Finance (No. 2) Bill – in the House of Commons at 3:45 pm on 13 January 2026.
Votes in this debate
Caroline Nokes
Chair, Speaker's Advisory Committee on Works of Art, Chair, Speaker's Advisory Committee on Works of Art, Deputy Speaker (Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means)
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 64 to 68 stand part.
New Clause 18—Review of the effect of sections 63 to 68—
“(1) HM Treasury must carry out a review of the effect of sections 63 to 68 of this Act (Pension interests).
(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—
(a) the impact of those sections on individuals’ pension savings and beneficiaries, including on estate values and inheritance tax liabilities,
(b) the administrative effects on personal representatives, pension scheme administrators, and HM Revenue and Customs, and
(c) any behavioural effects on how pensions are used during life and on death.
(3) HM Treasury must lay before the House of Commons a report setting out the findings of the review under subsection (1) no later than six months after the date on which sections 63 to 68 come into force.”
This new clause would require HM Treasury to review and report on the effects of Clauses 63 to 68 of the Bill, which introduce inheritance tax charges on unused pension funds and death benefits, including their impacts on individuals, administrators, and behaviour, and to publish the findings to Parliament.
New clause 19—Report on the impact of inheritance tax liability on personal representatives in relation to pension assets—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of the changes to inheritance tax treatment of pension assets on personal representatives of deceased persons made under this Act.
(2) The report must consider—
(a) the legal obligations of personal representatives to collect the assets of an estate, settle all liabilities (including inheritance tax), and distribute the estate to beneficiaries,
(b) the extent to which personal representatives may be personally liable for inheritance tax due on assets, including pension funds, which do not form part of the estate and do not come into their possession,
(c) any risk of increased litigation arising from the imposition of personal liability on personal representatives in respect of inheritance tax due on pension assets,
(d) the impact of any such liability on the willingness of personal representatives, particularly those who are not beneficiaries of the estate, to distribute estate assets promptly,
(e) any practical difficulties faced by personal representatives where pension assets, lifetime gifts, or other chargeable assets are discovered after initial inheritance tax calculations have been completed, including the requirement to recalculate inheritance tax liabilities and re-apportion the nil rate band,
(f) any administrative and timing challenges associated with identifying multiple pension arrangements, particularly where a deceased person held several pension funds arising from different employments, and
(g) whether the existing six-month timeframe for inheritance tax reporting and payment adequately reflects those practical difficulties.
(3) The report must assess whether the current framework operates fairly and proportionately for personal representatives and whether legislative or administrative changes are necessary to reduce uncertainty, delay, or unintended personal liability.”
This new clause requires the Government to report on the impact of inheritance tax rules on personal representatives, including personal liability for tax on pension assets outside the estate and the practical difficulties of identifying and valuing multiple pension arrangements within existing time limits.
New clause 20—Administration of inherited pension pots—
“(1) HM Revenue and Customs must review the tax administration arrangements relating to inherited pension pots.
(2) The purpose of the review under subsection (1) is to ensure that—
(a) inheritance tax and related tax checks do not cause unreasonable delays in the payment of pension death benefits to beneficiaries, and
(b) bereaved families are able to receive pension benefits within a reasonable period following a member’s death.
(3) In carrying out the review, HM Revenue and Customs must have regard to—
(a) the cumulative administrative burden placed on personal representatives, pension scheme administrators, and beneficiaries,
(b) the interaction between inheritance tax reporting, clearance processes, and pension scheme payment rules, and
(c) any evidence of prolonged delays in the payment of inherited pension benefits.
(4) HM Revenue and Customs must publish the outcome of the review, including any proposed changes to its processes or guidance, within 12 months of the passing of this Act.”
This new clause would require the Government to address delays in the payment of inherited pension pots by reviewing HMRC’s tax administration processes, with the aim of preventing prolonged waiting periods for bereaved families.
New clause 22—Statement on inheritance tax on pension interests—
“(1) The Chancellor of the exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on the effects of the charging of inheritance tax on pension interests made under sections 63 to 68 of this Act.
(2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include analysis of the impact on—
(a) pension saving levels,
(b) household saving decisions, and
(d) personal representatives.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor to make a statement on the effects charging inheritance tax on pension interests on pension saving levels, household saving decisions and personal representatives.
New clause 23—Consultation on changes to inheritance tax on pensions interests—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, before
(2) The consultation made under subsection (1) must consider the extent to which the changes to inheritance tax on pension interests deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report summarising the responses to the consultation.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor to consult on the potential impacts of the changes made by sections 63 to 67. The consultation must consider the extent to which the changes to inheritance tax on pension interests deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners. A report summarising the responses to the consultation must be laid before the House of Commons.
New clause 24—HMRC guidance on inheritance tax on pension interests—
“(1) HM Revenue and Customs must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish comprehensive guidance on the implementation of sections 63 to 68.
(2) HMRC must establish a dedicated helpline for enquiries relating to inheritance tax on pension interests.
(3) The guidance published under subsection (1) must be reviewed annually and published in accessible formats.”
This new clause would require HMRC to publish comprehensive guidance on the implementation of sections 63 to 68 and establish a dedicated helpline for enquiries relating to inheritance tax on pension interests. The guidance must be reviewed annually and published in accessible formats.
Lucy Rigby
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury
3:57,
13 January 2026
It is a pleasure to open this second day of our Committee stage debate. Yesterday the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend Dan Tomlinson, explained how the Bill gives effect to a Budget that took fair and responsible decisions to stabilise and strengthen the public finances, address the cost of living and renew our public services. We are clear about the fact that we will not repeat the mistakes of the last Government. That means no return to austerity and no completely irresponsible unfunded spending commitments, both of which, unfortunately, were features of the Conservatives’ time in power. This Government wholeheartedly reject those failed approaches and choose a different path, one of fiscal responsibility and one that will strengthen our economy so that it delivers for people throughout the country. Today the Committee will consider a further set of important and targeted measures relating to pensions, gambling duties and alcohol duty, which reflect this Government’s commitment to a tax system that is fair, modern, and aligned with the realities of today’s economy.
Our approach to changes in gambling taxation is fair and proportionate, as the Committee will hear later this afternoon, and, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor explained in her Budget statement, those reforms will contribute significantly to the Government’s efforts to lift an additional 450,000 children out of poverty. The pensions clauses will ensure that generous tax reliefs continue to support the core purpose of pensions, which is to help people to save for retirement. They address long-standing inconsistencies, and will ensure that pensions are not used primarily as a vehicle for passing on wealth free of inheritance tax, but instead continue to protect the vast Majority of estates and maintain strong incentives to save.
I turn to clauses 63 to 68. Pensions enjoy significant tax benefits, with gross income tax and national insurance contributions relief costing £78.2 billion in 2023-24. It is therefore crucial to ensure that these reliefs are used for their intended purpose, which is to encourage saving for retirement and later life. Changes to pensions tax policy by the previous Government over the last decade led to pensions being used, and increasingly marketed, as tax planning vehicles to transfer wealth, rather than holding true to pensions’ primary purpose, which is of course to provide a way to fund retirement.
As hon. Members will know, there are also long-standing inconsistencies in the inheritance tax treatment of different types of pensions. Most UK-registered pension schemes are discretionary, meaning members can nominate whom they would like to receive death benefits, but the scheme trustees are not obliged to follow members’ wishes. Under existing rules, any unused pension funds and death benefits from discretionary schemes are not subject to inheritance tax. By contrast, some pension schemes are non-discretionary, and these are subject to inheritance tax under existing rules.
The changes made by Clause 63 mean that most unused pension funds and death benefits payable from a pension will form part of a person’s estate for inheritance tax purposes from
Clause 66 makes some consequential amendments to the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 to ensure that the existing exemption for spouses and civil partners and the treatment of payments to charities continue to apply. Clause 67 changes the income tax rules for pensions to provide for the payment of inheritance tax, including in respect of direct payment by pension schemes. Clause 68 ensures that the changes take effect from
These clauses ensure that pensions are used, as I have said, for their core intended purpose, rather than as a vehicle for passing on wealth free of inheritance tax. They also remove long-standing inconsistencies and deliver on the Government’s promise to this country to build a stronger and fairer economy.
James Wild
Shadow Exchequer Secretary (Treasury), Opposition Whip (Commons)
On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I wish to speak to new clauses 22 to 24, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends. As the Minister set out, clauses 63 to 68 introduce measures to apply inheritance tax to unspent pension assets and other death benefits for deaths occurring after
This Labour Government have taken taxes to record levels, with £26 billion in additional taxes in this Budget and £66 billion since the election. These tax increases were not mentioned in Labour’s manifesto. Labour is increasing taxes on family businesses, farms, jobs, dividends, savings, motorists and now death. Removing the inheritance tax exemption for pensions could undermine efforts to encourage people to save at a time when people are not saving enough. And what do the Government do? They limit the salary sacrifice pension contributions scheme and introduce a new raid on people’s pensions pots.
The Minister did not refer to the impact assessment, but it is worth pointing out that it estimates that 10,500 estates will now become liable for inheritance tax, raising £1.5 billion by 2029, and 38,500 estates will pay more inheritance tax than was previously the case. That is why we oppose this extension of inheritance tax and the underlying principle, to which the Minister seemed to allude, that people’s money belongs not to them but to the state.
New Clause 22 is straightforward. It would require the Chancellor to set out the impact of these measures on pension saving, household saving decisions and personal representatives. There is real concern—I am surprised the Minister did not address this—about the administrative burden being placed on personal representatives and the effect on the industry. Personal representatives will be required to identify every pension asset, calculate the inheritance tax due and ensure payment within six months, and they will be personally liable if they fail to settle all the liabilities due. In many cases, that deadline would be impossible to meet and must be extended. Furthermore, if a pension fund has to quickly sell illiquid assets, such as commercial property, it may not get the full market value, but the Bill does not introduce a relief where the underlying assets must be sold and the proceeds are less than the value of the assets at the time of death. Late payments will attract interest at 8%. By contrast, someone in self-assessment has 10 months to pay tax on the income they already understand.
Both the Association of Taxation Technicians and the Chartered Institute of Taxation have offered some practical solutions, the first of which is to extend the withholding periods. Personal representatives can ask pension administrators to withhold 50% of funds for up to 15 months, but that is simply not long enough for the complex cases I have referred to, particularly where business property valuations have to be agreed with HMRC. Will the Minister consider allowing HMRC to extend withholding in such complex cases?
Secondly, the Government should allow instalment payments for illiquid pension assets. Billions of pounds of pensions wealth are in illiquid assets. The Government allow inheritance tax to be paid over 10 years for illiquid estate assets. Why deny the same practical relief for pensions?
When this policy was announced, the Office for Budget Responsibility gave it a “very high” uncertainty rating and estimated that behavioural effects will cut the static yield by about 43%; the Government’s own forecasters accept that the changes may well significantly alter saving behaviour. The new clause would simply require the Chancellor to assess that impact and come to the House to make it clear.
New clause 23 would require the Chancellor to consult on the impact of clauses 63 to 67, and whether they deliver better outcomes for savers and pensioners. The truth is that the Government rushed the consultation out after the 2024 Budget and followed it with a very narrow technical consultation, which did not consider the principled question of whether this approach to pensions being brought within the inheritance tax framework was appropriate. As the Investing and Saving Alliance told the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee in its inquiry to which the Exchequer Secretary also gave evidence:
“If we were consulted and listened to, we probably would not be having this discussion today, because I do not think pensions would be going into IHT.”
Both the chartered institute and the ATT have criticised the Government for consulting on pensions in isolation, rather than in the context of individuals’ wider inheritance tax position. Our new clause is explicit. Consultation must take place to assess whether these changes
“deliver better outcomes for savers and pensioners”
—wording that reflects the commitment the Labour party made in its manifesto.
New clause 24 is essential. It would require HMRC to publish comprehensive guidance on the new rules for pensions and to set up a dedicated helpline. Why does that matter? Because this measure will be incredibly complex in practice. The chartered institute has said that professional executors are already questioning whether they can continue to operate in the market at all. Some firms, we are told, are already leaving the market. If professionals step back, the burden falls on lay personal representatives: often grieving family members or friends, with more errors, delay and potentially a wider tax gap ensuing.
Professional indemnity insurers also need clarity, yet when is HMRC due to deliver detailed guidance? Not until spring 2027, just weeks before the changes take effect. That is completely outrageous and far too late. That is why the new clause requires guidance to be published within six months of the Bill being passed.
I want to touch on a broader concern that has been raised with me on the potential serious unintended consequences for unmarried couples. Today, couples can anticipate making financial provision for each other via pensions, but if this measure comes into force they will have to look at other options. If one member of an unmarried couple in their 50s or 60s dies with a pension at peak value, the survivor could lose up to 40% of that fund. Are Ministers talking to pension scheme administrators to mitigate the risks for such couples and to provide clear guidance?
