´óÏó´«Ã½

There's gathering angst around the modest proposals for strengthening the Commons from the special committee chaired by Labour's Dr Tony Wright. It was palpable at Commons on Thursday, when the Leader of the House, Harriet Harman repeatedly ducked invitations to guarantee a debate and a vote before January was out.

To be sure, the package which emerged from the Wright Committee is complicated and will need to be digested over a decent interval. But the clock is ticking on this Parliament, and sensitive noses detect a conspiracy to thwart the good doctor's efforts. According to the rumour mill, both chief whips are opposed.

One committee member claims to have heard fellow members trotting out in committee exactly the same objections in the very same words he'd heard earlier from his whips. It is claimed that only intervention from Downing Street allowed even the tepid assurances Harriet Harman gave this week. Old hands like the Conservative MP Chris Chope sense evasion, and they're now pessimistic about the prospects for the reforms. We shall see.

I've already posted about the key proposal for a business committee; almost as important are the proposals to increase the independence and effectiveness of the select committees.

Usual channels

These are the specialist scrutineers of government. At the moment their chairmen and their members are appointed in a carve-up between the parties via the so-called "usual channels". The government (assuming it has a Commons majority, as it normally does) will have a majority, and the opposition parties will have a set share of the membership of each committee.

Nominations are formalised through the Committee of Selection, which usually rubber-stamps a series of lists produced by the various whips' offices.

Thus the government has majority control of the committees appointed to scrutinise it.

At the moment the quality of committee chairmen and membership is a rather hit and miss affair - and with a change in chairmanship, a committee with a reputation for effectiveness and hard-hitting reports can become anodyne and innocuous and disappear from the political radar. The starting premise of this section of the report is that the quality of the chairman is critical.

The Wright Committee proposes that in future committee chairmen are elected for a whole parliamentary term by the whole House, by secret ballot. That could mean that the parties no longer get an automatic proportional share of chairmanships, but, having toyed with possible mechanisms to divvy them up, Wright & Co could not find a sensible way to guarantee a share of the spoils to everyone, and appear to have concluded that it would be a price worth paying, not to bother.

As for the ordinary members of committees, their party make-up would still reflect the balance of the whole House. But they would be elected from each party group, again in a secret ballot. The idea being that this would make it harder for the party machines to block MPs with expertise, but also with inconvenient opinions or a rebellious disposition, from serving on the committee of their choice.

The result, it is hoped, would be more effective committees with less dead wood, and greater authority. It is also suggested the committees might be smaller, perhaps with nine members rather than 14, to increase competition for places. And although it's outside their remit, they suggest something similar might be attempted with Public Bill Committees, the ad hoc committees set up to give detailed consideration to bills. At the moment they are one of the most ritualistic and generally ineffective parts of the Commons set-up - but that is an issue for another day.

I'm still pondering the other main section of the Wright Committee report, on public engagement, and I'll blog on that next week.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

After a bit of a lull around the Queen's Speech, the Select Committees are swinging back into action.

On Monday, the continues its inquiry on homeopathy, with a panel of witnesses from the government and regulatory agencies, headed by the Health Minister Mike O'Brien. They'll also hear from Professor Kent Woods, of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency which can licence homeopathic products. Plenty of fun has already been had, and more is expected.

And after the clashes about public money allegedly going to extremist organisations at PMQs, on Wednesday, the first evidence hearing of the new inquiry into Preventing Violent Extremism programme could prove interesting.

This is the programme which seeks to divert young people from extremism and resort to violence. It's highly controversial both in government, where there are different views about its effectiveness, and in the Muslim community, where some voices say it's insulting and intrusive to mix attempts at building communities with what is essentially a security programme.

On Tuesday the Business and committees will hold their annual joint hearing on the work of Ofcom, the communications regulator.

The will hear from the Justice Minister Maria Eagle and assorted police and government agencies in its continuing inquiry into cocaine. (see below). The will be quizzing General Sir Kevin O'Donaghue on the issue of defence equipment. The Joint Committee on Human Rights will be following up its concerns on control orders and detention of terrorist suspects with the Home Office Minister David Hanson.

On Wednesday, the will be hearing from Janet Paraskeva, chair of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. It is now bringing in more money than it spends in its efforts to extract maintenance from deadbeat dads and indeed mums. The will be hearing from the Scottish TUC and several banks in its continuing inquiry into Banking in Scotland (after the apocalypse of 2007).

The will hear from Alistair Buchanan, chief executive of Ofgem, the gas and electricity markets regulator, about Project Discovery - Ofgem's investigation into whether future security of energy supply can be delivered by the existing market arrangements over the coming decade.

The will be looking at US-UK relations with the assistance of two journalists, Stryker McGuire of Newsweek and the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s former North American Editor, Justin Webb.

Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary will be appearing before the . Reliable sources suggest this session should be quite interesting. Aside from the fact that Lord Adonis rarely wastes the chance for a soundbite, the questions should be fairly demanding, especially after this week's news about National Express East Anglia losing its franchise three years early.

The Permanent Secretary of Defra, Dame Helen Ghosh, will be giving evidence to the on the continuing difficulties at the Rural Payments Agency, where delays in support payments have caused huge problems for farmers. The committee is concerned that no solution has been found, and it's worried that a shift to a new system of area-based payments, due in a couple of years, could deepen farmers' woes.

And the will pile into the woes of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which have already been probed by the Joint Human Rights Committee. Chairman Trevor Phillips is again the main witness. The PAC is expected to focus on claims that staff made redundant from the Commission's predecessor bodies were immediately rehired at considerable expense to the taxpayer.

The pace does not slacken on Thursday...the hears from a collection of think tankers and policy experts about how to govern in a recession. And the Culture, Media and Sport Committee continues its inquiry into the crisis engulfing the local media.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Speaker Bercow's enthusiasm for granting urgent questions (almost extinct under his predecessor), which require a minister to come to the Commons to address some great issue of the day, is starting to produce some smart manoeuvring.

Lib Dem Shadow Chancellor urgent question on Wednesday, on the revelations of the £61bn emergency loans granted by the taxpayer to two ailing banks at the height of the credit crunch, is a case in point.

After some kerfuffle and a bit of fancy footwork, the result was a full-dress , not merely the answer to a question.

