When Lord Hill of Oareford takes up his new role as Leader of the House of Lords, he will also take up the historic office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. But what is the Duchy of Lancaster, and why is its chancellor a member of the Cabinet?

The Duchy of Lancaster is essentially a source of private income for the British monarch. Its origins date from the 14th century when King Edward III conferred the title ‘Duke of Lancaster’ on Henry of Grosmont as a reward for his service in the Hundred Years’ War. At the same time, Lancaster became a county palatine, which meant that its duke would enjoy considerable autonomy within the kingdom. When Henry died without a male heir, the title was conferred on his son-in-law, John of Gaunt, who happened to be the younger son of Edward III.

John’s son, Henry of Bolingbroke, inherited the title upon his father’s death. When he eventually took the throne of England, the Duchy of Lancaster merged with the Crown. The new king decreed that the duchy would always remain separate from the rest of the Crown’s holdings. In 1760, George III agreed to let Parliament have the revenues from Crown lands in exchange for a fixed payment called the Civil List. But the Duchy of Lancaster was not part of the deal, and it remained the monarch’s private property.

The chancellor is the duchy’s chief administrative officer, though much of the day-to-day business of running the duchy is delegated to the Duchy Council. The chancellor does, however, advise the Queen on a number of appointments within the duchy, including High Sheriffs and certain ecclesiastical positions. Although the Queen appoints the chancellor on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, the chancellor is accountable to her, and not Parliament, regarding the duchy’s affairs. The uniquely personal nature of the relationship is reflected in the fact that, unlike the rest of the Cabinet, the chancellor receives the seals of office during a private audience with the Sovereign.

Since the chancellorship itself has few duties, its occupant is free to act as a sort of Minister without Portfolio. The three most recent chancellors, however, have combined the job with the leadership of the House of Lords. Because the position of Leader of the House of Lords has no statutory basis, its occupant is not actually entitled to a salary. Therefore, in order to pay the leader, they must be given another office that actually draws a salary. Fortunately, the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 provides salaries for a number of sinecure offices (including that of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) for that very purpose.

Of course the Leader of the House of Lords is not the only one in this predicament. The Government Chief Whip in the Lords also holds the office of ‘Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms,’ while junior Government Whips in the Commons are appointed to an assortment of positions in the Royal Household. Even the Prime Minister ultimately derives his authority (and his salary!) from the sinecure office of ‘First Lord of the Treasury!’

The article Why Will Lord Hill Be Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Lord Strathclyde has resigned as Leader of the House of Lords, ending a 25-year career on the front bench.

In his resignation letter to David Cameron, Lord Strathclyde wrote that “when I was invited to join the government by Margaret Thatcher in 1988, I never believed it was a career for life. I didn’t expect it would consume me for as long as it has or that I would one day lead the Lords and sit in a Cabinet.”

“The Lords is an extraordinary and vigorous place, but recently I’ve been considering a change of direction,” he continued. “I started my working life in the private sector and at some stage always hoped to return, I would now like to do so. While I have the highest respect for the privilege and duty of public service, I do not see a political career as the cap of everything and would like, while there is still time, to take up other threads of my life and other interests.”

Lord Strathclyde has been the Tory leader in the House of Lords since 1998 when his predecessor, Viscount Cranborne, was sacked for entering into secret negotiations with the Labour government over their proposals to expel the hereditary peers. When the Tories entered into a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats in 2010, Lord Strathclyde retained the leadership and received the sinecure office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in order to let him sit in the Cabinet.

Lord Strathclyde’s time in government has not been particularly easy. The Lords have defeated the government on more than 50 occasions since 2010, and the House’s burgeoning size has led to frayed tempers. Thanks to an influx of newly-created peers when the coalition took power, there are now 775 members of the House of Lords, putting its longstanding tradition of self-regulation under increasing strain.

To thank Lord Strathclyde for his lengthy service, Cameron has asked the Queen to appoint the peer to the Order of the Companions of Honour. The same honor was given to Sir George Young, Lord Strathclyde’s counterpart in the Commons, after he briefly stepped down from government last year.

