Parliament Act 1911: Centenary

Debate between Viscount Tenby and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am sorry to have disappointed my noble friend with my Answer. I fear that I am going to disappoint him again, although I must say that I admire his perseverance after 100 years since the last Liberal Prime Minister passed the Parliament Act 1911. I think he is optimistic to suggest that the Chamber will be constituted on a different basis by August next year, or that any of us will be here to mark that occasion on 18 August. I can tell him, however, that the Deputy Prime Minister intends to publish a draft Bill early next year that makes provision for a wholly or mainly elected Chamber with elections on a system of proportional representation.

[Viscount Tenby]

Does the Leader of the House agree that a proper and speedy way of marking this celebration might be to give a fair wind to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, on the reform of the House? In this matter I declare an historical interest.

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, certainly does have an historical interest, and I admire his perseverance and that of my noble friend Lord Steel, who had yet another Second Reading on his Bill on Friday. I am not one of those who regard the passage of the 1911 Act as one that the House of Lords should celebrate. I think it was a disaster for the House of Lords. We took on the House of Commons at the wrong time, we overstepped the mark, and if it should be commemorated, it should be commemorated by an act of mourning.

House of Lords: Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties

Debate between Viscount Tenby and Lord Strathclyde

Thursday 24th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Viscount Tenby]

My Lords, the remark of the much lamented late Lord Williams of Mostyn has twice been referred to today. For the record, he made that remark in response to a rather carping comment from me; I was speaking for the Convenor on that day. It was ironic, and there was a twinkle in his eye when he said it.