The reason? My spies tell me the Chancellor, Alastair Darling preferred to face the first question from his Conservative shadow, George Osborne, rather than from Vicious Vince, as he's known in the trade.

The thinking was that Mr Osborne, who doubtless expects to be moving into the Treasury in a few months time, would be more cautious and measured, and so the expected onslaught from the Lib Dem prophet would be blunted somewhat if the key issues had already been dealt with by the time he rose to speak.

The point is that ministers are now factoring in the expectation that if something happens, they will be expected to answer in the Commons - and they're making their dispositions accordingly. A small but significant gain for parliamentary accountability.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Some luxuriant facial hair on show in today's Queen's Speech debate in the Commons. Labour MPs and were sporting impressive moustaches.

My spies tell me this is not some outbreak of retro-Victorian grooming, but a sponsored growth in aid of Movember, the annual, month-long celebration of the moustache, highlighting men's health issues, specifically prostate cancer.

The MPs have become "Mo Bros", who, start Movember (1 November) clean shaven and then grow, groom and nurture their moustaches. The aim is to raise funds and awareness for . At the end of Movember, a series of Gala Partés (sic) are held to thank Mo Bros and Sistas for their support and fund raising efforts.

I wonder if the parliamentary moustaches will disappear then....

Or will they have started a fashion?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Next week the Commons takes a walk - in fact, two walks - on the wild side.

On Monday, they're at Heathrow Airport, where they will be observing attempts to intercept smuggled cocaine, as part of their inquiry into the drug.

Then on Wednesday, they'll make a late night foray into London's clubland. There, they will observe the effects of cocaine on the home front, the efforts made by health services and advice groups and the approach taken by the police.

Last week Committee member and two Commons staff launched a preliminary reconaissance into the late night revelry in Maidstone, in Kent, and came back impressed by devices that can detect traces of cocaine on the hands of users (they're packed off for immediate drug counselling) and by the way health and substance abuse charities are on hand, and ambulances are standing by.

All this will supplement the evidence they'll be taking from the Justice Minister Maria Eagle, assorted police bodies, the , and the .

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Extensively leaked, and extensively trailed, the proposals from Labour political savant Dr Tony Wright, to reform the workings of the Commons, have been published and will be debated within two months. Either just before, or just after Christmas.

On the face of it, they cover pretty arcane matters: the micro-mechanics of parliamentary life. But for those who want a stronger, more independent, more effective Commons, . Or not. The Wright Committee, as befits its chairman, was a civilised affair. But its members were deeply split over several issues...

Their most fundamental proposal is for a Business Committee. This is an issue which provokes surprising passions. At the moment, the government, in negotiation with the other parties, dictates what is and is not on the agenda for the House of Commons. That became painfully clear when a motion of no confidence was proposed in Speaker Martin. You would have thought that was a quintessential internal House matter, but MPs found themselves begging the government to grant debating time.

Decision time

Governments do not have to grant time for debates on urgent issues. Hence the call by a selection of backbenchers, including Labour awkward squad regular Frank Field, for a debate on the strategy for Afghanistan. On a more subtle level the rules make it possible for ministers to decide which parts of bills are, and are not debated on the floor of the House at the Report Stage, which may mean crucial sections are never considered by the Commons - a favourite gripe of their Lordships.

Here comes the science bit....concentrate!

Dr Wright proposes a seven to nine member Backbench Business Committee, in charge of all business which is not strictly ministerial. It would then join with representatives of the government and opposition - the leader and shadow leader of the House, plus a Liberal Democrat, in a House Business Committee, and every week they would propose a draft agenda, which would then be debated.

It would specify the subjects to be debated, the day on which they were discussed and the time made available. This is a very finely-balanced reform, especially when you get to the micro-detail. It concedes that a democratically elected government should have a priority right to put its legislation and other business before the Commons, but insists the time has come for the House to take control of its own scheduling.

The Backbench Business Committee would be chaired by the deputy Speaker (who would be elected by the whole House with this role in mind). It would work closely with the party business managers, but its trump card would be control of a clearly defined block of "backbench time", at least a day a week of Commons time. But the government would still have the initiative in scheduling ministerial business... And that's the controversial bit.

Some committee members clearly feel that too much is conceded by leaving most of the debating time under government control. The House, they argue, will be complicit in infantilising itself. Others say that too ambitious a power grab will merely ensure that the government will feel forced to seize control of the Backbench Committee, or face a loss of the ability to organise its own business.

So a theoretically independent committee will end up as a cipher, with party whips organising slates of suitably loyalist candidates for membership, to ensure it does not assert an unwelcome independence.

You can sense these two competing currents in the detailed recommendations: the government can choose the day for a debate on a bill, but not the length of time.

So no more half-digested omnibus bills getting through the Commons with important chunks unscrutinised. If necessary the Backbench Committee could even give up some of its time to allow longer consideration of a bill....

The public, the report concludes "would find it strange" if MPs didn't summon up the courage to implement these proposals. They should be amazed if a political establishment which claims to be in favour of strengthening Parliament does not concede it. This is not the storming of the Winter Palace, but a modest, perhaps too modest, claim of right on behalf of the Commons.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Apologies for the unbearable lightness of blogging for the last couple of days; other programme commitments have intruded.

But when, oh when, is the Commons to debate the appointment of Professor Sir Ian Kennedy to the chairmanship of the ?

An earlier post in which I recounted rumours that the whole thing would go through on the nod was properly corrected by poster Ermine Yaks, who rightly pointed out that under the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority Bill, a 90 minute Commons debate on the appointment of the new Sleazefinder-General was required...

But when?

The latest rumour is that the debate will not be held until there are nominations for all five members (including the chair) of the IPSA.

These have to be produced by the Speaker's Committee set up to deal with IPSA, and the membership has to include a senior judge, an NAO-qualified auditor and a former MP (but one who has not sat in the Commons in the past five years).

Two names are being bandied about for the emeritus MP: white-suited independent Martin Bell, or, intriguingly, Howard Flight, the Conservative who had his career cut short in the run-up to the last election, when he speculated about the possibility that a Conservative government might make deeper than advertised spending cuts.

It might be a while until a suitable panel of worthies is identified and vetted - the last thing anyone wants is a exclusive on their expenses.

So when the process is done, MPs can look forward to debating the whole lot in one big economy package. One day.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The Commons select committees swing back into action next week, with several promising-looking evidence sessions in prospect.

