Part of the debate – in Westminster Hall am 10:05 am ar 23 Chwefror 2005.
Kenneth Clarke
Chair, Tax Law Rewrite Bills (Joint Committee), Chair, Tax Law Rewrite Bills (Joint Committee)
10:05,
23 Chwefror 2005
I share the views of those who have spoken so far with whom I collaborated on the project. I am surprised that we are still debating such a subject in 2005. I was a student of politics when Harold Wilson's Government agreed with Edward Heath, the then Leader of the Opposition, on an approved package of reform of the House of Lords, and I watched with amusement when I saw it destroyed by a strange combination of Michael Foot and Enoch Powell, who did not agree on the ultimate fate of the second Chamber. However, I, like those members of the public who think about such matters, expected that the process would have been resolved, and the anomaly of the present House of Lords dealt with, long before the end of the 20th century.
Given the way in which this Parliament started in 2001, I thought that it would see the whole matter completed. At the time, all three political parties stood on platforms that commended, in slightly daring terms, the election of an upper House and the final reform of the House of Lords. Such reform was particularly urgent because the first stage that was carried through before 2001 had left the House of Lords in, if anything, an even odder position than it was before.
I was one of the few Members of Parliament who voted against the extraordinary arrangement brilliantly negotiated by my noble Friend Lord Cranborne, whereby we still had an hereditary element in the upper House but they were elected hereditaries. As we have seen from various by-elections for that distinguished position, we have created something that is even more Gilbert and Sullivan than the original notion of hereditary membership. It seemed obvious that we were about to go on to the second stage, and it is very much to be held against this Parliament that we have not completed it, given that we are about to have another election.
Mr. Cook was a reforming Leader of the House who gave a strong lead on the matter in line with the policy of the Government of whom he was a member. I agreed to join a Joint Committee of both Houses, which we were satisfied would pave the way for a consensus to emerge on a Government Bill in due course. The whole process was then halted in an extraordinary way by the vote in the House of Commons, which did not distinguish itself and failed to produce a Majority for anything. I must confess to playing a part in that. My right hon. Friend Mr. Hague and I were abroad at the time, in different countries. Had we been here to take part in the Division, the 80 per cent. option would have been lost by a majority of one.
The idea that because of that vote the process should be delayed—or, if we were not careful, suspended—did not cross my mind even then. It has been said that there was no difficulty in proceeding and that, if the momentum of reform had picked up, our House would have reached a conclusion. The problem was, however, that the Prime Minister astonished all his colleagues by revealing hitherto unexpected serious reservations about whether he wanted an elected House. However, I shall not inject a partisan spirit into the debate; the Prime Minister is certainly a parliamentary democrat, and perhaps subconsciously feels that a stronger upper House might be something that he would like to see after his own period of office and holding of Executive powers.
The house of Lords is the upper chamber of the Houses of Parliament. It is filled with Lords (I.E. Lords, Dukes, Baron/esses, Earls, Marquis/esses, Viscounts, Count/esses, etc.) The Lords consider proposals from the EU or from the commons. They can then reject a bill, accept it, or make amendments. If a bill is rejected, the commons can send it back to the lords for re-discussion. The Lords cannot stop a bill for longer than one parliamentary session. If a bill is accepted, it is forwarded to the Queen, who will then sign it and make it law. If a bill is amended, the amended bill is sent back to the House of Commons for discussion.
The Lords are not elected; they are appointed. Lords can take a "whip", that is to say, they can choose a party to represent. Currently, most Peers are Conservative.
The "Leader of the Opposition" is head of "Her Majesty's Official Opposition". This position is taken by the Leader of the party with the 2nd largest number of MPs in the Commons.
The House of Commons is one of the houses of parliament. Here, elected MPs (elected by the "commons", i.e. the people) debate. In modern times, nearly all power resides in this house. In the commons are 650 MPs, as well as a speaker and three deputy speakers.
Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.
The term "majority" is used in two ways in Parliament. Firstly a Government cannot operate effectively unless it can command a majority in the House of Commons - a majority means winning more than 50% of the votes in a division. Should a Government fail to hold the confidence of the House, it has to hold a General Election. Secondly the term can also be used in an election, where it refers to the margin which the candidate with the most votes has over the candidate coming second. To win a seat a candidate need only have a majority of 1.
The House of Commons votes by dividing. Those voting Aye (yes) to any proposition walk through the division lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting no through the lobby to the left. In each of the lobbies there are desks occupied by Clerks who tick Members' names off division lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the Members are counted by two Members acting as tellers. The Speaker calls for a vote by announcing "Clear the Lobbies". In the House of Lords "Clear the Bar" is called. Division Bells ring throughout the building and the police direct all Strangers to leave the vicinity of the Members’ Lobby. They also walk through the public rooms of the House shouting "division". MPs have eight minutes to get to the Division Lobby before the doors are closed. Members make their way to the Chamber, where Whips are on hand to remind the uncertain which way, if any, their party is voting. Meanwhile the Clerks who will take the names of those voting have taken their place at the high tables with the alphabetical lists of MPs' names on which ticks are made to record the vote. When the tellers are ready the counting process begins - the recording of names by the Clerk and the counting of heads by the tellers. When both lobbies have been counted and the figures entered on a card this is given to the Speaker who reads the figures and announces "So the Ayes [or Noes] have it". In the House of Lords the process is the same except that the Lobbies are called the Contents Lobby and the Not Contents Lobby. Unlike many other legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords have not adopted a mechanical or electronic means of voting. This was considered in 1998 but rejected. Divisions rarely take less than ten minutes and those where most Members are voting usually take about fifteen. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P9 at the UK Parliament site.
