Asked by: Lord Grocott (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen on 9 November (HL2723), where children born abroad to British citizens without a property in the UK would be registered to vote.
Answered by Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
As set out in the policy statement published on 7 October 2016, overseas voting rights will be extended to any British citizen who has been previously resident or registered to vote in the UK. As such, under the Government’s proposals any British citizen who has not been previously resident or registered to vote in the UK will not be able to register as an overseas elector.
Asked by: Lord Grocott (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen on 20 October (HL Deb, cols 2439–40), on which parliamentary constituency's electoral roll those new electors who were not previously registered to vote will be registered.
Answered by Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
The Government estimates that a further 3 million British citizens resident overseas will be enfranchised under the ‘votes for life’ proposals as set out in the policy statement published on 7 October.
The Government estimates one-off implementation costs (to the online register to vote service and local authority IT systems, for example) to be £0.9 million. The total additional costs of registering newly enfranchised overseas electors will ultimately depend on the numbers who apply.
Under the proposals, British citizens overseas who were not previously registered to vote when resident in the UK will be eligible to register in respect of the UK address at which they were last resident.
Asked by: Lord Grocott (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen on 20 October (HL Deb, cols 2439–40), what estimate they have made of the total cost of processing the consequential application and declaration requirements for people living overseas for 15 years or more.
Answered by Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
The Government estimates that a further 3 million British citizens resident overseas will be enfranchised under the ‘votes for life’ proposals as set out in the policy statement published on 7 October.
The Government estimates one-off implementation costs (to the online register to vote service and local authority IT systems, for example) to be £0.9 million. The total additional costs of registering newly enfranchised overseas electors will ultimately depend on the numbers who apply.
Under the proposals, British citizens overseas who were not previously registered to vote when resident in the UK will be eligible to register in respect of the UK address at which they were last resident.
Asked by: Lord Grocott (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen on 20 October (HL Deb, cols 2439–40), what estimate they have made of the total number of people who will be enfranchised by this proposal.
Answered by Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
The Government estimates that a further 3 million British citizens resident overseas will be enfranchised under the ‘votes for life’ proposals as set out in the policy statement published on 7 October.
The Government estimates one-off implementation costs (to the online register to vote service and local authority IT systems, for example) to be £0.9 million. The total additional costs of registering newly enfranchised overseas electors will ultimately depend on the numbers who apply.
Under the proposals, British citizens overseas who were not previously registered to vote when resident in the UK will be eligible to register in respect of the UK address at which they were last resident.
Asked by: Lord Grocott (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Her Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by the Leader of the House on 17 December that the convention on statutory instruments "has now broken" (HL Deb, col 2197), on how many occasions since the second World War such a breakage has occurred.
Answered by Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Prior to October 2015, the House of Lords had rejected statutory instruments on four occasions since World War II. None of those occasions concerned a statutory instrument implementing a budget measure intended to deliver £4.4bn of savings that had already been approved by the House of Commons - thereby overruling the elected House on a matter of public spending - nor is it precedented for the House of Lords to decline to consider a statutory instrument until the Government has made specific changes to the policy underpinning it. The House's decision to withhold agreement to the Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 therefore broke new ground, and may be regarded as a breach of the convention underpinning the House's powers in regard to secondary legislation as well as the longer-standing convention regarding the financial primacy of the House of Commons.
Asked by: Lord Grocott (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many life peerages have been created since the 2010 election, and how many of those were (1) Conservative, (2) Liberal Democrat, (3) Labour, and (4) Crossbench, peerages.
Answered by Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Peerages created since the 2010 election are listed below:
Conservative: 109
Labour: 55
Liberal Democrat: 51
Crossbench/Independent/other: 30
Of the peers appointed since the 2010 election 22.4 per cent have taken the whip of her majesty’s official opposition. This compares to 15.7 per cent of those created between the 1997 and 2010 general elections.
Asked by: Lord Grocott (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 12 November (HL3121), how many members there were in the House of Lords of (1) the government party, or parties, and (2) the official opposition party, in each year since 1997.
Answered by Baroness Stowell of Beeston
For each of the sessions requested, I have set out below the number of those peers eligible to take part in the work of the House of Lords sitting on the Government benches and those of the benches of HM Official Opposition.
Year | Governing Party/Parties | HM Official Opposition |
97-98 | Lab: 176 | Con: 478 |
98-99 | Lab: 193 | Con: 484 |
99-00 | Lab: 201 | Con: 232 |
00-01 | Lab: 195 | Con: 225 |
01-02 | Lab: 190 | Con: 217 |
02-03 | Lab: 185 | Con: 210 |
03-04 | Lab: 201 | Con: 202 |
04-05 | Lab: 199 | Con: 205 |
05-06 | Lab: 212 | Con: 208 |
06-07 | Lab: 217 | Con: 202 |
07-08 | Lab: 214 | Con: 199 |
08-09 | Lab: 212 | Con: 189 |
09-10 | Lab: 211 | Con: 185 |
10-12 | Con: 214 Lib Dem: 90 | Lab: 235 |
12-13 | Con: 212 Lib Dem: 89 | Lab: 222 |
13-14 | Con: 220 Lib Dem: 99 | Lab: 218 |
14-15 | Con: 226 Lib Dem: 103 | Lab: 216 |
15-16 (as at 21/12/15) | Con: 251 | Lab: 213 |
Asked by: Lord Grocott (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 3 December (HL3732), when were the three occasions on which the House withheld its agreement to an affirmative instrument between World War II and 2010, and which instrument was not agreed to on each occasion.
Answered by Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The three occasions on which the House withheld its agreement to an affirmative instrument prior to 2010 were on 18 June 1968; 22 February 2000; and 28 March 2007. The instruments not agreed to were the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1968; the Greater London Authority (Election Expenses) Order 2000; and the Gambling (Geographical Distribution of Casino Premises Licences) Order 2007, respectively.
Asked by: Lord Grocott (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Stowell of Beeston on 12 November (HL3120), on which occasions since 2010 the House has withheld its agreement to an affirmative instrument.
Answered by Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The House of Lords has withheld its agreement to an affirmative instrument on two occasions since 2010: on 3 December 2012 (Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2012) and on 26 October 2015 (Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) Regulations 2015).
Prior to 2010, the House had withheld its agreement to an affirmative instrument on three occasions since World War II.
Asked by: Lord Grocott (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they define (1) a fatal, and (2) a non-fatal, motion, or amendment to a motion, relating to a statutory instrument.
Answered by Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The Companion to the Standing Orders distinguishes between amendments to approval motions whose effect is to withhold the agreement of the House to an affirmative instrument, and amendments or motions that do not prevent approval of the instrument (Companion to the Standing Orders, Para. 10.14). The terms “fatal” and “non-fatal” do not appear.
The amendments in the name of Baroness Meacher and Baroness Hollis of Heigham passed by the House on 26 October withheld the House’s agreement to the Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) Regulations 2015.