By Tony Grew - 26th May 2011
The leader of the House of Lords has said "there is no doubt" that a House of Lords reformed under the government's plans will cost more money than it does at present.
Lord Strathclyde answered a question in the upper House yesterday on whether ministers have taken into consideration issues such as "members' effectiveness and provision of facilities in increasing the size of the House to over 800".
In a series of exchanges with peers, the Lords leader repeatedly insisted that reform and facilities for peers are mutually exclusive issues.
Lord Lea of Crondall complained that since the election there has been an increase in "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".
Lord Strathclyde replied: "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 will 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 Cormack argued 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 said: "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."
Earl Ferrers said the government are "perfectly mad to increase the size of the House to 800".
The leader of the Lords reminded him that as a hereditary peer, he was a member of the House "when it had a membership of well over 1,000".
He told peers they will have "an action-packed two-day debate on the future of your Lordships' House in a few weeks' time".
The deputy prime minister has proposed a slimmed down 300 member upper House elected by proportional representation for terms of 15 years.
A draft Bill provides for 240 elected and 60 appointed members, as well as 12 Church of England bishops sitting as ex-officio members.
Article Comments
If cost is what bothers Lord Strathclyde then we could just abolish the Lords altogether. That'd be even cheaper! Or maybe we could abolish all their allowances or their staff. Or maybe there are some things that are just more important than just trimming costs, things like democracy.
Who is Lord Strathclyde anyway? No electorate put him where he is and no electorate can remove him.
Stuart
26th May 2011 at 11:00 pm
No need for bishops or any faith representation.
Have to find a system that ensures it does not finish up as it at the moment as jobs for the boys (and girls).
Strengthening the independence of select commitees would go a long way to ensure proper scrutiny thus making the second chamber a final safeguard.
Bill Michie
26th May 2011 at 9:12 pm
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.