| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Crusoe Microchip
The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:
- To what extent their information technology procurement strategies are taking account of the recent release of the Crusoe microchip.[HL717]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We are aware of the Crusoe microchip, and we are monitoring how it fares in the market place.
10 Downing Street: Staff Costs
Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 13 December 1999 (WA 6), what is the cost of the Prime Minister's official staff; what was the figure at 1 April 1997; and how these costs in each case divide between public funds, party funds and the Prime Minister's private funds.[HL529]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The total cost to date for staff at 10 Downing Street is £3.9 million. This compares to £3.4 million for the year 1996-97. These costs are met from public funds. The Government are not accountable for the costs of any staff working in No. 10 who are paid for by the Labour Party or from the personal funds of the Prime Minister or his wife. I am sorry for not writing to the noble Earl, as promised, on this issue.
Parliament: Eligibility for Membership
Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Jay of Paddington on 12 January (WA122), whether they will give an assurance that there will be no discriminatory bar to service in either House of Parliament, including an age bar.[HL637]
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): There are existing rules which limit eligibility for both Houses of Parliament, including the requirement to have attained the age of 21. The Government have no present plans to change that rule.
House of Lords Appointment Commission
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the House of Lords Appointments Commission will be statutory, as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords.[HL771]
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The Government have consistently made clear that the Appointments Commission for the transitional House will be non-statutory. The recommendation of the Royal Commission for a rather different Appointments Commission with significantly more powers in relation to political members of the second Chamber makes no difference to our assessment of the situation in the context of the transitional House. The Government will make clear their views on the proposals of the Royal Commission in due course.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish asked the Leader of the House:
- What role she envisages for the House of Lords in decisions on the establishment of the House of Lords Appointments Commission and the conduct of its duties.[HL772]
Baroness Jay of Paddington: None. The functions which the Appointments Commission will be taking over from the Prime Minister are functions in which the House of Lords has no locus.
House of Lords: Membership Arrangements
Lord Dean of Harptree asked the Leader of the House:
- Why no statement was made to the House of Lords about future arrangements for determining members of the House before the Cabinet Office issued Press Release CAB 18/00; and when she intends to make a statement on the Government's plans for an Appointments Commission.[HL799]
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The Government's plans for future arrangements in determining members of the House of Lords were set out fully in the White Paper Modernising Parliament Reforming the House of Lords (Cm 4183) which was published on 20 January 1999. They were also set out in detail, and extensively discussed, during the debates in the last Session on the House of Lords Act 1999. CAB 18/00 merely announced a stage in a process which had been set out fully on many occasions.
House of Lords Appointments Commission
Lord Dean of Harptree asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether members of the House of Lords will be eligible to be the Chairman or members of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.[HL801]
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes.
Lord Dean of Harptree asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the Chairman and members of the House of Lords Appointments Commission will be paid; and if so, how much.[HL802]
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The Chairman will receive an honorarium of £5,000 a year and the members £3,000 a year.
House of Lords Reform
The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the statement by the Leader of the House that "detailed provisions may be reached in conjunction with other political parties and procedures for achieving the next stage of change" (H.L. Deb., 24 January, col. 1318), what mechanisms they intend to put in place to implement this form of consultation about Stage Two of House of Lords reform with other political parties.[HL806]
Baroness Jay of Paddington: We shall need to look at the most suitable mechanisms in the light of the overall responses to the Royal Commission's report. The House will of course have an opportunity to debate it.
The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the statement by the Leader of the House that "detailed provisions may be reached in conjunction with other political parties and procedures for achieving the next stage of change" (H.L. Deb., 24 January, col. 1318), whether the term "other political parties" is intended to include the Cross-Bench Lords in the House of Lords.[HL807]
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes.
The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether, in relation to House of Lords reform, the statement by the Leader of the House of Lords that "the Joint Committee would be established in order to consider the parliamentary aspects of any reform" (H.L. Deb., 24 January, cols. 1318-1322) is consistent with the commitment in the Labour Party's general election manifesto that "A committee of both Houses of Parliament will be appointed to undertake a wide-ranging review of possible further change and then bring forward proposals for reform".[HL809]
Baroness Jay of Paddington: We made clear in our White Paper Modernising Parliament Reforming the House of Lords (Cm. 4183) that the Royal Commission built on the proposal in the Manifesto. Both were aimed at ensuring that there was a wide-ranging debate before any proposals for further reform were formulated.
The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the replies by the Leader of the House on 24 January (H.L. Debs. 1318-1322), whether the Labour Party's general election manifesto has now
- been superseded by the White Paper on House of Lords Reform.[HL808]
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The White Paper Modernising Parliament Reforming the House of Lords (Cm. 4183) built on the Labour Party's Manifesto. It made clear that the reasons for the decision to appoint a Royal Commission were twofold. First, it would allow an open and transparent deliberative process involving full and wide debate of all the issues. Second, it could begin work immediately, without having to wait for the completion of the first stage of reform. In those circumstances, the precise role of the proposed Joint Committee has also been refined.
House of Lords Appointments: Scrutiny
Lord Mancroft asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the House of Lords Appointments Commission will have powers to vet the suitability of appointments made by the Prime Minister to the House of Lords.[HL796]
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The Government made clear in their White Paper Modernising Parliament Reforming the House of Lords (Cm. 4183) that the Appointments Commission would take over the present function of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in vetting the suitability of all recommendations for peerages.
Lord Mancroft asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the House of Lords Appointments Commission will have any responsibilities with regard to political appointments to the House.[HL798]
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The Government made clear in their White Paper Modernising Parliament Reforming the House of Lords (Cm 4183) that the Appointments Commission would take over the present function of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in vetting the suitability of all recommendations for peerages.
House of Lords Appointments: Number
Lord Mancroft asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the House of Lords Appointments Commission will decide the overall number of Cross-Bench Peers in the House of Lords.[HL797]
Baroness Jay of Paddington: No. We set out in our White Paper Modernising Parliament Reforming the House of Lords (Cm 4183) that the Prime Minister would continue to be responsible for deciding how many nominations to invite from the Appointments Commission. We also made it clear that we would maintain a significant independent Cross-Bench element in the transitional House.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |