Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Commons backs a fully elected House of Lords

Full coverage on the BBC and on the e-politix site, with the latest divisions (easy to see the voting at a glance).

20% and 40% elected have been rejected without a counted vote.

A wholly appointed house opposed by 375 to 196.

50/50 opposed by 418 to 155.

60% elected opposed by 392 to 178.

80% elected supported by 305 to 267 - a majority of 38.

Fully elected chamber supported by 337 to 224 - a majority of 113.

More later.

Ruth Kelly announces the regulations

Regulations covering sexual orientation discrimination in the area of goods, facilities and services have been announced here by Ruth Kelly.

The text of the regulations can be read here.

The press release confirms the previous statements about the extent of exemptions.

The full title of the regulations is "The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007"

They need to be agreed by Parliament and are due to come into force on the 30th April - a little later than originally anticipated.

The House of Lords (again)

Start today of a two day debate in the Commons on the future composition of the Lords.

Actually the debate was quite interesting to watch (will definitely be rushing home early from work tomorrow to see the conclusion of the debate....)

I won't attempt here to summarise the arguments (maybe a future post?). Really good speeches by a number of MP's on both sides ofthe argument.

Here, though are my arguments for an elected house:

  1. Even as a revising chamber the House of Lords has considerable power over the laws that get passed.
  2. In a democracy laws should be made by the people through elected representatives - that is what democracy is.
  3. Well, actually, that's kind of it - in a democracy both houses should be elected, because in a democracy laws are made by people not because they are the great and good but because they got there by submitting themselves to the democratic process.