John Bercow faces investigation over bullying allegations after House of Lords agrees to change rules : The Telegraph


John Bercow could be investigated over past allegations of bullying after the House of Lords agreed to change its rules amid new complaints against the former Speaker.

Source: John Bercow faces investigation over bullying allegations after House of Lords agrees to change rules : The Telegraph

On Byline Times: Johnson’s power grab over EU withdrawal bill revealed by Lords report


Westminster Confidential

Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn at Queen’s Speech. Pic credit: UK Parliament/ Jessica Taylor

Boris Johnson thought he had got away with Parliament not being able to scrutinise his EU Withdrawal bill by calling an election. But on the last day of Parliament the House of Lords rumbled him and their analysis does not paint a pretty picture. Full report on Byline Times.

For purists actual House of Lords Constitution Committee report here.

View original post

The Supreme Court’s ruling. Why not now go all the way – and let Bercow deliver the Queen’s Speech? | Conservative Home


‘Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows’.

Those are the words of the Enacting Formula – the standard pattern of words which, with certain variations, precede the clauses of Bills at Westminster.  In a single sentence, they capture the meaning of Parliamentary sovereignty.

They clearly don’t say that the legislature is the only source of this sovereignty – in other words, of law-making power.  Rather, they tell a story.  It is one of that power being shared by the Queen, through the executive branch of government, with the legislature.

That’s why it’s said that we’re governed by the Queen-in-Parliament: it is the place where the monarch, her Government, and the legislature come together.  Parliament should work with harmony of a stately dance (come to think of it, “stately” is le mot juste), in which each dancer has his or her part to play.  Some of the most riveting steps in their movements came about because of the English Civil War. The dance continues to this day.

The best way of understanding the Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday is to grasp that it reads the dance very differently – and, frankly, wrongly. “As long ago as 1611,” its ruling declared, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”.  The Court clearly has that civil war, and long-run up to it, very much in mind.

But the King (or, in this case, the Queen) is no longer “the government” – a truth that the learned judges seem to have forgotten as soon as they uttered it.  Government is now a shared exercise between “the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty” and those “Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons”.  Or, to put it another way, Boris Johnson in no way resembles a Stuart Monarch.  Quite apart from anything else, Charles I did not offer the Roundheads the chance to vote him out of office.

Neither is Dominic Grieve John Hampden; nor Lady Hale, Sir Edward Coke; nor Dominic Cummings “Black Tom Tyrant” – the Earl of Stafford, Charles I’s formidable adviser, who was eventually sacrificed as a scapegoat.  If anyone thought they were.  Above all, this Gollum of a Speaker is not, repeat not, John Lenthall.

 

Source: The Supreme Court’s ruling. Why not now go all the way – and let Bercow deliver the Queen’s Speech? | Conservative Home

Pensioners’ free TV licences should be abolished, says Lords committee | The Independent


Free TV licences for pensioners should be abolished, a Lords committee has recommended.

Other subsidies including free bus passes, winter fuel payments and the pensions triple lock should also be cut, the Committee on Intergenerational Fairness said.

Committee chairman Lord True said benefits must be rebalanced towards the young to prepare the country for 100-year lifespans.

“We are calling for some of the outdated benefits based purely on age to be removed,” he said. “Policies such as the state pension triple lock and free TV licences for over-75s were justified when pensioner households were at the bottom of the income scale but that is no longer the case.”

The report highlights how many pensioner households are now on average better off than many working age households, both in terms of income after housing costs as well as household wealth.

 

Source: Pensioners’ free TV licences should be abolished, says Lords committee | The Independent

Euro Parliament poll shows Labour must still honour Brexit referendum to win power


This poll shows clearly that support for Brexit has not waned, but this is not reflected in Parliament and certainly not in the Lords, so who will win the People or Parliament/Lords.

Unfortunately in both Houses they have their own agendas and Brexit is not in them.

For Brexit not to occur what will the outcome be for the Country and Parliament/Lords, perhaps the abolishment of at least one and maybe more.

sdbast

View original post

Unelected Lords guzzle champagne while hundreds of thousands are forced to turn to foodbanks


It is way gone the time when these antiquated privileges for the Lords and also the Commons should be removed.