These clauses increase taxes, add complexity, penalise saving and add stress for grieving families. Despite clause 67, we are also advised that there is still a risk of double taxation of inheritance tax and income tax, which could see beneficiaries paying an effective tax rate of 67%. Our amendments seek to mitigate their worst impacts. The Chancellor should assess the real impact on saving behaviour and personal representatives. She should consult properly on these provisions and she must provide clear guidance, backed by dedicated support. We should be incentivising saving and encouraging people to do the right thing. Extending inheritance tax does the opposite, and we will oppose the Government’s measures.
Daisy Cooper
Deputy Leader, Liberal Democrats, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Treasury)
This is a retrospective tax without transitional protection. It upends plans for those who have already made sacrifices to build up their pensions, undermines confidence in pensions planning, reduces long-term investment and causes people to rush to withdraw money from their pensions.
As has been mentioned, the chartered institute and the ATT have raised concerns about this group of clauses, which shoehorn pensions legislation into tax legislation. There are major worries about creating personal liability without control for personal representatives, whether executives or administrators. Personal representatives are legally obligated to gather all the assets, settle any liabilities, including inheritance tax, and distribute the remainder of the estate to the beneficiaries. They are personally liable if they do not set aside enough money to settle all financial liabilities, including IHT. Experts have warned that someone being personally liable for IHT on a pension fund that never comes into their hands leaves the door open to costly and protracted litigation and will understandably make personal representatives, such as professionals or friends of the deceased, much more cautious before they distribute all of the estate.
Even more concerning is the fact that if representatives discover a new pension fund after settling the initial IHT liability, this would have a knock-on effect on not only the estate but all other pension funds. It means that IHT will have to be recalculated for every part of the estate and every pension fund. It is far from uncommon for people to have had different jobs with separate pension plans, so the risk of miscalculation is obvious. If someone passes away before they have had the chance to consolidate their pension funds, tracking down the unused pots within six months of their death will be very difficult for executors and will mean that the initial IHT calculations could be wrong. The Government must recognise that and amend this measure. If they do not, and Ministers simply ask future executors to sign some sort of disclaimer form, they will soon find that nobody will want to take on that role.
Our new clauses 18 to 20 raise the clear need for significant reforms and are a means of pressing the Government to protect individuals from being liable for private pensions that they did not know about and could not reasonably know about either. Finally, there is widespread worry that family members might have to wait up to 15 months before they are able to access their inheritance, during what is bound to be a hugely straining period of loss and grief. The Liberal Democrats’ new Clause 20 urges the Government to recognise that reality and take steps to address it.
Lucy Rigby
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate on this group of clauses. Before I respond to the specific points that have been raised, I will reflect briefly on the core purpose of the Bill.
The Bill contains fair and necessary reforms to the tax system, which unfortunately have been ducked for far too long. They will help to strengthen our economy for the long term, ensuring that we can cut the cost of living and inflation, and restore our public services and the public finances to health. The Tories and Reform—who are increasingly indistinguishable, it might be said—have already set out their choice: a return to the chaos and instability of the past. That approach failed before, and we are not going back.
The clauses in this group restore pensions to their core and intended purpose, which is funding retirement. We are not allowing them to function as a tax-free vehicle for the transfer of wealth. Generous tax relief for retirement saving is preserved. The clauses ensure that pension wealth is treated fairly and consistently for inheritance tax purposes. They protect ordinary families, with more than 90% of estates still paying no inheritance tax at all each year after the changes.
Let me turn to the non-Government amendments in this group. New Clause 18 would require the Treasury to review the effects of the changes to pension tax policy, including their impacts on individuals, administrators and behaviour. A report would need to be laid in Parliament no later than six months from when the Act comes into force. This new clause is not necessary. The Government have published a tax information and impact note on the changes in the normal way. It sets out the impact on individuals, and accounts for the impact on personal representatives.
As hon. Members know, the Government keep all tax policies under review through the monitoring of returns and communication with representative bodies and taxpayer groups. A review within six months of the policy taking effect on
New clause 19 would require the Government to report on the impact of the reforms on personal representatives. That would include the personal liability for tax on pension assets outside the estate, and any practical difficulties of identifying and valuing multiple pension arrangements within existing time limits. The changes that the Bill brings about are consistent with the process that already exists for administering estates and paying any tax due. Personal representatives are already responsible for administering the rest of the estate, including non-discretionary pension schemes, which are already within the scope of inheritance tax.