Downing Street also announced that Lord Hill of Oareford will succeed Lord Strathclyde as Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Lord Hill is a relative newcomer to the Lords, having only entered the chamber in May 2010. Since then, he has served as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools in the Department of Education. According to reports in the British media, Lord Hill tried to resign during last summer’s reshuffle, but Cameron was not paying attention and simply told him to “keep up the good work”!

Image Courtesy : UK Parliament

The article Lord Strathclyde Resigns as Leader of the House of Lords appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Martin McGuinness, the Sinn Fein politician, has decided to step down as MP for Mid-Ulster despite never actually taking his seat in Westminster. There is just one problem: members of Britain’s House of Commons are not allowed to resign their seats.

The prohibition against voluntary resignation is based on a resolution that the Commons passed in 1624. Back then, parliamentary service was often seen as more of a burden than an honor. MPs did not receive a salary, and traveling to Westminster was no easy task. And since Parliament was still more of an event than an institution, MPs would rarely be expected to sit for more than a few weeks anyway.

Several decades later in 1680, the Commons passed a resolution forbidding MPs from accepting offices or ‘places of profit’ under the Crown. Anyone who contravened the resolution forfeited his seat. At the time, MPs feared that having colleagues on the Crown’s payroll would undermine Parliament’s independence.

Similarly, because government ministers were technically servants of the Crown, they had to resign from the Commons and seek re-election upon taking ministerial office. The practice of forcing ministers to seek re-election was not done away with until 1926.

In the eighteenth century, Crown stewardships became a legal fiction that allowed MPs to resign from the Commons. Although there were originally a number of these minor offices, the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 whittled the list down to two: the Crown Steward and Bailiff of the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham and the Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. However, these offices now exist only on paper, and their holders do not receive any sort of salary.

So now when an MP wishes to resign, he or she must write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Britain’s finance minister), who then signs a warrant appointing the person to one of the two stewardships. The ex-MP will hold their new ‘office’ until it is needed to allow someone else to resign. In some cases, the tenure can be quite brief: on December 17, 1985, fifteen MPs resigned at once!

Given that Martin McGuinness is a staunch republican, it is ironic that he is now technically one of the Queen’s servants. A spokesman for Sinn Fein was typically dismissive of his new appointment: “as Irish republicans we gave no time for antiquated and ridiculous titles of the British parliamentary system.”

Image Courtesy : UK Parliament

The article Why MPs Cannot Resign From the House of Commons appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

After two days of grueling debate, the House of Commons voted to give the controversial House of Lords Reform Bill a second reading, but the bill faces an uncertain future after ministers were forced to scrap their proposed timetable for further debate.

The House of Lords Reform Bill would transform the chamber into a 450-member body whose members are 80 percent elected/20 percent appointed. The Church of England’s General Synod would also elect 12 bishops to sit in the reformed House of Lords as Lords Spiritual. Members who are not Lords Spiritual would serve for a single 15-year term.

The House of Commons spent two days debating whether or not to give the House of Lords Reform Bill a second reading. A second reading debate is concerned with the general principles behind the bill, and an affirmative vote allows the bill to progress to committee stage. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg began the debate by saying that the bill was about “fixing a flawed institution.”

“We believe that the people who make the laws should be chosen by the people who are subject to those laws,” he continued. “We are only one of only two countries in the world —the other being Lesotho—with an upper parliamentary chamber that is totally unelected and instead selects its members by birthright and patronage.”

“At the heart of the Bill is the vision of a House of Lords that is more modern, more representative and more legitimate—a Chamber fit for the 21st century,” he said.

Speaking for the opposition, Labour MP Sadiq Khan endorsed the broad principles behind the bill. “The Labour party remains very much in favour of reforming the second Chamber and will support the Bill on Second Reading,” he said. However, Khan went on to warn that “our support for giving the Bill a Second Reading should therefore not be taken as a blank cheque.”

He went on to identify a number of areas where Labour felt that the bill needed major work. He felt that clause 2, which declares that the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 will continue to apply to the reformed House of Lords, would not be a sufficient safeguard to ensure the Commons’ primacy.

