speech or those policies. This speech was followed by a talk, and question and answer session with John Bercow MP, Speaker of the House of Commons. The talk itself was very informative, and the question and answer session gave us a chance to learn more about the peculiarities of the role of Speaker. I asked him how the adversarial nature of Prime Minister’s Questions and layout of the House of Commons chamber affected the nature of British politics. Mr Bercow’s response was that he felt it had very little influence, and that the adversarial style of national politics in Britain had more to do with political tradition and the party system. In the evening we had a reception at Marlborough House with the Commonwealth Dignitaries. We had a lengthy question and answer session about the Commonwealth and its future, and then a buffet reception, with music provided by a chamber ensemble from the Commonwealth Youth Orchestra. The Thursday was essentially a full day of parliamentary sessions of various descriptions, which we were all eager to get into, after having spent the previous day preparing. The first session was a debate on the Throne Speech, held in the Grand Committee Room of the Palace of West Minster. The debate was of a very high standard, and quickly assumed the party political jibes of Prime Minister’s Questions. Some of the policies announced in the speech, such as compulsory registration of the media and not increasing social security payments drew fire from the opposition and independents, but overall, I think that as the government we held our own, and gained the upper hand towards the end of the session. This was followed by the debate on the Climate Change Bill for which we had drawn up amendments the previous day. This turned out to be another successful session for the
governments, with the opposition only winning two out of the numerous votes during the debate. The opposition had notably more success in the afternoon sessions. The first was a question time, with 20 questions asked by backbench members, with nearly all of the ministerial team answering questions about their remits. This was a lively session, with detailed and pointed
“The chance to stand at the dispatch box in the House of Lords was an incredible experience that will remain with me for the rest of my life.”
questioning from the opposition, but on the whole the ministers held their own, in what could probably be best described as a draw. The following session was a debate on the opposition motion, which provided free compulsory education up to the age of 16, with the option of free education or vocational training for 16-18. The government submitted an amendment, which was designed to stir debate, adding in the option of vocational training from 14 to 16, and making it a requirement of the optional free education/training from 16-18 that students must stay in Commonwealthland for two years upon completion. Many of the opposition argued that the government was trying to force young people into ‘slavery’ or ‘bondage’ (ignoring that we had not removed the choice element), and the debate was very heated. It was slightly disappointing to see that a number of members of the
government party refused to speak, and as each member could only speak once on the motion, it meant that the opposition and independents could have several speakers in a row, all attacking to amendment. Towards the end of the debate the opposition, led by their party leader used increasingly personal attacks on individual ministers (especially myself as Prime Minister), and became rather disruptive, asking members to give way when speaking, despite them making clear at the first request that they were not going to. This came to a head during the closing speeches. The Minister for Education spoke first, but was virtually unable to make her speech, as members of the opposition were constantly asking her to give way throughout the roughly four minutes of her closing argument. After this display of childish (if procedurally acceptable) behaviour (the speaker refused a request to tell the opposition to be quiet so that we could hear the Minister), as Prime Minister I made sure that the government side of the house was silent through the closing speech by the Leader of the Opposition.
I was determined not to let the government exhibit such disrespect in a parliamentary session. The vote was a close one, falling exactly along party lines (with the independents all siding with the opposition). The opposition won by two votes, which had seemed mathematically impossible, but it later emerged that at least two government members (who had only arrived that day) were outside the room during the vote sleeping off the effects of travelling from central Africa. With the day’s parliamentary sessions over, we were invited to a reception at Speaker’s House, hosted by Linday Hoyle MP, Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. The house is exquisite, and it was a great chance to meet with and talk to some of the
members of the House of Lords and the CPA who attended. The programme for Friday opened with a chance for the ministerial teams to take a well- earned break, as backbenchers and independents made up two parliamentary select committees, on sport and youth unemployment. Each committee interviewed three independent experts, with thorough and direct questioning from all members. This was followed by a short opportunity to meet the Commonwealth Diaspora Parliamentarians, youth
representatives of Commonwealth communities in the U.K. who were joining us for the afternoon session in the House of Lords. This was followed by a full three-course lunch in the members’ dining room. The afternoon session was the one we’d all been waiting for – a once in a lifetime opportunity to debate in the House of Lords Chamber. The topic was climate change, and as Prime Minister I was tasked with introducing an ambitious motion to reduce Commonwealthland’s carbon emissions by 100 per cent by 2050. The chance to stand at the dispatch box in the House of Lords was an incredible experience that will remain with me for the rest of my life.
Rather than opposing the motion outright, the opposition, as the centre-left party, argued that the cuts should be made by 2040. It was a non-whipped debate, with delegates able to speak freely either for or against the motion. Whilst both front bench teams certainly engaged in political jibes and point scoring, they both argued broadly in favour, leaving it primarily to backbenchers and
independents to speak against. This created a lively and well- informed debate, with good use of evidence and a very high standard of debate on all sides. In the vote, the motion passed and the government won, helped in part by the opposition front bench voting in favour.