Queen’s Speech Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Leader of the House
Thursday 10th May 2012

(12 years ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde Portrait Lord Strathclyde
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, my Lords. However, I think that my explanation of a consensus was misunderstood. Any student of this subject, as I have been over the past 15 years, will know that there is no consensus in the House of Commons without that consensus being made from all three main parties. That was the point. Unless there is a majority in the House of Commons, the Bill will not get passed, and unless it is supported right across the main parties, there will not be that majority in the House of Commons.

Lord Crickhowell Portrait Lord Crickhowell
- Hansard - -

My Lords, unless I misheard him, my noble friend appears to have produced a new definition of consensus: that it is what is agreed by the Front Benches in both Houses.

Lord Strathclyde Portrait Lord Strathclyde
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, my Lords. It would be very nice to have a consensus between the three Front Benches. I think that that is a condition of being able to create a consensus in both Houses of Parliament.

A moment ago, I said something extremely important that the Labour Party and the House need fully to understand. Consensus in Parliament will be impossible without the support of the Labour Party. The Government’s latest brave and sensible proposal is built on the White Paper by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the White Paper by Mr Jack Straw when he was Lord Chancellor and the consensus created by my noble friend Lord Wakeham when he chaired the royal commission 10 or 11 years ago. If this Bill founders now, having had all this work done on it, then I am utterly convinced that it will be entirely due to Labour’s conniving and collective spinelessness. The spines are already quivering.