4. Translate the underlined passage into Russian.

Lesson 3.

Listen, read and discuss Exercises

1. Describe the procedure of legislating in the British Parliament.

2. Listen to the text and consider this particular case.Say what other factors should be taken into consideration for a bill to become a law. Listening I.

1. Why was that week difficult for Labour Government of the UK?

2. What legislation did Labour MP’s try to vote down on?

3. What ban did they want to amend into a tougher one?

4. What were the main two reasons for the smoking ban?

5. Why did smoking in restaurants become a focus of the legislation?

6. What exceptions were supposed to be specified in the bill?

7. Why was the Chairman of the Health Committee against these reservations?

8. When was the law supposed to come into force?

3. Read the article and discuss it. Before you read,

a) check if you are ready to answer the following questions:

• What are the main political parties and their leaders in the UK?

• What are their electorate and their main political values?

• What role is attributed to the House of Lords within the political system of the UK?

b) translate the words given in bold letters.

David Steel attacks Nick Clegg's reform of the House of Lords

The Liberal Democrat grandee Lord Steel has launched the strongest attack yet on Nick Clegg's plans to reform the House of Lords.

The peer, a former leader of the Liberal party, claimed Clegg's radical reforms were a distraction from the evolutionary changes that needed to be made to the second chamber.

Clegg wants the second chamber to be at least 80% elected by 2025 and has signalled that his preference would be for a wholly elected chamber.

But writing in the Observer, Lord Steel said he believed both options were "worrying" and would prevent changes being made now to make the Lords a better legislative chamber.

Steel writes: "Nick Clegg has been right to argue that if we have an elected upper house it should be wholly elected, yet the government paper contains the option of having 20% appointed.

"The argument for that is testimony to the specialist expertise which exists in the present unelected house and which would otherwise be lost. Yet its proponents cannot have considered what would happen if the votes of the future 20% unelected were outrageously to sway a matter against the elected majority in both houses. An increasing number of MPs are also recognising the dangers of an elected upper house undermining the primacy of the House of Commons."

Lord Steel has a private member's bill awaiting scrutiny by committee in the Lords that proposes evolutionary changes to the second chamber to reduce the number of members by introducing a retirement scheme.

He also wishes to establish an independent appointments commission for new peers to avoid any future "cash for peerages" scandals.

Steel writes: "The house is becoming irritated by being asked to consider long-term changes to an elected chamber, whilst the need to reform the present one gets neglected.

"The risk the coalition government now faces is that their plans will get bogged down in endless argument in both houses, clogging up valuable parliamentary time which would be better employed on more deserving causes. I am old enough to recall that is precisely what happened in the late sixties. History looks as thought it may repeat itself."

Clegg's reform bill is already facing serious opposition from within the Conservative party and Lord Steel's intervention will be unwelcome.

Asked in a recent poll about the coalition promise to legislate in 2012-13 for an elected house, 80% of peers opposed it and 74% said that for the government to force it through would be unconstitutional.

While reform of the House of Lords is in the coalition agreement it is, as yet, unclear whether David Cameron will give Clegg's bill support as it makes its way through the Commons and the Lords.

• guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011