On Monday, the special investigating the police raid on the Commons office of the Conservative immigration spokesman Damian Green hears from...the police.

A galaxy of senior officers including the head of SO15 Counter-Terrorism Command, Commander Shaun Sawyer, former Assistant Commissioner of the Met Bob Quick and the inevitable Assistant Commissioner John "Yates of the Yard" Yates, who must, by now, be sick of the sight of Commons committee rooms.

Expect much of the attention to focus on the former Speaker Michael Martin's claim that the police "bamboozled" the of the Commons, Jill Pay, into allowing a search of Mr Green's office. It is a claim the Met have firmly rejected.

Wednesday sees the intervening where angels fear to tread with a hearing entitled Evidence Check: Homeopathy. The British Homeopathic Association squares up against a whole phalanx of scientists and pharmaceutical types, plus Ben Goldacre, the author of the Guardian's Bad Science column. It could get brutal.

Also this week, two pre-appointment hearings. The is talking to Poul Christensen, the government's preferred candidate for the chair of Natural England; and the is talking to Lord Lang of Monckton, who is expected to take the chair of the Advisory Committee on business appointments.

In both cases, the committee may raise a quizzical eyebrow. Not because of any doubt about either individual, but because there are questions - and complaints - that the selection process was not sufficiently open. Both committees may endorse the candidates before them. But if they don't it will stoke a growing grumble in select committee-land.

Back in October the questioned whether Maggie Atkinson would be sufficiently independent as Children's Commissioner, only for the Secretary of State, Ed Balls, to appoint her anyway. It raised the question: why bother with pre-appointment hearings, if the government simply rejects unwelcome verdicts?

And the question will surface again, if the same thing happens over either of these posts. Of course select committees don't have US Congress style "advise and consent" powers to vet and, if they choose, reject government appointees, so Mr Balls was quite within his rights to ignore his departmental select committee. But a new front may be about to open in the struggle to empower the Commons.

Imagine if MPs did have the right to block the appointment of powerful quangocrats, industry regulators and the like.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

A red letter day in the House of Lords, next Wednesday (25 November).

Peers will be debating the business, economic affairs, consumer affairs and culture section of the Queen's Speech.

And as if that were not treat enough, we can look forward to two maiden speeches - from the new enterprise tsar, "Surrallan", now Lord Sugar, and the former Speaker Michael, now Lord, Martin.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Forget the Expenses Parliament. The current Parliament should go down in history as the Revolting Parliament. The authoritative website reveals that the House of Commons elected in 2005 is set fair to go down in history as the most rebellious ever - even eclipsing the 2001-2005 Parliament, when there was a rebellion by government MPs in 20.8% of divisions.

Up to now there has been a rebellion in 27% of divisions, although the figure may come down a bit, because typically, rebellion simmers down a bit in the final months of a parliament.

Just to keep things in perspective: 42 of the 74 revolts in the last year involved fewer than 10 Labour MPs. The two largest revolts both involved 30 Labour MPs defying the whips. One came on 17 March this year, on an amendment by Labour's , proposing the abolition of the lower rate of Jobseekers' Allowance for 18 to 25-year-olds. The second was on amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill, last week, deleting the proposal to allow secret inquiries to replace Coroners' inquests. That rebellion proved a narrow squeak for the government, reducing its majority to just eight.

Evidence

Then there were the two successful rebellions - on the Liberal Democrat motion calling for improved rights to live in Britain for former Gurkha soldiers and on a clause in the Parliamentary Standards Bill which would have permitted Parliamentary debates to be used as evidence in court.

And don't forget the changes in government policy which don't show up in the figures, because they were prompted by fear of defeat - most spectacularly over the part-privatisation of the Royal Mail, where ministers took a bill through the Lords, but didn't bring it before the Commons after 146 MPs signed a motion against in favour of continued public ownership.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I don't know how many people outside the Westminster village will be waiting, teeth a-gleam, to discover the full content of the Queen's Speech.

According to the batting order for today's ceremony, all should be revealed from 11.37am, when Her Majesty addresses the combined Houses of Parliament from the throne, in the House of Lords.

But this year there will be one interesting historical parallel. Striding alongside such figures as the Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, Thomas Woodcock, and the Clarenceaux King of Arms, Hubert Chesshyre, in the Sovereign's Procession, will be the Lord President of the Council, . Sixty years ago, it was his famous grandfather Herbert Morrison, Lord President in Clement Attlee's government, who processed alongside George VI.

The parallels don't end there. This year is the 60th anniversary of the second Parliament Act (1949) which cut the House of Lords' power to delay legislation from two years to one - a bill piloted through the Commons by Herbert Morrison. Not a lot of people know that.

TV cameras

And it's more or less the 20th anniversary of the of the House of Commons, which followed the State Opening in 1989, when the late Ian Gow made the first televised speech in the Chamber.

One other point of ceremonial. A custom that has become every bit as immovable as the carrying of the Cap of Maintenance (given to kings of England by the Pope, to symbolise their learning, since you ask....) is the annual Joke, which is shouted at Black Rod as he summons the Commons.

Previous shouts have included:

1992: "Tell her to pay her taxes," after revelations about the Royal income.
1997 "New Labour, New Black Rod..." a pun on Labour's election slogan, New Labour, New Britain.
2000 "Tell her to read The Guardian," because the newspaper was calling for the abolition of the monarchy.
2006 "Have you got Helen Mirren on standby," after the Oscar-winning film The Queen.

These always result in laughter, sometimes even a roar of laughter if the Beast of Bolsover gets his comic timing spot on.

Doubtless the next quip is already prepared...

UPDATE: This year's Dennis Skinner moment consisted of five rather doleful words: "Royal Expenses're on their way."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Now peers have sniggered their way through the faintly silly ritual of prorogation, Parliament is in limbo to await the state opening, and, of course, the Queen's Speech, which will set out the programme of lawmaking for the forthcoming parliamentary year.

The snag is that the next parliamentary year will be rudely interrupted by a general election, no later than 3 June. So most of the bills Her Majesty will list will not make it onto the statute books.

Typically a bill will take 10 weeks to pass through the Commons, and maybe eight more to clear the Lords.

After the state opening there will be four weeks legislating until the Christmas adjournment, which starts on 17 December. One week or so will be taken up debating the Queen's Speech....so that leaves three weeks for actual legislation, minus opposition days, ministerial statements and the like.

