House of Lords: Governance

Debate between Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My noble friend is absolutely right. To be absolutely clear, some joint services are already operating between this House and the other place. The joint procurement service is the most recent example of this—through that joint procurement service we have already achieved some significant savings and ensured that the service provided remains effective and operates well. However, my noble friend is right: when we look at other possibilities of services being shared, we have to ensure that we do not end up being in any way subordinate to the House of Commons.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on the final point made by my noble friend Lord Hunt on equality in decisions taken about the refurbishment of the Palace of Westminster? Surely we do not want a situation where this House is excluded from the Palace of Westminster for too long.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Baroness is right to remind me that I did not address that important point. We have already agreed that a Joint Committee of both Houses will take decisions relating to the Restoration and Renewal Programme. One House will not take a decision in the absence of the other: it will be a joint decision.

Implications of Devolution for England

Debate between Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for that point because he is quite right. It was very welcome to see just how many Labour leaders of local authorities within England wanted to contribute to this process. We are grateful to them and we hope that the Labour leadership will take its lead from them.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Leader of the House accept that for many of us there is a difference between the current Government’s decentralisation programme, where Labour leaders of local authorities are working with the Government of the day, and genuine devolution? I nail my personal colours to the mast of regional devolution in England. I do not believe that the people of the north-west of England, where I live—I accept that I do not represent them—should have their health policies determined by the predominance not only of the Westminster Parliament but of London and the south-east. We have different problems; we need devolution. I want to see a proper examination of that before something is cobbled together as a matter of urgency. What has changed for the Conservative Party that it wants instant action now?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

It is open to the noble Baroness to put forward her ideas for matters that should be considered as part of a constitutional convention; that has not been ruled out. However, it is worth reminding your Lordships that regional devolution by way of regional assemblies was tried before and was not successful; it was not welcomed by people in regions. However, we have ensured throughout this Parliament that we have given greater authority and control to all parts of England than had happened before, and we want to see more of that.

Learning Disabilities: Health and Care Services

Debate between Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, sadly, because we were not prepared to give way to each other, the time is up and we must move on.

Local Government Finance Settlement

Debate between Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Thursday 9th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

Will the Minister please give the names of two or three local authorities which in her Government’s view have deliberately overemphasised their deprivation in the past in order to secure help? Did Windsor do that?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am not suggesting that people overemphasise, I am suggesting that the different approaches between this Government and the noble Baroness’s Government led to authorities focusing on where they faced difficulties rather than focusing on how they could benefit from opportunities.

One of the best illustrations of this Government’s approach is the new homes bonus, an incentive that will be worth almost £1 billion next year. This year, Bradford can expect some £2 million in new homes bonus for year 4 of the scheme, Wiltshire some £3 million and Walsall £1.2 million. The Government have listened to local authorities about not topslicing the new homes bonus, which was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I am listening to noble Lords who call for even greater localism and I am interested in what they say but I also hear some contradictions in the various analyses that have been made by noble Lords in the debate today.

One of the other major points raised by noble Lords is that some parts of the country are losing out compared to others. However, the settlement represents a fair deal for every part of the country: north and south, district and county, city and shire. On average, councils will have spending power worth £2,089 per household. The average spending power reduction is just 2.9% in 2014-15. There is protection for more deprived areas of the country, those areas which are most dependent on grant. They continue to receive significantly more government grant. Notwithstanding the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, it is worth making the point that Newcastle, for instance, receives in the region of £900 more per household than authorities such as Windsor and Maidenhead.

We have also recognised—

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Debate between Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Monday 25th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

It is Committee, but the Companion guides us by stating that, during any stages:

“Lengthy or frequent interventions should not be made, even with the consent of the member speaking”.

My noble friend is very tolerant and I know that he will keep responding to interventions. However, the hour is late and there have been several interventions.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, this is Committee. Many of us are deeply distressed about the Bill. To seek to curtail a discussion where clearly the Minister is saying that people will be asked to comply with a norm if they have no good excuse not to, is to my mind—and, I suspect, to the minds of other noble Lords—little different from a target.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Debate between Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

It is a sad fact that people should have to rely on food banks; I absolutely acknowledge that point and do not dispute it at all. The point I am making to the Committee is that Jobcentre Plus staff are now permitted to signpost the fact that they are available, whereas previously they were not permitted to do so. I am not suggesting that the fact that they exist is to be applauded at all, but it would be wrong for Jobcentre Plus staff not to be able to say that they are there to people who might be able to take some advantage of them just because we do not want to make that facility known.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

The Minister is speaking as though the only people using food banks are those who go to the jobcentres. Surely, from my experience and that of other noble Lords, many of the people who are now using food banks are actually in employment. As things like the bedroom tax bite, more people in employment will lose out on what benefits were available to them.

Energy: Tidal Generation

Debate between Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I share my noble friend’s concerns about people subsidising others in the way that he has described. If the Government did nothing on the feed-in tariffs for solar power panels, the equivalent of around £9.50 would be added to the average domestic bill. By introducing the changes that we are proposing, that would be reduced by 2014 to around £2.50 or £3. As to his specific proposal of identifying these costs on bills, I will certainly explore that idea with noble friends at the Ministry.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

There have been complaints from the industries affected by the Government's change of policy on solar power. How can this reassure private investors in tidal and wave power when the Government appear not to listen to the industry, having made commitments?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

This Government are learning from the previous Government’s initiatives by making sure that what we introduce in terms of new subsidies will avoid the need to change the arrangements at a later date and will therefore provide the certainty that the industry looks for.