House of Lords: New Peers

Lord Sewel Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask the Chairman of Committees what logistic and financial adjustments are proposed to take account of the recent list of new Peers.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)]

None at this stage.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

Needless to say, that is a disappointing answer. I want to make it clear that I do not associate the Chairman of Committees in any way with the Government’s cynicism in failing to abolish this House and now packing it with placemen and women. However, he is in the forefront of facing the consequences. Will he confirm that we are now reaching a new peak in membership and that new working Peers are—quite rightly—attending more frequently than those who have left or have died off?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I mean, more than they used to attend. This is resulting in higher expenditure on allowances and greater demand on all our resources and facilities. Quite frankly, this cannot be achieved on a fixed budget.

[The Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, it is not part of my job to defend or attack government policy. I just try to keep the show on the road, with the helpful advice and support of the noble Lord in particular. To give a few facts, after the general election in 2010 there were, I think, 117 new creations. Since then, the net increase in the size of your Lordships’ House has been seven. It is difficult to put this: it is likely that the new creations are more active than those who are no longer with us. It is virtually impossible to find a nice set of words to convey those facts.

However, it is worth pointing out that in December the House Committee will consider whether to make any additional provision for any net increases in the membership of the House and in attendances, when it considers the forecast outturn for the current financial year and the budget for the next year.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, does the Chairman of Committees agree that it is crucial that we give our new colleagues the sort of warm welcome we all enjoyed when we came to this House? However, it is equally important that the Government recognise the problems that exist. Would it not therefore be an absolutely admirable gesture if they were to support the Bill to be introduced in another place on Friday 18 October by Mr Dan Byles, which incorporates the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, got through this House last year?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, we are again venturing into policy areas and, as Members of your Lordships’ House know, I have no views on such policy issues. If I did, I certainly would not express them.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I would be grateful if the Chairman of Committees could ask the Leader of the House if the rumours circulating at the highest level about another list are true. Will he also convey to the Leader that there would be great anger and dismay in this House, and in the country as a whole, if those rumours were proved to be true?

[The Chairman of Committees]

I do not think that I have any need to ask the Leader of the House that question as I am sure that he heard it directly from the Leader of the Opposition.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, the Chairman of Committees has been here a long time. Will he acknowledge that normally when a list is prepared during the course of a Parliament, as opposed to lists that come after a general election, there is careful attention to the effect of the list on the party balance within the House, particularly between the Government and the Opposition? Will he confirm that this time around, the net effect of the new list is a very, very substantial—I repeat, very, very substantial—increase in the Government’s political majority within this House? As far as I can discover, for that to be engineered half way through a Parliament is entirely without precedent. Will he comment?

[The Chairman of Committees]

I am being tempted again to comment on policy issues and I am reluctant to do so. Of course, the actual size and composition of the list is a matter for the public record and people can see the party composition of the present list.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Chairman of Committees confirm that savings through the freeze on staff salaries that has gone on for several years, savings on the freeze on existing Members’ expenses, high catering prices, cuts in House of Lords publications and other savings that are being made are being used to fund the new membership coming into the House?

[The Chairman of Committees]

Not really. Two things have to be borne in mind; namely, the budget and what has been referred to as the savings target. In December 2010, the House adopted the policy that:

“We will aim not to increase our resource costs, in real terms”—

compared with 2010-11—

“throughout the period of the plan”,

which is to 2015,

“despite the increased size of the House”.

That decision was made in December 2010. In July this year, that policy was quite significantly modified to read:

“To make best use of … financial resources we will … Adhere to the savings target of not increasing the resource budget in real terms (compared with 2010/11)—

and here is the new bit—

“subject to the need to maintain the ability of the House and its Members to carry out their parliamentary functions in changing circumstances, including increased attendance”.

That is a clear commitment to ensure that in future when budgets are being constructed overriding concern is given to the maintenance of the House’s functions and the activities of Members.