Calendar

MPs return to Westminster on 5 January, and must expect Parliament to be dissolved for the next election by early May at the absolute latest. There will be an Easter break and a mid-February "constituency week", which suggests there is time to get a handful of bills through, but nothing like a full list.

So I suspect we'll see some symbolic bills, designed to highlight election issues. Of course, there may be some necessary legislation the parties co-operate to get through - you could imagine some important technical measure to do with banking might fall into that category.

But we'll have to wait for the post-election Queen's Speech for the hard governing to resume.

So what delights can we look forward to? One of Gordon Brown's innovations when he became PM was to publish a Draft Legislative Programme - a kind of pre-Queen's Speech. It included some worthy measures that don't look likely to set the sparks flying:

- The Constitutional Renewal Bill is now in mid-consideration by the Commons and will be carried over from the current parliamentary year. Because it has a head start, it has an excellent change of becoming law.
- The Bribery Bill (previously published in draft, was sent away to be re-written). It may include a ban on bribing foreign officials in their own countries, the difficulty being that what might be an expected level of hospitality in some nations would be considered outright bribery if offered here.
- The Financial Services and Business Bill, which will give new powers to the Financial Services Authority and strengthen market regulation.
- The Digital Economy Bill, which is UK-wide, covering everything from a clampdown on illegal file-sharing to promoting non-´óÏó´«Ã½ regional news services, to age-rating for video games.
- The Energy Bill will set out a new funding mechanism to promote carbon capture and storage to combat global warming.
- Flood and Water Management Bill (the result of the Pitt Review which followed the disastrous floods of 2007, giving local councils a lead role in flood prevention. It covers England and in some respects Wales.)
- Improving Schools and Safeguarding Children Bill (an England-only bill which will replace school league tables with school report cards; scrap the national literacy and numeracy strategies and bring in a new framework to enable the media to report the proceedings from family courts.)
- Policing, Crime and Private Security Bill. It applies to England and Wales, and in some respects Northern Ireland. It covers matters ranging from cutting bureaucratic burdens on police to compelling sex offenders convicted abroad to give DNA samples when they return to the UK, to regulating private wheel-clamping firms.
- Cluster Munitions Prohibition Bill will ratify the international Convention on Cluster Munitions, which bans the use, development, production, acquisition, retention, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster bombs.

There are also four draft Bills in the DLP:

- House of Lords Reform Bill
- Antarctica Bill
- Immigration Simplification Bill
- Civil Law Reform Bill

Apparently we won't be seeing an Electoral Reform Bill, providing for a referendum on changing the voting system....

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A small cloud on the horizon for Sir Ian Kennedy, chairman-designate of IPSA, the .

As I mentioned last week, his appointment has to be formally approved by the Commons. Normally this sort of thing is done without debate.

At the end of a long day's legislating, a clerk will read out a series of outstanding bills and motions, and unless someone shouts "object" they go through on the nod.

It's an unobtrusive process. More gnarled readers may recall that, a couple of years ago, David Maclean's bill to exempt MPs from freedom of information legislation was nodded through to committee consideration, without a second reading debate, because, mysteriously, the whips who normally object to such things and consign them to oblivion, failed to do so. (That bill died an ignominious death, when no peer could be found to take it through the Lords.)

Track record

But those who know their procedural games are evidently ready to pounce. This morning , the doyen of the Tory awkward squad, signalled his interest by asking when the motion to appoint Sir Ian would appear. He has a track record. Earlier this year, he kept on objecting to a motion to allow the UK Youth Parliament to meet in the Commons chamber, until the powers-that-be gave up trying to slip the proposal through, and conceded it had to be debated. I suspect he has the same objective in mind - a debate on Sir Ian and by extension on IPSA and MPs expenses and all the rest.

A chance for the aggrieved to vent their fury?

Update

Parliament is now in limbo, but Friday's Today in Parliament carries manfully on.

At 11.30pm on Friday, Robert Orchard asks if it's last post for the Royal Mail - and he traces the long saga of the attempts to privatise it under Conservative and Labour governments. Michael Heseltine, Kenneth Clark and Richard Hooper - and a host of rebellious backbench MPs are among the guests.

Meanwhile blogging here will resume next week, when MPs return to Westminster.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The has bounced back from the Commons to the Lords, with several emotive issues still in play.

Both Houses have to agree the final form of any bill and this is proving quite a good example of the way the Lords can force the Commons to look again - and sometimes extract concessions, as the deadline of draws closer.

Already the bill has changed a lot with new clauses creating a specialist Treasure coroner (a major triumph for one of Parliament's most effective lobby groups, the fiendishly tenacious All Party Archaeology Group) and new laws against people being held in "servitude".

Here's the scorecard on the remaining issues outstanding:

Secret Inquests
A term the Lord Chancellor Jack Straw insists "parodies" what he is actually proposing.

The issue is how to ensure that highly-sensitive intelligence gathering techniques are not compromised if the intelligence they produce is central to determining the cause of death in an inquest, and so, unavoidably, has to be revealed to a coroner and jury.

The government has now produced a new compromise amendment strengthening the "judicial lock" on the decisions to have an inquiry rather than a normal inquest, so the Lord Chief Justice, the head of the judiciary, has to approve the displacement of an inquest by an inquiry, and approve the choice of the presiding judge (a solution first proposed by the former Conservative spokesman, Lord Kingsland, who died in July).

This approach was approved by the Lords when the Conservatives decided they had taken the matter as far as they could and abstained - although the Liberal Democrats Lady Miller did continue to resist, and the Crossbencher Lord Pannick, a human rights barrister, remained pretty queasy. Expect it to be finally approved by the Commons on Thursday.

Sexual infidelity

Sexual infidelity provoking "loss of control" as a partial defence to murder. The Commons opposes allowing such a defence to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter; the Lords think it should be there. MPs voted 299-145 to disagree with Lords amendment that sexual infidelity could be a "qualifying trigger" to the murder defence of loss of control.

Despite arguments from the Liberal Democrat Lord Thomas of Gresford that the law of provocation was a mess and that the government was merely tinkering with an area that required fundemental reform, the Conservatives Spokesman Lord Henley said his party would abstain - he doubted sending the clause back to the Commons would change any minds.