The Parliament Acts to which Khan referred prevent the Lords from blocking legislation indefinitely. They can, however, still delay it for a year. A year is an eternity in politics, and few governments would want to wait that long to see their proposals become law. In practice, it is usually a moot point since the House of Lords usually defers to the Commons before the Parliament Acts come into play. But it is far from certain that a predominantly elected chamber would feel the need to show the same deference. “Why should elected Members of the second Chamber be bound by conventions that bind a Chamber of hereditary and appointed peers?” asked Khan.

“The Bill recognizes that conventions may evolve, and assumes this will happen of its own accord during the transition phases. We believe that that is too passive and is a dangerous position. The obvious questions requiring clarification include the following. What is the position on the Salisbury-Addison convention about Bills and the prevention of manifesto commitments? What about the convention that the Lords does not usually object to secondary legislation? More than 1,000 pieces of secondary legislation go through Parliament each year; the Parliament Acts do not cover this,” Khan continued.

Khan also objected to the fact that the reformed House of Lords would still have appointed members. “By allowing some Members still to be appointed, the Deputy Prime Minister is weakening his own arguments for having elected Members in the second Chamber.”

In addition, Khan castigated the government for its refusal to allow a referendum on its proposed changes. “[Nick Clegg] said a referendum was not needed because proposals to reform the House of Lords were in all three main parties’ manifestos. The manifestos said very different things, however. While Labour and the Lib Dems called for a wholly elected second Chamber—albeit Labour wanted a referendum as well—the Conservatives sought only to find consensus.”

As the debate wore on, the scale of Conservative discontent became increasingly apparent as backbencher after backbencher rose to voice their opposition to the bill. Conor Burns, a ministerial aide to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, went so far as to quite in order to vote against the bill. Another ministerial aide, Angie Bray, was sacked when she too voted against the bill.

Although the bill ultimately received a second reading by a vote of 462 to 124, the government chose not to move the program motion that would have set out a timetable for its future progress. Labour had announced that it would not support the motion because it did not allow enough time for debate, and there were enough Conservative rebels that the motion would have failed without Labour’s support.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Downing Street has set up a special team to negotiate with the rebel backbenchers over the summer. Prime Minister David Cameron is said to have told his MPs that he is willing to consider a range of concessions, from reducing the number of elected members to allowing more time for debate. If he cannot win over more of his backbenchers, he is said to be willing to completely scrap the bill when Parliament returns from its summer recess.

Image Courtesy of  The Prime Minister’s Office

The article Lords Reform Bill Gets 2nd Reading, Faces Uncertain Future appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Britain’s Conservative/Liberal Democrat government faced a humiliating setback on July 10 when ministers had to cancel a key vote on their flagship plans to reform the House of Lords.

The government wants to replace the present appointed chamber with a chamber whose members are 80 percent elected/20 percent appointed. The legislation is widely seen as the Liberal Democrats’ baby, and it is bitterly resented by many backbench Conservative MPs. Over the last few weeks, more and more Conservative MPs have announced their intention to vote against the bill, and the number of rebels eventually reached 100.

The Labour opposition has committed itself to voting for the bill’s second reading, which is when the Commons endorses the general principles behind the legislation. Because the government controls the timetable in the Commons, a vote on second reading is usually followed by a ‘program motion’ that sets time limits for the remaining legislative stages. But Labour objected to the amount of time that the government proposed to allocate to the bill, and the party decided to instruct its MPs to vote against the program motion.

Without Labor’s support, it seemed highly unlikely that the program motion would pass. In the absence of a timetable, opponents of the bill would be able to filibuster it. Back in 1968, an earlier attempt at House of Lords reform foundered because of just such a filibuster.

The government whips must have gotten spooked, for when the Commons began the second day of the debate on second reading, the Leader of the House, Sir George Young, announced that the program motion had been withdrawn. “For Lords reform to progress, it needs those who support reform to vote for reform and to vote for that reform to make progress through this House. It is clear that the Opposition are not prepared to do that, so we will not move the program motion tonight.”

“We remain committed to making progress on Lords reform, and with second reading behind us we will then consider how best to take this agenda forward and how best to secure progress through the House for reforms that have the backing of this House,” he continued.

In the absence of a program motion, the bill will be in legislative limbo even if it receives a second reading. The government leadership in the Commons face a dicey situation. Finding a timetable that will please Labour could be difficult, but if they decide to go ahead and commit the bill to a Committee of the Whole House without any sort of time limits, it is almost certain that rebel Conservative MPs will do their best to filibuster it. Newspapers are already reporting that the rebels have drawn up extensive plans to table wrecking amendments and fight any subsequent attempts to curtail debate.

