Content deleted Content added
Restored revision 1149040812 by DuncanHill (talk): Reverted good faith edits by IP user. |
No edit summary Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 38:
{{blockquote|text=Replace the House of Lords with a {{sic|?|hide=y|fully|-}}elected second chamber with considerably fewer members than the current House.<ref name="ldmanifesto">{{cite web | url=http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf | title=Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2010 | publisher=Liberal Democrats | date=14 April 2010 | accessdate=11 August 2012 | page=88 | url-status=dead | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20111219211028/http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf | archivedate=19 December 2011 }}</ref>}}
When the two parties formed the [[Cameron–Clegg coalition|Coalition Government]], their [[
{{blockquote|text=We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010. It is likely that this will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely that there will be a [[Grandfather clause|grandfathering system]] for current Peers.<ref name="agreement">{{cite web | url=http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/coalition_programme_for_government.pdf | title=Coalition Programme for Government | publisher=[[Cabinet Office]] | date=20 May 2010 | accessdate=11 August 2012 | page=27}}</ref>}}
Line 56:
*up to eight ministerial members
*a number of transitional members equal to two-thirds the membership of the House on 27 June 2012.
Following the hypothetical 2020 election, the number of elected and appointed members would have increased to 240 and 60, respectively; the number of bishops would have fallen to 16; and the number of transitional members would be reduced to half (relative to before the election). At the hypothetical 2025 election, the House would have comprised 360 elected members, 90 appointed members, up to 12 bishops, and up to eight additional "ministerial members" appointed to serve as [[Minister of the Crown|Ministers of the Crown]]; the last of the transitional members would have left the chamber.
====Elected members====
Each elected member would have served for three "electoral periods", which effectively would have been the same as a single 15-year term. Elections to the reformed House would have been called for the same day as the [[2015 United Kingdom general election|next
The voting system was set out in Part 2 and Schedule 3 of the bill. It provided for a [[Open list#More open list|semi-open list]] system, allowing voters to choose a party or an individual, in Scotland, Wales, and England (which would have been divided into regions as is done in [[European Parliament]] elections). Northern Ireland would have used the [[Single
In the case of a [[casual vacancy]], an interim replacement would have generally filled the seat until the next House of Lords election. In Northern Ireland, members who were in a party (at the time of their election) would have their replacement chosen by the party, while [[Independent politician|independents]] simply would have had their seat remain vacant. In the rest of the UK, the next person available to be selected on the party list would have become the interim replacement. If there was no one left on the list or the person did not belong to a registered party, the next person who would have been elected and still wants to join the House of Lords would have been the replacement member.
Line 89:
==Progress through Parliament==
The bill was introduced (given its [[Reading (legislature)|first reading]]) on 27 June 2012.<ref>[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm120627/debtext/120627-0001.htm#12062759000008 Hansard 27 June 2012] Parliament.uk</ref> The Opposition [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] supported the bill at second reading debate whilst opposing the time allocation motion (known as the "programme motion" immediately thereafter).<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jul/10/lords-reform-labour-lib-dems Labour reform: Labour to reject any Lib Dem deals]. ''The Guardian'', 10 July 2012</ref> The Labour Party stated that they would only support the bill if it consisted of: a 100% elected upper chamber, the removal of the Lords Spiritual, clarification about the relationship between the Houses of Parliament, and for the bill to be subject to a referendum.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Labour plans to side with Tory rebels to disrupt coalition's Lords reform bill|url = https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/may/09/labour-lords-reform-bill-timetable|website = The Guardian|accessdate = 2015-10-21|first1 = Patrick|last1 = Wintour|first2 = Juliette|last2 = Jowit|date = 9 May 2012}}</ref> [[David Cameron]] was reported to support a referendum, but [[Nick Clegg]] rejected a referendum as unnecessary, arguing that House of Lords reform had been included in all three parties' manifestos.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jun/23/coalition-referendum-house-lords-reform|title=Coalition decides against referendum on House of Lords reform|last1=Batty|first1=David|date=2012-06-23|last2=Watt|first2=Nicholas|newspaper=The Guardian|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077|access-date=2016-08-08}}</ref> Labour leader [[Ed Miliband]] countered: "I am sure for some people House of Lords reform was uppermost in their mind at the time of the election, but I don't think that applies to the majority. I don't think it was the decisive issue at the general election and therefore I think it is quite hard to argue against a referendum."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/20/ed-miliband-referendum-lords-reform|title=Ed Miliband backs referendum on Lords reform|last=Wintour|first=Patrick|date=2012-04-20|newspaper=The Guardian|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077|access-date=2016-08-08}}</ref>