Again the Lords drew back from a further clash with the government.

Homophobic hatred

The Lords voted through an amendment reintroducing the free speech proviso to the offence of inciting homophobic hatred.

The Commons disagreed by 342-145. The result was an extremely sparky mini-debate which included the former Chief Inspector of Constabulary Geofffrey Dear saying to Lord Bach, the Justice Minister, that in another era he would have sent his seconds to call on him (to arrange a duel). That was after Lord Bach questioned his claim that the police supported the amendment.

All the speakers for the amendment, proposed by the former Conservative Home Secretary Lord Waddington, emphasised they were not in favour of homophobia, let alone of homophobic violence. They argued that without a guarantee of free speech built into the law, criticism of sexual practice which did not seek to incite hatred, would be inhibited. And they won the day by 179 votes to 135.

The government now has to consider whether or not to try and reverse their vote in the Commons, with only one day of the current parliamentary session left.

So there will be a nail-biting bit of parliamentary brinkmanship to savour on Thursday, before the session ends with the clerks in the Lords reading mysterious incantations in Norman French. Both Houses have spent a lot of time on this bill - I wonder who'll blink first.

UPDATE: I understand the government is not going to seek to overturn the Waddington amendment in the Commons. Having won on two other issues, they're conceding on this one.

Which may have something to do with Jack Straw's presence in the Lords Chamber, sitting on the steps of the throne. Presumably, he saw the strength of Lord Waddington's support and decided their Lordships' heels were now dug firmly into the ground.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Some fascinating suggestions on slimmer government from Sir John Major.

As I predicted, to dispense when he appeared at the Public Administration Select Committee yesterday. He made the point that a lot of ministers exist almost solely to ensure that government departments are accountable in both Lords and Commons.

And if the rules were changed so that all ministers were able to speak and answer questions in both houses, we wouldn't need so many of them. Between a quarter and a third could be culled, he thought.

Sharpening his axe, he then suggested that only cabinet ministers should have a PPS, or . A PPS is supposed to be the link-person between the minister and parliamentary opinion; it's normally the first step towards an actual ministerial job, and - crucially - PPS's are members of the government, and are bound by collective responsibility. In other words, they have to support every dot and comma of government policy, without question or reservation, at least in public.

So, between all the ministers and PPS's a large chunk of the Commons is bound not to question the government. And Sir John thinks that's unhealthy.

Salary proposal

But if there are to be fewer jobs as ministers and their bag-carriers, MPs need some alternative career ladder to climb. So he suggests extra salaries for chairs and vice-chairs of select committees - even paying the most senior select committee chair, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the same salary as a cabinet minister.

In return, they would take a bigger role in scrutinising bills, before they're formally put to Parliament. And to make sure there's plenty to scrutinise, he thinks governments should switch from publishing a year's legislative programme, in the annual Queen's Speech, to publishing a four or five-year programme, when they take office.

It might not defuse real political controversy but it could smooth out bad drafting and forestall unexpected consequences to new laws.

Everyone's in favour of slimmer government and a stronger parliament. In theory. But the Major Plan means fewer career baubles to hand out. Will any future
government bite that particular bullet?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Meanwhile, Sir Christopher Kelly (author of last week's much-leaked report on reforming MPs' expenses) and Sir Ian Kennedy (chief executive-designate of the , the new Commons ethics watchdog) have "held their first meeting to discuss the way forward on reforms of MPs' expenses and allowances", an IPSA press release reveals.

A press interview this weekend suggested Sir Ian was for Sir Christopher's reform proposals.

"It was a good and friendly meeting," the press release continues. "Both Sir Christopher and Sir Ian are clear about the task ahead and the direction of travel."

"The [Kelly] report contains recommendations that now require detailed work by IPSA. IPSA must also by law consult on the new scheme for allowances. There is a lot of work to do, and Sir Christopher and Sir Ian expect to meet regularly."

And, as they say when trouble's brewing in footballing circles: "The chairman has full confidence in the manager".

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The Labour backbencher, , has tabled an Early Day Motion calling for a Commons debate on Afghanistan - so far it's attracted 19 Labour signatures.

EDMs, as the cognisant know, are motions to be debated on an early day, which through the mysteries of Commons procedure never actually arrives.

This one has attracted a distinguished contingent of awkward squad MPs: Frank Field, Alan Simpson, Kim Howells, Peter Kilfoyle, John McDonnell, Diane Abbott, Colin Challen, Katy Clark, Harry Cohen, Frank Cook, Jeremy Corbyn, David Drew, Mark Fisher, Neil Gerrard, Greg Pope, David Taylor, Derek Wyatt and Rudi Vis.

They're calling for a debate soon after next week's state opening of the 2009-10 session of Parliament, on the UK's role in Afghanistan, the objectives of this intervention and the timescale over which the government believes these goals will be achieved.

And they want that debate to be is based on a motion that is amendable, presumably so they can have their own views voted upon; and they want the prime minister to open it.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Former PM Sir John Major will be in front of the today to give his thoughts on the currently fashionable practice of taking experts from outside Parliament into government, as advisors, "tsars" and even ministers via a swiftly presented peerage.

Gordon Brown has used this method ennobling such luminaries as Digby Jones, the former CBI Boss, Lord Darzi (who continued to practice as a surgeon, while serving as a Health minister) and Admiral Lord West, who is still serving as Security Minister in the Home Office.

Right for the job

But why ask Sir John about all this? Well, back in July he and his former Foreign Secretary Lord Hurd wrote an article arguing for the appointment of ministers who do not sit in either House of Parliament.

"No-one has been speaking up for change to improve the quality of government as a whole," they wrote. "No one asks the critical question: who is best for this particular job? It is as if the actual daily work of ministers - the analysis of advice and taking of decisions - is peripheral, whereas it should be the point of their existence."

Several witnesses to this inquiry have argued that prime ministers should be able to call upon a wider "gene pool". Tony Blair's former chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, told the committee that incoming governments tended to have a "very thin layer of talent" to choose from in consequence of having been in opposition for a long period.

But I wonder who Sir John's fantasy cabinet appointment would have been, if he had started the vogue for teleporting non-parliamentarians into government, back in the 1990s?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The "secret inquests" issue in the turns out to be fantastically intricate.

It is how to deal with inquests where intercept evidence from the police or security services is central to determining the cause of death.

