaction that the community has found with your Lordships’ House in recent years has been with its accessibility and openness on a non-partisan and non-constituency basis to these important issues.
I support what has been said in the appeal to my noble friend the Leader of the House, that he gives consideration to this question. Of course, it is especially sensitive at a time of economic difficulty, when we are asking for cutbacks in all sorts of circumstances—that is absolutely the case. But at least at this time we might consider what kind of mechanism and formula might be possible so that at a time when it was more affordable we would be in a position to provide for your Lordships’ House the kind of resources necessary not only for our internal functioning and operation but for our relationship with the rest of the community.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I ask for clarity in this resolution. Will the Leader of the House confirm that this resolution applies for the duration of this coalition Government? Now that there is the arrangement with the fixed-term Parliament, would he not consider it necessary to have a sunset clause for the termination of the arrangement?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, especially to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. I am certainly one who would never want to cut across what she says. I am glad that what she said was said with her customary elegance and force. There was also an element of logic behind it. I shall try to deal with all the points that the noble Baroness raised—no mean feat.
I do not share the view of one of my predecessors, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that it was an act of great generosity. I have always taken the view that parties that are in opposition or on the Cross Benches should receive support from the taxpayer so as to fulfil their functions. The noble Baroness said that it was a disproportionate way in which to do things. Her main point, I think, was that there was an unfairness between how the main party in opposition and the Cross Benches were dealt with.
This lies at the heart of how I think the House views the different roles of the Opposition and the Cross Benches. I was in opposition for a long time, so I know perhaps more than anyone else that the Opposition have a difficult task to do. In an unpaid, part-time House, they need to provide a substantial number of Peers to act as shadow Ministers and they do not have the benefit of the Civil Service to provide them with the papers and amendments that are required for the Opposition to function. As I have said many times, it is important that there should be a strong Opposition. That is why a substantial amount of support is provided to the party of opposition in this House, which is now the Labour Party. I do not think that anyone would believe that the nearly £500,000 given by the taxpayer to the Labour Party is overgenerous. It is probably about right and it allows the Opposition to do the work that they are asked to do.
Those conditions do not apply to the Cross Benches. The Cross-Benchers—I say this with the greatest respect—do not have a Front Bench or a central office. They are not involved in the formulation of policy. They do not need to negotiate with their colleagues in another place, because they do not have any colleagues in another place. As the noble Baroness pointed out—and I cannot disagree—the Cross-Benchers come together as a loose alliance for administrative purposes, but they are all individuals, with individual views of how things should be done. It may be that there is not quite enough money to help the Convenor to do her job. I do not wish to be in the least bit flippant about this and I pay the greatest tribute to the work that the Convenor of the Cross Benches does on behalf of her whole flock—indeed, I pay tribute to her predecessors, too. It is faintly shocking that, 10 years ago, the Cross Benches received nothing at all. The amount was reviewed only two years ago and was increased by 48 per cent—a substantial increase—to £61,000. The current amount is, I think, £63,000. I know that that was from a relatively low base, but I am always happy to receive representations from the Cross Benches and from the Convenor about whether that figure should be increased.
My noble friend Lord Alderdice raised an entirely different question, which was about the funding of political parties when they are in government. I am not enormously attracted to that idea. The purpose of Cranborne money, which is the subject of the Motion, was to support the parties of opposition. There is now only one party of opposition. Naturally, consideration was given as to whether the one party of opposition should receive all the Cranborne money, but wise counsel prevailed on both sides of the House. We took the view that, as the Liberal Democrats had joined us in coalition government, both we and they should give up that money. There is a good reason for that. We now have the resources of the Civil Service at our disposal to create policy and to do all the administrative work. We recognise that the civil servants do an excellent job.
Other Parliaments and Assemblies have created different traditions, particularly those that have almost inbuilt coalitions. I have no idea how long this coalition will last, although I hope that it will last for a long time. That leads me to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Dholakia. He rightly said that, if a second party of opposition should re-emerge, the whole situation should be reconsidered and the position reviewed. I cannot conceive of circumstances in which such a review would not be done in a most positive light, with Cranborne money reapplying to a second party of opposition.
Although the Motion on the Order Paper is slightly opaque, I think that it has now been clearly explained, not least by the noble Baroness, and I hope that we can now agree it.
Afghanistan
Lord Dholakia Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, a key plank of the role of British forces is to help and encourage the Afghan national security forces themselves to become better able to provide the security that is required. There are currently around 120,000 Afghan national army personnel and 105,000 Afghan national police personnel. It was agreed at the London conference a few months ago to set targets for the ANSF growth by the end of 2011 of 171,000 for the ANA and 134,000 for the ANP. That means that there is a huge role not just for British forces but for our NATO allies and partners in helping, training and encouraging Afghan national security forces to take more of the burden. It is our wish that, as they do so, we will be able to withdraw.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I welcome this Statement from the Prime Minister repeated in this House. The Prime Minister is right when he talks of the need to accelerate the process which will lead to the eventual withdrawal of Britain’s 10,000 deployment. Can the noble Lord indicate whether there is a timescale for the withdrawal? That would put an urgency on the Karzai Government to reach some sort of decisions on the basis of which they can take fuller control rather than depending on British soldiers to maintain the situation in Afghanistan. Is there any further information about the recent revelation of the news about the ISI in Pakistan collaborating with the Taliban in Afghanistan on the basis of which the insurgency seems to be gathering quite a lot of pace?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dholakia asked about timetables for withdrawals. The view that I have always held on these matters, which is shared by the Government, is that rather than giving artificial dates we should do what we can when we can. No British soldier wishes to stay one moment longer than needed and required in Afghanistan. The steps that we are taking and continue to take are those designed to ensure that that withdrawal can take place. We hope, as the current mission unfolds over the next two or three years, that a substantial change will take place.
I cannot comment on the question raised by my noble friend about the ISI collaboration in Pakistan, but if I have any further information I shall certainly let him know.