If the House of Lords Reform Bill ultimately fails, the coalition will be placed under incredible strain. Bad blood between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats seems to be growing by the week, and many Liberal Democrats would probably see the bill’s loss as a Conservative betrayal. There are already rumblings that, if there is no Lords reform, the Liberal Democrats will retaliate by blocking forthcoming boundary changes that could help the Conservatives at the next election. If the coalition descended to that level of infighting, it is hard to see how it could continue until the next scheduled election in May 2015.

The article UK Government Cancels Key Vote on Lords Reform appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The tower that houses Big Ben at the Palace of Westminster is likely to be renamed in honor of Queen Elizabeth II after a majority of the Members of Parliament (MPs) gave their backing to the change.

The proposal was first made by Tobias Ellwood, a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Foreign Office. He tabled an Early Day Motion requesting that the clock tower be renamed the Elizabeth Tower in honor of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee.

“Commemorating an iconic landmark as famous as Parliament is indeed a truly exceptional tribute and I am grateful that the majority of MPs believe the Queen deserves such an outstanding accolade,” he said.

“It therefore seems entirely appropriate for Parliament to pay tribute to Her Majesty with a similar honor, and in symmetry, to that bestowed upon Queen Victoria, by dedicating part of the iconic Parliamentary estate in her name,” he continued.

Forty MPs signed their names to the motion, and 331 MPs signed a formal letter of support, including the leaders of the three major parties. Prime Minister David Cameron said that “it is great news that so many MPs from across the House are backing what would be a fitting tribute to the Queen. I hope it will now move ahead.”

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said that “the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee is an occasion that the whole country is keen to celebrate, and Members of Parliament are no exception. I hope the House applies [to Buckingham Palace] to name this historic tower after Her Majesty.”

Echoing the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Labour Party leader Ed Miliband said that “Queen Elizabeth has dedicated herself tirelessly and constantly to the people of Britain and the entire Commonwealth. Parliament has agreed that this is a fitting tribute to her life of service and I hope it can be confirmed as soon as possible.”

In addition to the party leaders, the proposal has received the backing of Theresa May, the Home Secretary; William Hague, the Foreign Secretary; Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary; and Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. They are joined by other prominent MPs, including former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, former Home Secretary David Blunkett, and Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls.

The honor mirrors that given to Queen Victoria when she celebrated her Diamond Jubilee in 1897. The King’s Tower which stood at the southwest end of the Palace of Westminster was renamed the Victoria Tower.

The House of Commons Commission, which is responsible for Parliament’s administrative affairs, will meet in a few weeks’ time, at which point it is likely to approve the proposal in light of the strength of cross-party support. Once the commission has given its stamp of approval, the proposal will be formally presented to Buckingham Palace. If the Queen agrees, a renaming ceremony would be held, which she would likely attend.

The article British MPs Want to Rename Big Ben in Honor of the Queen appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

On March 20, Britain’s Parliament presented Queen Elizabeth II with ‘humble addresses’ to mark the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne.

Humble addresses are the traditional means by which Parliament communicates with the Sovereign. In most cases, these are mundane affairs that take place without much ceremony. But since this was a special occasion, both Houses assembled in their entirety to hear their respective Speakers present their addresses.

Upon arriving at the Palace of Westminster, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were met by a host of dignitaries, including the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Lord Speaker, and the Speaker of the House of Commons. Both Speakers wore elaborate black silk robes adorned with gold lace and decorations.

But while the Lord Speaker, Baroness D’Souza, opted to wear traditional court dress (including knee breeches and tights) underneath it all, the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow chose to wear morning dress with a green House of Commons tie.

In addition to her husband, the Queen was accompanied by a number of courtiers, including the Countess of Airlie (one of her Ladies-in-Waiting), Colonel Dan Rex (her Equerry-in-Waiting), and Sir Christopher Geidt (her Private Secretary). Led by the Lord Great Chamberlain and his white wand of office, the royal party made its way into Westminster Hall, which is the oldest portion of the Palace of Westminster.

