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!.

Downing Street has announced that the Bishop of Durham, the Rt. Rev. Justin Welby, is to succeed the Most Rev. and Rt. Hon. Dr. Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury when the latter steps down at the end of this year.

“To be nominated to this post is both astonishing and exciting,” said Bishop Welby. “It is something I never expected, and the last few weeks have been a very strange experience. It is exciting because we are at one of those rare points where the tide of events is turning, and the church nationally, including the Church of England has great opportunities to match its very great but often hidden strengths,” he continued.

Educated at Eton and Trinity College Cambridge, Bishop Welby spent eleven years working in the oil industry. By the late 80s, he had become an executive at Enterprise Oil Plc and was earning a six-figure salary. But in 1987, he decided to leave the corporate world and become an Anglican priest.

After receiving a degree in theology from Cranmer Hall in Durham, he served as a curate (assistant parish priest) at All Saints Chilvers Coton with St Mary the Virgin Astley, in Nuneaton from 1992 to 1995. In 1995, he received his own parish, St. James, Southam, and in 1996 he was also given the neighboring parish of St. Michael and All Angels, Ufton.

In 2002, he became a Canon Residentiary at Coventry Cathedral and was extensively involved in reconciliation work in Africa and the Middle East. Much of his international work focused on Nigeria, where he attempted to diffuse the conflict in the Niger Delta.

Bishop Welby left the Diocese of Coventry in 2007 in order to become Dean of Liverpool Cathedral. During his time in Liverpool, he worked tirelessly to strengthen the cathedral’s ties to the local community.

Four years later, Bishop Welby was promoted to the Bishopric of Durham. Durham is one of the preeminent dioceses in the Church of England, and its bishop is automatically entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. Although Bishop Welby has been in Durham for less than a year, he gained recognition for his contributions in Parliament, and he was appointed to the Joint Select Commission on Banking Standards. In the church’s General Synod, he worked to prevent a schism over the admission of women to the episcopate.

Bishop Welby is commonly regarded as a member of the evangelical wing of the Church of England, which tends to stress traditional interpretation of the Bible. However, at a press conference held to announce his appointment, he lent his support to the ordination of female bishops. “I will be voting in favor and join my voice to many others in urging the Synod to go forward with this change,” he said.

As one might expect given his evangelical sympathies, Bishop Welby opposes the government’s plans to legalize gay marriage, calling it a complicated issue “and not one to be handled today, off the cuff.” At the same time, he has roundly condemned prejudice and discrimination against LGBT people.

“We must have no truck with any form of homophobia in any part of the Church,” he said. “I am always averse to the language of exclusion, when what we are called to is to love in the same way as Jesus Christ loves us. Above all in the Church we need to create safe spaces for these issues to be discussed in honesty and in love.”

Bishop Welby was chosen by the Crown Nominations Commission, a church body made up of bishops, clergy, and lay people. The selection process is highly secretive, and the commission’s deliberations are not made public. Ultimately, the commission presents two candidates to the Prime Minister, who then makes a formal recommendation to the Queen. Since 2007, Downing Street has always submitted the commission’s first choice to the monarch.

The process of installing Bishop Welby in office will be complex and arcane. Once the Archbishopric of Canterbury is vacant, the Queen will order the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury Cathedral to elect a new archbishop. At the same time, she will also recommend that they elect Bishop Welby. By law, the Dean and Chapter must elect the Crown’s nominee. That election will then have to be confirmed by a commission of senior bishops appointed by the Queen. From that point on, Bishop Welby will legally be Archbishop of Canterbury.

The article Justin Welby to Be Archbishop of Canterbury 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!.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg unveiled plans on Tuesday to transform Britain’s House of Lords into an elected body.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Clegg said that “People have a right to choose their representatives. That is the most basic feature of a modem democracy.”

“Our second Chamber, which is known for its wisdom and expertise, is none the less undermined by the fact it is not directly accountable to the British people,” he continued.

Currently, most of the 789 members of the House of Lords are appointed for life, but there are also 26 Church of England bishops and 92 hereditary peers.  Clegg’s plans would see the Lords reduced to 300 and 80 percent of its members would be elected for 15 year terms.  In order to avoid duplicating the mandate of the Commons, members of the Lords would be elected using the single transferable vote system.

The other 20 percent would be appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister.  Twelve representatives of the Church of England would continue to sit in the reformed Lords.  Rather than impose reform in one fell swoop, the government proposes phasing elected members in over three five-year electoral cycles.

The draft bill published today will be scrutinized by a joint committee of peers and MPs, and it could be a year before the committee makes a final report.  The proposals could ultimately be derailed by the Lords themselves if they refuse to pass the bill.  Theoretically, the government could use the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 to force the bill onto the statute book, but reports over the weekend suggested that they would be unlikely to do so.

Labour’s constitutional affairs spokesman Sadiq Khan criticized the proposals, calling them “a dog’s dinner, with nobody happy at the outcome—not even the Lib Dem activists, whom the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to appease.”

Any proposal to create a largely-elected House of Lords would not only anger large numbers of peers but also has the potential to upset Britain’s constitutional applecart.  The primacy of the Commons has been a settled matter since the passage of the Parliament Act 1911, but if the Lords ends up being predominantly elected, its continued subordination will be much harder to justify.  Although Clegg maintained that a reformed Lords would continue to be a revising chamber, the specter of US-style legislative gridlock looms large over the government’s proposals.

The article Nick Clegg Unveils Plans for Lords Reform appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.