The Government have acknowledged that there are some challenges for personal representatives. The changes announced at the Budget mitigate the risks to personal representatives by providing them with the ability to direct pension scheme administrators to withhold taxable benefits for up to 15 months from the date of death and to make payments of inheritance tax directly to HMRC. That, of course, will not apply to pension benefits exempt from inheritance tax, including those being left to a spouse or civil partner, pension funds under £1,000 and continuing annuities. The Government will also publish regulations this year to provide the right framework to allow personal representatives and pension schemes to exchange all necessary information for inheritance tax purposes. The changes announced at the Budget also protect personal representatives from the risk that pension pots emerge later. For those reasons, new clause 19 is not necessary and should be rejected.
New clause 20 would require the Government to review the tax administration arrangements relating to inherited pension pots with a focus on any delays in the payment in inherited pension pots caused by tax administration processes. HMRC would be required to publish the outcome of the review within 12 months of this Act being passed.
The Government do not want payments to pension beneficiaries to be delayed unnecessarily. In the vast Majority of cases, payments will be made as soon as pension schemes have completed their discretionary processes. Pension benefits that are exempt from inheritance tax, such as payments to spouses and civil partners or death in service payments, can still be paid as soon as the pension scheme is ready to pay.
We do, of course, need to strike a fair balance between the beneficiaries of the pension and of the wider estate. That is exactly why we announced that personal representatives will be able to direct pension schemes to withhold 50% of the taxable benefits for up to 15 months if they reasonably expect inheritance tax to be due. Pension beneficiaries will therefore still be able to access 50% of their taxable pension benefits as soon as their pension scheme is ready to pay, and the remainder once the inheritance tax on the pension has been paid or the notice to withhold has been withdrawn.
As I have set out, to ensure that the process of calculating, reporting and paying inheritance tax does not take any longer than necessary, the Government will introduce regulations setting out deadlines for the parties involved to exchange information. New clause 20 should therefore be rejected.
New clause 22 would require the Chancellor of the exchequer to make a statement on the effects of the policy on pension saving levels, household saving decisions and personal representatives within six months of the Act being passed. It is important to emphasise that the intended purpose of pension savings—indeed, it is one that the Government wholly support—is to fund retirement. That is why, to address the point made by the Shadow Exchequer Secretary, James Wild, we continue to incentivise pension savings with tax relief on both contributions to pensions and the growth of funds held within a pension scheme. Those reliefs totalled £78.2 billion in 2023-24.
Estates will continue to benefit from the normal nil-rate bands, reliefs and exemptions available. For example, the nil-rate bands mean an estate can pass on up to £1 million with no inheritance tax liability and the general rules mean that any transfers, including the payments of death benefits to a spouse or civil partner, are fully exempt from inheritance tax. As I said, 90% of UK estates will continue to have no inheritance tax liability whatsoever following the changes, and the reforms will only affect a minority with inheritable pension wealth. New clause 22 should therefore be rejected.
New clause 23 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to undertake a consultation before
As well as the technical consultation on the changes, there has been extensive and regular engagement with stakeholders, both from the pensions industry, and legal and tax representatives. I note the praise for HMRC officials from witnesses at the Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee in the other place in respect of how they have engaged on these issues over the course of the last year. The policy problem with the inheritance tax treatment of pensions is well understood and we need to ensure that pensions continue to be used, as I said, for their core purpose, which is funding retirement, and that tax reliefs are directed to that effect. As I have set out, pensions will continue to enjoy significant tax benefits. For those reasons, new clause 23 should be rejected.
Lastly, new clause 24 would require HMRC to publish comprehensive guidance on the implementation of the policy within six months of the Bill being passed. It would also require HMRC to establish a dedicated helpline for inquiries relating to inheritance tax on pension interest. As I have set out, comprehensive guidance will be published in advance of April 2027 and HMRC will provide interactive tools to support personal representatives. Publishing guidance when policies go live is established practice, and it ensures that guidance is fully up to date when made available. HMRC will continue to work with industry on shaping that guidance and ensuring that the reforms are fully understood. People will be able to call the inheritance tax helpline for inquiries related to the reforms and, as we would expect, staff will be fully trained on each of the changes such that they can support customers. It is on that basis that new clause 24 should also be rejected.
The clauses we have considered preserve generous tax relief for retirement saving. I therefore urge the Committee to reject new clauses 18 to 20 and 22 to 24, and to support clauses 63 to 68.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Division number 403
Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: Clause 63 Stand part
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
The chancellor of the exchequer is the government's chief financial minister and as such is responsible for raising government revenue through taxation or borrowing and for controlling overall government spending.
The chancellor's plans for the economy are delivered to the House of Commons every year in the Budget speech.