Why should a persons place of employment or volunteer have a facility where these can consume liquor at very subsidised costs. At least make them pay the full costs, which should not be claimed on expenses, in fact expenses should also be withdrawn and the privilege of the bar withdrawn and maybe the restaurant as well.

Government suffers first defeat on DoLS replacement bill as peers amend deprivation of liberty test | Community Care


The government suffered its first defeat on its bill to replace the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) as peers voted to amend one of  the three conditions for authorising a deprivation under the proposed Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) system.

Labour, Liberal Democrat and crossbench peers outvoted the government on one of a number of amendments to the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill passed in the first day of the bill’s report stage in the House of Lords.

The bill originally stated that for care arrangements involving a deprivation of liberty to be authorised, the cared-for person must lack capacity to consent to the arrangements and be of unsound mind; and the arrangements must be necessary and proportionate.

Government defeat

The amendment, opposed by the government, altered the last criterion to state that it must be necessary “to prevent harm to the cared-for person”. An accompanying amendment that the authorisation be proportionate “in relation to the likelihood and seriousness of harm to the cared-for person” was then nodded through.

The revised wording restates part of the best interests requirement of an authorisation under the current DoLS system.

Junior health minister Lord O’Shaughnessy warned that the amendments risked emphasising harm to the cared-for person at the expense of other factors in the necessary and proportionate assessment, notably harm to others, preventing assessors from making balanced decisions. He said they risked perpetuating the “current confusion” in relation to DoLS cases that involved some harm to others, and risked an increase in usage of the Mental Health Act if the LPS were seen as being ruled out in such cases.

He said the government’s view was that the code of practice under the act – which local authorities, the NHS and other relevant bodies will have to take account of – should set out what factors to consider in a necessary and proportionate assessment.

‘Weakening of protections’

However, speaking for the amendments, Lib Dem Baroness Barker said the original necessary and proportionate requirement seemed to “be a weakening of the protections for an individual”, compared with DoLS, because it was not related directly to the cared-for person’s best interests.

She also stated that it should be harm to the person, rather than harm to others, that should be the focus of decision-making under LPS.

Barker also said that it was vital that this was written into the text of the bill, as opposed to the code of practice, so that it was legally enforceable.

“When there are arguments about whether a deprivation of liberty is lawful, those arguing the case, particularly judges, do not go to the code of practice but to the statute,” she added.

 

Source: Government suffers first defeat on DoLS replacement bill as peers amend deprivation of liberty test | Community Care

Government to amend deprivation of liberty scheme to cover 16- and 17-year-olds | Community Care


The government will amend its planned replacement to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) so that it applies to 16- and 17-year-olds, not just those over 18, a minister has confirmed.

Junior health minister Lord O’Shaughnessy pledged to amend the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill so that the proposed Liberty Protection Safeguards applied to young people aged 16 and 17, in a House of Lords debate on the bill yesterday (15 October).

The government had been criticised for excluding 16- and 17-year-olds from the scheme, particularly as they had been included in 2017 Law Commission proposals to replace DoLS that form the blueprint for the government’s plans.

 

Source: Government to amend deprivation of liberty scheme to cover 16- and 17-year-olds | Community Care

It’s my people who voted for Brexit. To call them racist is wrong and divisive : The Telegraph


Peter, now Lord, Mandelson and I have three things in common. Obviously, we’re both members of the House of Lords. Both of us were architects of New Labour (albeit in Peter’s case more prominently than in mine). And we are both better at giving other people advice than we are at taking it ourselves.

It is this third point that has made me think about the words used by Peter last week when he suggested that many supporters of Brexit were “nationalists” who “hate other countries” and “hate foreigners”.

We live in a time of what some people have called “edginess” that borders on something worse. The EU referendum is now the backdrop to everything, perceptible in that darkling of the divide between those who wished to stay within the European Union and those who wished to leave.

 

Source: It’s my people who voted for Brexit. To call them racist is wrong and divisive : The Telegraph