A rather weary Jack Straw, the Lord Chancellor, says he's been "up hill and down dale" in trying to find a mechanism which complied with the European Declaration on Human Rights, while still preserving the essential security of intelligence gathering techniques.

He says his proposals have been "parodied" as secret inquests. Bob Marshall-Andrews, on his own benches, and Dominic Grieve, from the Conservative front bench, both remain very worried. They want to kick the bill back to the Lords to give the government time to think of a new mechanism.

Security risks

Watching Jack Straw in action in this kind of debate is always impressive; he's a master of his brief, courteous and cool. He argues that there does need to be a mechanism which avoids security risks in cases where wiretap evidence or whatever is central to determining how someone died.

He insisted, repeatedly, that cases would very occasionally arise and that the government couldn't simply wing it. But tonight he had a lot of critics. Bob Marshall-Andrews called it a "grotesquely overstated problem".

Andrew Dismore described a case in his constituency where a man was shot dead by police during the course of a drugs operation. Surveillance evidence had been involved, but no inquest had been held to explain what happened. Mark Durkan, leader of the SDLP, weighed in with the experience of the Troubles.

An amendment from Mr Dismore which would have, in effect thrown the issue back to the House of Lords, was defeated by just eight votes.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

End of term Parliamentary ping pong begins in earnest today, as the House of Commons gears up to reverse some of the more controversial changes made by peers to the .

This behemoth of a bill could see clashes between Lords and Commons on several fronts - but the one to watch looks like the issue of secret inquests.

Peers didn't like the proposal for the Lord Chancellor to require that sensitive inquests be dealt with as private inquiries. But in the Commons this evening the government will ask MPs to reinstate the proposal.

Resistance will come from some members of the , with its chairman, the Labour MP Andrew Dismore to the fore.

Interestingly, the Conservatives have their own proposal, which allows secret inquests - but gives a judge the final say on whether a particular case should be heard behind closed doors. In other words, ministers won't decide.

This is one of the bills on which the Commons and Lords may not easily agree - so the bill could bounce between the two houses late into the night, perhaps late into several nights, this week. I'll report back...

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The Defence Minister Lord Drayson has just spent a very painful day in the House of Lords, listening to a succession of massively senior retired generals and admirals kicking the living daylights out of the government's handling of over the last few years.

The assault culminated in a withering denunciation by the former First Sea Lord and Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Boyce. He accused the government of dodging unpleasant choices about big equipment programmes, resulting in a spending squeeze which was now affecting front line operations.

Cut its cloth?

"Today we have a defence train crash, long predicted and exacerbated by ministers' reluctance to take hard programme decisions, which all simply adds more negative to the bottom line.

"It's too much to hope that the present government will provide the necessary cash to allow its aspirations to be realised properly or honourable. It's too much to hope alternatively that it will cut its cloth, not least by not evading issues, such as commissioning a rather than gripping the problem now," he said.

"The government can take little satisfaction in the way they have handled defence over the last decade, and where there has been a demonstrable lack of commitment, so evident, and which has brought defence to the parlous state it is in today.

"From one end of the spectrum where cadet forces have been denied training because of contraction of funding, to the TA having their pre-deployment training cut by half, even after the so-called reinstatement of the TA budget last week...through the incoherence of the equipment programme, where the endless re-profiling to conceal the bankruptcy of the department, and to avoid taking unpalatable decisions because of potential political fallout is adding cost upon cost..."

And there were several more bitterly critical speeches from others with military credentials.

Lord Drayson - who enjoys a formidable reputation as an administrator and is a much improved parliamentarian - displayed no visible contusions, and he fought the government's corner. But few ministers have faced such a corrosive, footnoted onslaught. He promised to study everything said in the debate.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

On tonight's Today in Parliament, at 11.30pm on ´óÏó´«Ã½ Radio 4: the backbencher you can't avoid on Commons Fridays, why the next Parliament may be the most Eurosceptic since Britain joined Europe, and a cunning plan to reform the House of Lords... a bit, anyway.

And tomorrow morning on Radio 4, a real gem. The Week in Westminster, which is almost certainly the world's longest running political programme (unless, of course, you know different), celebrates its 80th anniversary.

Woman's hour?

Originally, it was aimed at women - the programme makers hoping they would listen on a Wednesday morning "while they had their cup of tea".

Now it is broadcast on a Saturday morning at 11am and presented by political journalists. Tomorrow, Peter Oborne will be digging through the archives to tell the story of its birth and development.

Its presenters have ranged from Nancy Astor to Boris Johnson, while one of the producers was the notorious Cambridge spy, Guy Burgess.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Four days of tidying up next week, before the parliamentary year comes to an end.

Most of the time this will consist of the fairly brisk rubber-stamping of changes made to bills in the House of Lords. So:

On Monday, we'll see Culture, Media and Sport Questions, followed by consideration of Lords to the Coroners and Justice Bill.

Similarly, in the Lords, peers will consider Commons amendments to the Health Bill and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill.

On Tuesday, we'll have Justice Questions, then consideration of Lords amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill, followed by Lords amendments to the Health Bill - followed by, if necessary, Lords amendments to the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Bill.

In the Lords, peers will finish their consideration of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill and debate select committee reports on Fast Track legislation and European issues.

On Wednesday we'll see Welsh Questions and PMQs, then consideration of Lords amendments to Apprenticeship, Skills and Learning Bill; followed by, if necessary, Lords amendments to other bills.

In the Lords there will be the third reading debate on the Policing and Crime Bill, followed by consideration of Commons amendments to the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, and possibly the Coroners and Justice Bill. And maybe other Commons amendments to other bills as well.

Thursday - if necessary - consideration of Lords amendments to the Policing and Crime Bill; followed by Lords amendments to any bills still not polished off.

The Lords will be on hand if any Commons amendments to remaining bills need to be approved.

When everything is finished the ceremony of is performed, with a "commission" of senior peers, usually the party leaders in the Lords dissolve Parliament on behalf of the Queen.

They will be wearing full regalia and the ceremonial requires much doffing of cocked hats (honestly!) as various incantations in Norman French are pronounced by the clerks. You can usually hear a bit of giggling in the background. Then they all go home until the state opening on 18 November.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The mammoth is the gift that keeps on giving. It covers all kinds of different and controversial subjects, and has already been massively amended by the Lords.