The chancellor is the most senior figure at the Treasury, even though the prime minister holds an additional title of 'First Lord of the Treasury'. He normally resides at Number 11 Downing Street.
The House of Commons is one of the houses of parliament. Here, elected MPs (elected by the "commons", i.e. the people) debate. In modern times, nearly all power resides in this house. In the commons are 650 MPs, as well as a speaker and three deputy speakers.
Secretary of State was originally the title given to the two officials who conducted the Royal Correspondence under Elizabeth I. Now it is the title held by some of the more important Government Ministers, for example the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
The Chancellor - also known as "Chancellor of the Exchequer" is responsible as a Minister for the treasury, and for the country's economy. For Example, the Chancellor set taxes and tax rates. The Chancellor is the only MP allowed to drink Alcohol in the House of Commons; s/he is permitted an alcoholic drink while delivering the budget.
The Conservatives are a centre-right political party in the UK, founded in the 1830s. They are also known as the Tory party.
With a lower-case ‘c’, ‘conservative’ is an adjective which implies a dislike of change, and a preference for traditional values.
The term "majority" is used in two ways in Parliament. Firstly a Government cannot operate effectively unless it can command a majority in the House of Commons - a majority means winning more than 50% of the votes in a division. Should a Government fail to hold the confidence of the House, it has to hold a General Election. Secondly the term can also be used in an election, where it refers to the margin which the candidate with the most votes has over the candidate coming second. To win a seat a candidate need only have a majority of 1.
Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.
The shadow cabinet is the name given to the group of senior members from the chief opposition party who would form the cabinet if they were to come to power after a General Election. Each member of the shadow cabinet is allocated responsibility for `shadowing' the work of one of the members of the real cabinet.
The Party Leader assigns specific portfolios according to the ability, seniority and popularity of the shadow cabinet's members.
The house of Lords is the upper chamber of the Houses of Parliament. It is filled with Lords (I.E. Lords, Dukes, Baron/esses, Earls, Marquis/esses, Viscounts, Count/esses, etc.) The Lords consider proposals from the EU or from the commons. They can then reject a bill, accept it, or make amendments. If a bill is rejected, the commons can send it back to the lords for re-discussion. The Lords cannot stop a bill for longer than one parliamentary session. If a bill is accepted, it is forwarded to the Queen, who will then sign it and make it law. If a bill is amended, the amended bill is sent back to the House of Commons for discussion.
The Lords are not elected; they are appointed. Lords can take a "whip", that is to say, they can choose a party to represent. Currently, most Peers are Conservative.
The Opposition are the political parties in the House of Commons other than the largest or Government party. They are called the Opposition because they sit on the benches opposite the Government in the House of Commons Chamber. The largest of the Opposition parties is known as Her Majesty's Opposition. The role of the Official Opposition is to question and scrutinise the work of Government. The Opposition often votes against the Government. In a sense the Official Opposition is the "Government in waiting".
The House of Lords. When used in the House of Lords, this phrase refers to the House of Commons.
A person involved in the counting of votes. Derived from the word 'tallier', meaning one who kept a tally.
The House of Commons votes by dividing. Those voting Aye (yes) to any proposition walk through the division lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting no through the lobby to the left. In each of the lobbies there are desks occupied by Clerks who tick Members' names off division lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the Members are counted by two Members acting as tellers. The Speaker calls for a vote by announcing "Clear the Lobbies". In the House of Lords "Clear the Bar" is called. Division Bells ring throughout the building and the police direct all Strangers to leave the vicinity of the Members’ Lobby. They also walk through the public rooms of the House shouting "division". MPs have eight minutes to get to the Division Lobby before the doors are closed. Members make their way to the Chamber, where Whips are on hand to remind the uncertain which way, if any, their party is voting. Meanwhile the Clerks who will take the names of those voting have taken their place at the high tables with the alphabetical lists of MPs' names on which ticks are made to record the vote. When the tellers are ready the counting process begins - the recording of names by the Clerk and the counting of heads by the tellers. When both lobbies have been counted and the figures entered on a card this is given to the Speaker who reads the figures and announces "So the Ayes [or Noes] have it". In the House of Lords the process is the same except that the Lobbies are called the Contents Lobby and the Not Contents Lobby. Unlike many other legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords have not adopted a mechanical or electronic means of voting. This was considered in 1998 but rejected. Divisions rarely take less than ten minutes and those where most Members are voting usually take about fifteen. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P9 at the UK Parliament site.
