Baroness Massey with her team
Yesterday (Friday) the House met and debated reform of the House. Next Friday, the chamber will also be used to debate the same subject – but this time the debaters will not be peers but pupils from a number of state schools. There will be teams from four schools, each advancing the case for one of the four proposals for reform (retention of an appointed House, partially elected, wholly elected, and abolition). Each team has been been mentored by a peer. The picture shows Lady Massey with her team. I have mentored the team from Robert Clack School in Dagenham which will be making the case for an all-appointed chamber.
Further details are on the Parliament website here. The debate will be broadcast on BBC Parliament on 17 December at 4.00 p.m. If the team from the Robert Clack School is anything to go by – the pupils are both enthusiastic and able – it will be well worth watching.
We`ve even a recent picture of some of the Dagenham team who were enthusiastic about mixing with Lords members.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/04/10/article-1169010-0044E19E00000258-783_468x347.jpg
The two brothers have excellent skills at getting their point across and changing peoples minds.Very community spirited and have even helped adversaries find a spot in construction. Commonly found helping Law enforcement by delivering packages to them or helping others with their enquiries.
I wish the Robert Clack School the best of luck although judging by the glowing reviews in the press they will do exceedingly well.
Talking of education – I do need it, can someone please explain the voting process in the House. I have watched a large amount of footage of the House but as yet am unable to get to grips with this process.
The, presumably, Leader of the House, say`s “Clear the bar” and then something about different ends, the throne etc. When I have watched there seemed to be about 60-70 peers in the House, there`s a lot of jostling and chatter some elderly whom I really want to go help make the journey and not a lot else. They seem to disappear with continual chatter and then order is resumed with the voting read out, which amazes me. Today Lord Rooker`s amendment for instance, it seemed as I said about 60-70 peers yet the result was approx 195 against to 198 for. Either they were all hiding behind the seats and in the hubbub I missed them or there`s something I`m missing. The vote took 20-30 minutes with some real elderly struggling it seemed and I thought there must be a better way.
I would like to know where they go, how they are counted and where the extra votes appear to come from ?
I know I must seem like a pig ignorant peasant but on tv it looks so totally disorganised and rather like Fall-Out after a Parade. I can`t make head nor tail.
Carl.H: It is the occupant of the Woolsack or the chair (if in committee) who puts the question. If one sides shouts ‘Content’ and the other ‘Not Content’ and both sides persist, the order is given to clear the Bar. This signals a division. After three minutes, the question is repeated, and the occupant of the Woolsack or chair then announces that the Contents will go by the door by the Throne (at the top end of the chamber) and the Not Contents by the door by the Bar (at the bottom end). Peers have eight minutes from the calling of the division in which to get into the chamber. After eight minutes, the doors are locked.
Peers may be standing by the Bar when a vote is called, or in committees, or at their desks (possibly watching the debate on screen), so the number voting normally exceeds the number you see in the chamber.
You go into the Content or Not Content lobby, a clerk crosses off your name, and you are then counted by two tellers as you go out of the lobby. It normally takes about 10-15 minutes, though it can take longer in the event of a large turnout.
Thank you very much for that Lord Norton it makes it somewhat clearer, though I still think there are better perhaps more modern ways.
I don’t know if you have noticed on recent video footage of committee work and house debates that the time from the first word spoken and the identity of the individual appearing on screen is getting longer and longer. Full marks though to the BBC production team for eventually getting it right – but do we really know this?
The same confusion must arise in debate. Indeed it could quite easily happen that somebody rises to speak and they are a stranger and nobody is the wiser for it. If it were not for everybody being of equal status can you imagine what the Lord Speaker would have to endure by calling members to speak?
One peer recently rose in question time to explain why a policeman would not let him enter Parliament. He tried for twenty minutes or so to convince the constable that the House of Lords was part of Parliament and that he was a peer and even his identity badge would not convince the constable. In the end the constable phoned a friend and the noble lord was allowed onto the premises, his dignity somewhat ruffled.
Unlike the Commons the Lords’ is a self regulating chamber on member conduct. I do feel though that the ‘House of Lords Information Office’ should publish its own guide on customs and traditions of the house to assist awareness.
Ref: House of Commons Information Office
Some Traditions and Customs of the House
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/g07.pdf