My spies tell me it's now in a terrible procedural tangle, after their Lordships defeated the government over the issue of secret inquests in sensitive cases where, for example, there might be national security implications.

Somehow the House failed to pass what are known in the trade as the "consequential amendments". The result? The bill still contains clauses referring back to a section of it that has been removed. It's a mess.

What next?

And apparently it can't be resolved by passing the necessary tidying-up amendments at Third Reading - the House officials say that would be out of order. So the only alternative is to sort things out in the process of "ping-pong," where changes made in the Lords are cleared (or not) with the Commons.

And that could be tricky, because "ping-pong" amendments are only supposed to relate to matters of disagreement between the two houses.

So not only will the parties be playing their usual games of legislative brinkmanship, in the run-up to , the end of the parliamentary year, but they'll also be walking a precarious procedural tightrope.

Should be fun.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Only three days of select committee business next week, because the parliamentary year is timetabled to .

But those three days promise plenty of edifying committee action...

Monday sees the continuation of the riveting Privilege Committee inquiry into the police raid on the parliamentary office of the Conservative immigration spokesman Damien Green, a year ago.

What's made these hearings so fascinating is the prolonged and searching cross-examinations administered by the battery of high powered barristers on the committee - Michael Howard, Ming Campbell and Malcolm Rifkind - which have been much more exacting that most select committee interrogation.

This week's session saw Lord Martin, the former Speaker, .

This coming Monday they'll hear from Commons insiders including some of the people Lord Martin blamed: Dr Malcolm Jack, clerk of the House, Jacqy Sharpe, clerk of committees, Michael Carpenter, Speaker's counsel, and Veronica Daly, assistant Speaker's counsel; followed by Sir William McKay, a former clerk of the House.

Sensitive topic

Elsewhere, the continuing its inquiry into the Sure Start programme, which aims to boost the educational attainment of children in deprived areas.

It's a sensitive political topic, and, in this session, they'll be interviewing one of the founding brains behind Sure Start, Naomi Eisenstadt, former head of the Sure Start Unit, by videoconference from New York.

The will be turning its spotlight on the government's efforts to encourage more people, particularly children to visit museums - the suggestion being that the figures don't justify the amount that's been spent.

Tuesday sees the return to the Committee corridor of Yates of the Yard: Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner John Yates.

He's quite an old hand at appearing before select committees, after a number of interrogations over assorted scandals which came to the attention of the constabulary.

But on this occasion he'll be giving evidence about the Home Office's response to terrorist attacks. And the committee will also take evidence on the cocaine trade, from the Columbian Ambassador, His Excellency, Mauricio Rodriguez-Munera.

The touchy question of bringing in non-parliamentarians to serve as ministers, usually by catapulting them into the House of Lords, is being pondered by the . And they'll hear from a very eminent witness, the former Prime Minister Sir John Major.

But the biggest fish of all is the Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth, who'll make his debut before the . Formally, he'll be giving evidence on the Green Paper and readiness and recuperation of the armed forces.

In practice, that means he'll face all kinds of difficult questions about Afghanistan.

And look out for the Joint Human Rights Committee's continuing inquiry into the ructions at the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Having faced some brutal criticisms from ex-colleagues who've now resigned from the Board, its chair Trevor Phillips will give his account of the problems in the new super-equality quango.

Omagh inquiry

On Wednesday, the Northern Ireland Committee will hear from the former head of the Serious Crimes Unit in the PSNI, Norman Baxter and the detective heading the Omagh Bombing inquiry David McWilliams. This is part of their inquiry into Omagh - a decade after the bomb.

The will be hearing from the train operating companies in their inquiry into priorities for investment in the railways.

And the Public Accounts Committee will be asking whether the £1.5bn Train to Gain programme has simply resulted in many employers getting public money for training programmes that would have happened without it.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The Speaker John Bercow has confirmed that Sir Ian Kennedy is chairman-designate of the new MPs watchdog, the (IPSA).

A noisy House became noisier still as he announced that Sir Ian's salary would be "no more than £100,000". That is, of course, rather more than MPs get. The appointment has to be confirmed by the House before he can be formally appointed by the Queen.

I wonder if there will be a vote...all it will take is for someone to shout "object" at the right moment.

Sir Ian has just issued this statement: "I am starting work immediately. I met the officials supporting me this morning and have given them clear instructions on the way forward.

"Public faith in Parliament has been severely hit by the events of the last few months and I have no illusions about the scale of the task ahead. It will take time and effort to earn back the trust that has been lost. MPs must be able to fulfil their important public work, both representing their constituents and fulfilling their parliamentary duties. We must set out a framework which allows them to do so and which reflects the concerns of the public.

"The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority must now establish a new system of MPs' allowances. It must be fair and effective, and also respond to the public's concerns. This work is already underway, and I and my colleagues will ensure that it is taken forward with rigour, pace and objectivity, listening all the way to the public."

Meanwhile Harriet Harman, the Leader of the House, has confirmed the Kelly proposals on reforming MPs allowances will not be voted on by the Commons.

Gordon Brown and David Cameron have both pledged to support .

The only real traction MPs have over the process is through the Speakers Committee on IPSA. Its members are a pretty senior bunch - Sir Stuart Bell, Liz Blackman and Don Touhig for Labour; Sir George Young for the Conservatives and the Lib Dem Nick Harvey.

Nick Harvey, older hands will remember, was the architect of a rather less stringent package of expenses reforms that was voted down by insurgent backbenchers - a vote I suspect a few of them rather regret.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

UPDATE: current and future SpAds can breathe again.

Last night a detailed amendment from the Labour MP Kelvin Hopkins was debated - a bit, anyway - but not pushed to a vote.

Money quote from Mr Hopkins: "Some of the special advisers in Downing Street [under Tony Blair] were actually giving instructions over the heads of ministers.

"At least two former senior ministers are on record as complaining that their role was being marginalised.

"They were being kept out of the picture because policy was being passed from Downing Street direct to the civil servants by special advisers almost making the ministers irrelevant. I am glad to say that has changed."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A small frisson of excitement in the unpromising-looking Committee Stage debate on the in the Commons today.

MPs are discussing the section on the Civil Service, which includes regulations governing the conduct of Special Advisors, (SpAds) the political appointees who advise ministers.

