House of Lords Appointments Commission

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Dholakia

Thursday 21st April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

And the number of Cross Benchers as a proportion of this House has been pretty stable for about three decades now. There is not actually a specific formula for the number of Cross Benchers, but the noble and learned Lord makes an important point about the importance of the Cross Benches to our work. That is why, alongside other appointments that the Prime Minister has made in recent times, he has made important appointments to the Cross Benches of noble Lords who are making an active contribution to our work, and that is something I know he will continue to do.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, it is right that we should congratulate the Appointments Commission on its work. This House now has the distinction of being represented by more different communities, more women, more people with disabilities, et cetera, than ever before. For this, we should thank the Appointments Commission. But we now face a ridiculous situation: the legal requirement placed on my own party in relation to the hereditary election. We had the distinction of being asked to appoint a person in place of Lord Avebury, who recently died. We had three hereditary Peers and seven candidates, and they appointed somebody who had already been in the House. My Chief Whip assures me that this will go down in the Guinness book of records as the shortest time taken to count the votes. Is it not time to look at the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, in his original Bill and move towards the second stage of reform of the House of Lords?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The hereditary Peers who are Members of this House make an important contribution to our work. Any change relating to their arrival in this House would be part of a much wider package of reform, and that is not something that is currently being explored.

House of Lords: Strathclyde Review

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Dholakia

Thursday 17th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the Leader of the House for making the Statement and giving us advance sight of the report from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I also add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and his team. The noble Lord promised the report before Christmas and he has delivered.

My party believes that both Houses should be examining better ways to work together to achieve more comprehensive, more informed and more effective scrutiny of government legislation and the actions of the Executive. We continue to reject the notion that any Government achieving a majority in the Commons should have the absolute power to prosecute their business without the burden of proper checks and balances, particularly as voter turnout declines and Governments are elected by a smaller and smaller share of the vote. We believe that a second Chamber, however it is constituted, should not be a mere echo of the House of Commons. We are interested in ways to strengthen the role of Parliament as a whole, not to convert the House of Lords from a revising Chamber to an impotent debating society.

We firmly believe that there is a strong case for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation. This is particularly important when the primary legislation introduced by the Government is a skeleton Bill, with the statutory instruments flowing from it containing provisions which are more suitable for primary legislation. Already in this Parliament, the Government have introduced two such bills: the Childcare Bill and the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill. If Governments make increasing use of skeleton Bills, it stands to reason that the SIs stemming from them should be afforded much closer scrutiny.

To that end, my party submitted formal evidence to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, suggesting two different mechanisms by which this House could propose amendments to statutory instruments. We firmly believe that such a mechanism would allow the House of Commons to think again and would, in fact, reduce the incidence of this House withholding its approval of a statutory instrument—which, incidentally, has occurred only six times in the last 50 years. We do not believe that this House should be required to give up its power of veto, when this is such a rare occurrence. To do so would change the arrangements agreed by both Houses following the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions in 2006.

Does the Leader of the House agree that this is not simply a matter for the Prime Minister and the Government, but for Parliament? As there are wider implications, not least for the Parliament Acts, does she recognise that a simple amendment to the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 is clearly not sufficient to deal with this important issue? Does she agree that the proper way to proceed would be to reconstitute a Joint Committee of both Houses to ensure that the matter is fully debated?

We will have a further opportunity to discuss this issue and we will certainly have more to say at that time.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for not rushing to their own conclusions on the report of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, which was published today. I was encouraged by what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said about how she and the Opposition are very much interested in change that helps this House fulfil its purpose, because that is what I am interested in, too. This House has a very important role in the legislative process and in Parliament. We are here to scrutinise, challenge and hold the Government to account, and I say that as a member of the Government. I know that that is what this House is here to do, and I want it to be very effective at doing all those things. I want its purpose to be fulfilled properly.

Where I differ from the noble Baroness is about what happened in October. That is the problem. We are now confused as a House. We do not quite know how to deal with secondary legislation because the procedures that we have before us have become confusing. We have this massive power of veto and we have a convention which says that we should not use that veto except in exceptional circumstances.