On 9 July 2012 Clegg put forward the bill to a vote on the programme motion and the Second Reading. Clegg stated that the government's position was that the [[Parliament Act 1911]] would be invoked if the Bill was rejected by the [[House of Lords]]. The legality of this, however, was a matter of debate.<ref>[https://academic.oup.com/slr/article-abstract/24/3/237/1606303?redirectedFrom=PDF Is the Parliament Act 1949 valid?]</ref>
Before the bill was debated, Conservative MP [[Jacob Rees-Mogg]] raised a [[point of order]], asking the Speaker to rule on whether the bill should be classified as a [[Hybrid instrument|hybrid bill]] because it affected the private interests of the Bishops of the [[Church of England]]. Had the [[Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom)|Speaker]] ruled that the bill was hybrid, it would have been subject to a different, more lengthy procedure. However, the Speaker ruled that it was not. The BBC claims this was an early attempt to derail the bill's passage through Parliament.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm120709/debtext/120709-0001.htm#1207099000752 | title=House of Commons Hansard Debates for 09 July 2012 (pt 0001) | accessdate=13 July 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18782379 | title=Lords reform: How the Commons war will be fought | publisher=BBC News | date=10 July 2012 | accessdate=13 July 2012}}</ref>
Labour called for more scrutiny of the bill and said it would vote against the programme motion, along with several Conservative MPs. On 10 July 2012, it became clear that the Government was going to lose the vote on the programme motion and it was withdrawn. At the vote that evening on whether to give the bill a second reading, 91 Conservative MPs voted against the three line whip,<ref>[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coalition-shaken-as-cameron-ducks-out-of-vote-on-lords-7932344.html Coalition shaken as Cameron ducks out of vote on Lords] The Independent</ref> while 19 more abstained.<ref>{{cite news |last=Barrett |first=Matthew |date=11 July 2012 |title=80 Tory backbenchers voted for Lords reform last night. 110 did not. |work=ConservativeHome |url=http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2012/07/80-tory-backbenchers-voted-for-lords-reform-last-night-110-did-not-.html |url-status=dead |accessdate=3 September 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120714024846/http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2012/07/80-tory-backbenchers-voted-for-lords-reform-last-night-110-did-not-.html |archive-date=14 July 2012}}</ref> Though the bill was supported by the Labour Party in principle, the party opposed the programme motion as did the Conservative rebels. Two Conservative members of the Government resigned to vote with the rebels. The unofficial leader of the Conservative rebellion over House of Lords reform, [[Jesse Norman]], was furiously shouted at by the Prime Minister [[David Cameron]], in the Member's Lobby in the House of Commons.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jul/11/cameron-clashes-with-lords-reform-revolt-leader?newsfeed=true |title=Cameron in angry confrontation with leader of Tory revolt on Lords reform |work=The Guardian | location=London |first=Nicholas |last=Watt |date=11 July 2012}}</ref>
The Leader of the House of Commons, [[
On 3 August 2012, it was reported that the Prime Minister was to announce that the bill would be dropped after negotiations with Conservative rebels broke down.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9447897/David-Cameron-retreats-on-House-of-Lords-reform.html | title=David Cameron retreats on House of Lords reform | work=The Daily Telegraph| date=2 August 2012 | accessdate=3 August 2012 | author=Winnett, Robert | location=London}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/aug/03/david-cameron-drop-lords-reforms?newsfeed=true | title=David Cameron to drop Lords reform | work=The Guardian | date=3 August 2012 | accessdate=3 August 2012 | author=Wintour, Patrick | location=London}}</ref> Just three days later, on 6 August 2012, [[Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Deputy Prime Minister]] [[Nick Clegg]] announced that the Government was abandoning the bill due to the opposition from Conservative backbench MPs, claiming that the Conservatives had "broken the coalition contract".<ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19149212 Nick Clegg: Lords reform plans to be abandoned] BBC News</ref> He formally announced the abandonment of the bill to the House of Commons on 3 September.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg-confirms-house-of-lords-reform-plan-is-officially-scrapped-8102639.html | title=Nick Clegg confirms House of Lords reform plan is officially scrapped | work=Evening Standard|location=London | date=3 September 2012 | accessdate=3 September 2012}}</ref>
==See also==
| |||