Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords] — [3rd Allotted Day] — New Clause 9 — Disqualification from holding further ministerial office — 1 Mar 2005 at 17:30
James Cran MP, Beverley and Holderness voted in the minority (Aye).
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is necessary to return to some of the basic issues surrounding the Bill to understand why we tabled the new clause. The old structure of the Lord Chancellor provided, as we have debated peripherally this afternoon, that he was a judge first and foremost. He was a judge with a hybrid role, because as well as sitting as the head of the judiciary and a Law Lord, and being Speaker of the House of Lords, he was a Minister.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-
This clause prevents the Lord Chancellor (head of the judiciary) from taking ministerial office. The Lord Chancellor is clearly in a position of great importance. This clause is designed to prevent him from being influenced by political pressure or pressure from constituants. Those voting Aye in this division agreed that the Lord Chancellor should not also be a Minister.
The Committee divided: Ayes 167, Noes 283.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||125 (+2 tell)||0||78.9%|
|Lab||278 (+2 tell)||0||0||68.6%|
|Simon Thomas||Ceredigion||PC (front bench)||no|