House of Lords: Government Review

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Dholakia

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I would much rather that my noble friend concentrated on the very serious issue arising from the unprecedented step taken on Monday by your Lordships’ House. It is a significant issue and we need to look at it and concentrate on it. We must do so swiftly and get ourselves back on to an even keel.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this Question. It is regrettable that, despite all the public pronouncements about this particular review, no statement has been issued to your Lordships’ House. Indeed, it is discourteous to Members here. Will the Leader agree that an excellent review of the convention was published by the Joint Committee in October 2006? The review took in to account the Salisbury/Addison convention, secondary legislation and financial privilege. Does the Lord Privy Seal disagree with any of its conclusions, and what are we likely to learn from the new review that we do not already know?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Lord is right to point to the Joint Committee’s review that took place in 2006. The reason we need the review I have outlined today is that one of the conventions that that Joint Committee discussed and highlighted as important to the effective role of Parliament has now been put in doubt by the actions of this House on Monday. On Monday, this House withheld its approval from a financial measure. That is what happened. The measure had been approved and voted on three times by the other place. That has never happened before.

Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Dholakia

Thursday 9th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, I have given the noble Baroness the Leader of the House notice of this intervention, which arises because I understand that this Motion, if we pass it, will give taxpayers’ money—Cranborne money, I think it is called—to the Liberal Democrats to help them to run their affairs in your Lordships’ House and perhaps elsewhere. If so, I suggest that your Lordships do not pass it until we have agreed an appropriate award of finance for my party, the UK Independence Party.

I ask this against the background of the admittedly unwise policy of the previous coalition Government, which I understand was inspired by the Liberal Democrats and to which I gather they still adhere. That committed the Prime Minister to recommend new Peers to Her Majesty in proportion to the votes cast in the previous general election. That policy would have given the Liberal Democrats some 43 Peers in your Lordships’ House, from their 8% share of the votes cast in May. In fact, they enjoy 102 Peers. Should this situation not be set against UKIP’s present three Peers, from our 13% share of that vote? Under the previous Liberal Democrat policy, we should have 69—so they have 59 more Peers than they should, whereas we have 66 fewer. I trust your Lordships will agree that we should have at least some Cranborne money to help us with our work here.

Noble Lords may be aware that I am in correspondence with the Prime Minister to adjust the present injustice by recommending a number of UKIP Peers to Her Majesty. I trust that we can revisit this matter, if and when that happens. I am not entirely confident that we will get a decent number of Peers, but surely masters cannot go on being so unfair to Molesworth for ever—or can they?

While I am at it, since 185 Peers joined us in the last Parliament, with none for UKIP, and we are already somewhat cramped for space, would not one sensible solution be for, say, 30 Liberal Democrat Peers to stand down? That would free up a share of Cranborne money for UKIP and give us all rather more space. Would not that kill two birds with one stone? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, if I may, I will respond very briefly. I do not think that the matter relates to how many Liberal Democrats are here. The fact remains that there are almost 102 Liberal Democrats, which has been recognised by the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal in the resolution that she has put before us. The intention is that we would perform as the second largest opposition party in this Chamber and, accordingly, we welcome the contribution being given to us as part of the Cranborne money.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for giving me notice of his intention to contribute on this Motion. He makes his presence felt in your Lordships’ House, and he and his UKIP colleagues are an important part of the membership of this House. However, as I think he will know, the Cranborne money is provided for opposition parties in this House on a formula that is very different from the way in which Short money is provided in the House of Commons. It is very much based on the size of the opposition parties in this House and not reflective in any way of popular vote share or seats in another place. He may wish that matters were different in this House when it comes to numbers—I recognise that his view is widely shared; I made that point when responding to questions last week—but we have to deal with the situation that we find ourselves in. Following the appropriate discussions in the usual channels, this Motion returns the level of funding for the second-largest opposition party in this House to what it was, in proportionate terms, before 2010.

I am not going to comment on the noble Lord’s wish that there be more UKIP Members in this House. The Cranborne money is provided for the opposition parties to operate a Front Bench. I am not sure that the noble Lord, as effective as he is, is in a position to provide the range of posts that might lead UKIP to become a significant strength in terms of a shadow Front Bench in this House, but I am grateful to him for all that he does, even though his numbers are limited at this time.