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!.

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!.