Should they have the right to issue orders to civil servants? (There was a Royal Order in Council issued to empower Alastair Campbell to do so, when he became the media supremo in Tony Blair's Downing Street.)

Should they be banned from authorising the spending of public money? Should their code of conduct be made statutory? Should they be banned from any role in the appraisal or promotion of civil servants? Should their numbers be capped to stop the public paying for an ever-expanding class of appointed political officials?

Hopes dashed

The Liberal Democrats David Howarth and David Heath are behind the last one. And my spies tell me that, should the Conservatives decide to favour it, Labour's high command has at least discussed the idea of letting it through - thereby squelching the career hopes of various SpAds-apparent, who're expecting to follow their shadow minister into government.

And the same goes for any number of other restrictions that would be just as irksome to the next government as they would be for the current one - a future Labour opposition might rather enjoy seeing a future Conservative government squirming in a hair shirt of its own tailoring.

Mind you, the Conservatives might retort that all such manoeuvres prove is that the government's expecting to lose.

Of course with a fairly tough guillotine in force, limiting the time available for debate, those amendments may never be reached.... I'll report back.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Thanks to a succession of leaks, we may know the gory details of the Kelly clampdown on , but the statement on his proposals by the Commons leader Harriet Harman will still be well worth watching for what promises to be a barrage of complaint.

The proposals require not only belt tightening but also if the ban on employing family members comes in.

And the complaints will be all the sourer because MPs can't do anything about the proposals.

IPSA, the independent parliamentary standards authority, will devise and administer the new MPs expenses scheme.

The passed earlier this year provides that the IPSA must consult MPs when drawing up the expenses regime, but not seek their final approval - MPs have agreed the Parliamentary Standards Act that takes the setting of their expenses out of their hands.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Is a touch of pre-electoral tension seeping into the select committees? A few of them are launching inquiries which could rub salt into some sensitive political issues.

The will be looking at the bankers bonuses paid by the considerable number of financial institutions now owned by the taxpayer, when John Kingman, chief executive of the state-holding company UK Financial Investments, comes before them on Wednesday. An inquiry that could be painful for someone.

Trouble looming?

And with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty looming, removing the national veto from justice issues in the EU, the will begin an inquiry into plans to harmonise parts of member states' justice systems, which should keep the Lisbon pot bubbling nicely.

Backtracking to the Education Committee, which is also looking at Child Protection, I understand they may soon be hearing from Sharon Shoesmith, the former boss of children's services at Haringey Council who was sacked in the wake of the death of Baby P.

A scarcely noticed session of the Joint Committee on Human Rights where several board members have resigned. Their account of events .

But be warned, it isn't pretty. Trevor Phillips is due to give his account of events on 10 November. I imagine they're selling tickets....

Also - as MPs contemplate allowing cabinet ministers who are peers to answer questions in their chamber, eroding a jealously guarded rule that only they can speak there - Transport Secretary Andrew Adonis will submit himself to a Question Time with the .

His enthusiasm for the occasion is said to be "palpable."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A rather fag-end feel to the business for the week beginning on Monday 2 November. It's the parliamentary ping-pong season, in which bills bounce between Commons and Lords as MPs and peers try to agree outstanding changes made by one house or the other.

The Commons Order Paper is dotted with phrases about "Remaining Stages" where the House completes its consideration of a bill.

Another recurring feature is Consideration of Lords Amendments (if necessary). No bill can become law until it has been accepted in identical form by both, and, as the deadline for draws nigh, their Lordships often indulge in a bit of noble brinkmanship.

If the music stops before a bill is agreed, the bill is dead. The second reading debates, the committee stages, the report and third readings are all in vain, if final agreement between the two Houses is not reached.

And the only way the Commons can get its bill through is by invoking the and passing the identical bill again....a waste of time and effort that whips and ministers hate.

Waiting

So MPs and Peers will spend a lot of time in the remaining days before prorogation waiting around for "messages" from the other House. The annunciators - the green and red TV monitors which tell people what's going on in either House - will frequently flash up the rather Carry-On sounding message "House Adjourned During Pleasure".

Every now and then, MPs will thunder denunciations of the ermine clad obstacles to their will (actually their Lordships almost never wear ceremonial robes, and hate it when any story about the Lords is illustrated with pictures of the State Opening - when they do). Peers respond with a touch of ennui, and a couple of weary epigrams about the oiks in the Commons. And behind the scenes, the whips and business managers scurry about negotiating deals. Thus is the law of the land made.

So what's on?

Anyway, the week's business starts on Monday with the Commons polishing off the , which deals with the legal rules around particular bequests and trust funds, before moving on to a general debate on anti-social behaviour.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the whole House will resolve itself into a to ponder the detail of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. This is the normal drill when the Commons deals with constitutional issues.

This bill deals with such matters as the independence of the civil service, the conduct of ministerial special advisors (SpAds), ratification of treaties, the appointment of judges and protests around Parliament.

The bill was published in draft, but this version adds some new stuff about the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General (the formidable finance watchdog who heads the National Audit Office and reports to the powerful Public Accounts Committee of the Commons) and - interestingly - the composition of the House of Lords: removing the last 92 hereditary .

They're a hangover from the removal of the majority of the old aristocracy from the upper house. A deal was cut to waft that reform through without the need to invoke the Parliament Act. And now the government wants to end it by what is politely referred to as "natural wastage" or, to put it more brutally, allowing them to die off.

So they're proposing to stop the rather bizarre system of by-elections to replace departed hereditaries. No tumbrils will be involved.

On Thursday, the Commons debates climate change in advance of the , which some are billing as the last chance to save the world from runaway global warming. Some pre-election knockabout is distinctly possible - the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, majored on this issue in PMQs, and the Conservatives have been keen to stress their green credentials.

Over in the Lords, the business before peers has a similarly end-of-term flavour. Detailed work on the on Monday, followed by the Welfare Reform Bill and the Policing and Crime Bill on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, peers turn to the vast Coroners and Justice Bill, which covers subjects ranging from the legal definition of murder, through to secret inquests, to the creation of a specialist treasure coroner to deal with discoveries like the recent Staffordshire Hoard.

On the same day there's the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, another mega-measure. And on Thursday another bite of the Policing and Crime Bill.

Their Lordships are also sitting on Friday, when the Defence Minister Lord Drayson will answer a debate on the Armed Forces and future defence policy. More to come on this...

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?