Because the House of Lords is technically the senior house, the Lord Speaker addressed the Queen first. “You have personified continuity and stability while ensuring that Your role has evolved imperceptibly, with the result that the Monarchy is as integral a part of our national life today as it was 60 years ago,” she said.

“We rejoice in this Jubilee and we give thanks for all that it represents,” she continued.

The Speaker of the House of Commons spoke next. “If, as Gandhi asserted, ‘the best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others,’ then Your Majesty must have found Yourself countless times over the past six decades.”

“You have dedicated Your life to others.  The daily example that You set, mirrored by our courageous armed forces of which You are Commander-in-Chief, is extraordinary,” he said.

Bercow, who has long been an avid supporter of gay rights, spoke of how Britain was “a land where men and women today are equal under the law and where Your people are respected, regardless of how they live, how they look or how they love.”

He went on to call Her Majesty “a kaleidoscope Queen of a kaleidoscope country in a kaleidoscope Commonwealth,” much to the apparent annoyance of Prime Minister David Cameron, who scowled at the Speaker.

When Bercow had finished speaking, the Queen thanked her Parliament for their addresses. In doing so, she paid tribute to her husband’s tireless support, saying “Prince Philip is, I believe, well-known for declining compliments of any kind. But throughout he has been a constant strength and guide.”

Referring to the elaborate stained-glass window that had been commissioned to mark her Diamond Jubilee, she mentioned that “the happy relationship I have enjoyed with Parliament has extended well beyond the more than three and a half thousand Bills I have signed into law. I am therefore very touched by the magnificent gift before me, generously subscribed by many of you. Should this beautiful window cause just a little extra color to shine down upon this ancient place, I should gladly settle for that.”

“We are reminded here of our past, of the continuity of our national story and the virtues of resilience, ingenuity and tolerance which created it. I have been privileged to witness some of that history and, with the support of my family, rededicate myself to the service of our great country and its people now and in the years to come,” she concluded.

Image Courtesy of  Zoran Karapancev / Shutterstock.com

The article Parliament Pays Tribute to Queen Elizabeth II appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

A British Labour Member of Parliament has been arrested after a brawl in a House of Commons bar. Witnesses said that Eric Joyce, who represents Falkirk in the House of Commons, entered the Strangers Bar shortly after 10 pm local time and immediately began to complain that it was “full of Tories.”

According to the Evening Standard, Joyce appeared to be intoxicated, and was behaving boisterously. When he was asked to quiet down, he lost control of his temper and lashed out at other guests.

Joyce is said to have headbutted Conservative MP Stuart Andrew, and the Daily Telegraph reports that he may have hit as many as three Labour MPs. Andrew suffered a bloody nose in the attack, and may end up pressing charges against his colleague. Several MPs attempted to calm Joyce down, but he allegedly struck Andrew a second time.

Much to the chagrin of the parliamentary authorities, the fracas took place in front of a visiting delegation of Canadian parliamentarians. According to a Scotland Yard spokesman: “We were called at approximately 10.50pm last night to reports of a disturbance at a bar within the House of Commons. A man aged in his 50s was arrested by officers on suspicion of assault. He remains in custody in a central London police station. Inquiries are continuing.”

The Labour Party has temporarily cut ties with Joyce until the matter has been resolved. “This is an extremely serious incident. We have suspended Eric Joyce pending the results of the police investigation,” said a party spokesman.

The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, made a statement in the chamber the next day. “Members will be aware of reports of a serious incident in the House last night. I have been informed by the Serjeant at Arms that the honourable member for Falkirk has been detained in police custody. The matter is being investigated. I take this matter very seriously, as do the House authorities. I would ask that no further reference should be made to these reports in the Chamber today,” he said.

Joyce entered Parliament in 2000 through a by-election. When Labour was in power, he served as an unpaid parliamentary private secretary to a number of ministers. In 2009, he achieved the dubious distinction of being the most expensive MP, having claimed £187,334 in expenses during the previous parliamentary year. He would go on to beat his own record and become the first MP to claim more than £200,000 in expenses.

The article Labour MP Arrested After Commons Brawl appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The article Rupert Murdoch Attacked at Parliament Hearing appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.