House of Lords: Facilities

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have taken into consideration issues such as members’ effectiveness and provision of facilities in increasing the size of the House to over 800.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

The Government consider a range of issues before making appointments to the House of Lords.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

I thank the noble Lord for that extremely helpful reply but, at a time of financial stringency, will the Government take responsibility for the escalation since the election of both the direct costs of Members and the costs of buildings, desks, telecoms, the Library, catering facilities and committee-servicing support staff, albeit that there are no more seats in the Chamber and no more speaking time in the Chamber? Secondly, we hear the Machiavellian argument that, whereas a constantly rising trend to 800 Members and above is unsustainable—that is correct—that is thereby one of the reasons for abolishing this House as we know it and replacing it with a second-class Commons. Is this not a crisis of the coalition’s own deliberate making and a tactic worthy of any self-respecting Bolshevik?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that is a first for me. I do not know whether the noble Lord was rehearsing his speech for what will no doubt be an action-packed two-day debate on the future of your Lordships’ House in a few weeks’ time, but I do not recognise any of his characterisations. It is true that the House is bigger than it has been for some years. What is more significant is that the daily attendance has risen—though it is still below our full strength, at about 450 per day—and that has put some pressure on our facilities. However, various committees of the House look into this. The House should of course be comfortable and be able to provide for the needs of noble Lords, but these issues are simply not related to future reform.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, will my noble friend—or should I say “comrade”?—give us an assurance that, whatever is decided about the future of this House, office space will be a very low priority in any further constitutional discussion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am a great fan of the coalition and if “comrade” it must be, then “comrade” it is. I agree with my noble friend. This is not about office space; it is about democracy and authority, as the House knows well. I also recognise that there are many disagreements about this view.

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree]

My Lords, is it not the case that any current list of sitting Peers in this House—with pictures, large and small—depicts a much greater number than ever attend? Would it not be possible, bearing in mind how this inflates the look of the numbers of this place, to ask people who have not been here for years whether they wish to continue on the list of working Peers?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there will be an opportunity for noble Lords to retire permanently from the House, but I disagree with one aspect of what my noble friend said. There should always be room to speak for Peers who may not come very often but who, when they come, are worth listening to, which is not always the case with some noble Lords who speak very regularly.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the recommendations of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and his group will clearly have real implications for the effectiveness and efficacy of this House. Will the noble Lord tell us when he expects the recommendations to be implemented—not just debated, but implemented?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, we will have a debate very soon. When we have organised a date we shall let the House know. It is of course entirely up to the House and its committees to make recommendations on implementation, but I am hopeful that some recommendations can be put into effect very speedily.

[Earl Ferrers]

My Lords, would my noble friend the Leader of the House agree with me that the Government are perfectly mad to increase the size of the House to 800?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, my noble friend was a Member of the House when it had a membership of well over 1,000.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend has yet had time to read the report from the House of Commons constitutional committee, which said that, despite the wonderful plans for 2015 and 2025, the Government should get on with improving the functioning of this House now. Would not the easiest way of doing that be to take over my Private Member’s Bill, which had such a warm welcome at Second Reading and is already under way? It is a free gift that is being offered.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, my noble friend’s offer is kind and generous, but he will know that at the last election no political party supported his Bill—no party had it in its manifesto—whereas there is a consensus to have an elected House in 2015.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, in the fraternal spirit of the earlier questions, would my noble friend agree that a permanent second Chamber composed of some 300 elected full-time senators would be far more expensive and far less expert than the House that we have today?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it would be more expensive—there is no doubt about that—but whether it would be more expert is a matter of conjecture and personal opinion.