No one party has a majority in the Lords. There are three groupings of similar size – Labour with 216 peers, the Conservatives with 202 and the Cross-benchers with 196 – plus 78 Liberal Democrats, the Lords Spiritual (26) and the law lords (12). As a result, the party in government has to engage with the House if it is to carry it on a contentious issue. Most amendments to Bills are agreed without a vote, but if there is a division (i.e. a vote) the Government is vulnerable if it is not able to carry another party or the cross-benchers with it.
There was a good example of the Government being in a minority this afternoon. An amendment, dealing with the welfare of child immigrants, to the Children and Young Persons Bill had four sponsors – Baroness Morris of Bolton (a Tory front-bencher), Lord Judd (a Labour back-bencher), Baroness Walmsley (a Lib Dem) and the Earl of Listowel (a cross-bencher who takes a particular interest in the welfare of young people). The Government resisted the amendment, but could not overcome a notable cross-party alliance. The amendment was carried by 173 votes to 119.
OK, first question in my education on the HoL. If there is a reasonable majority vote in the HoC, what makes an issue ‘contentious’ for you?
An interesting post, and your previous one about vocation and election. It is a pity there is not a majority of crossbenchers involved but we can’t have everything.
Could we not have a ‘guest blog’ from one of the Law Lords or one of the Lords Spiritual ? It might raise a debate about their role, and whether other religions should / could be represented in the Lords in future years.
Ah, the Lords: Civilised, intelligent and reasoned. The Commons more interesting cousin, the ‘later with jools…’ to the commons ‘top of the pops’. Surely everybody would much rather be a Lord than an MP, even if just for the debate and most importantly consensus. An arena where members score points for making a particularly valid contribution rather than for making jokes about opposition members personal lives.
And if that wasn’t enough, I get to listen to Lord Norton not just at university, but also on the internet. Hopefully the publicity will get more people involved, and drum up some support for the benefits of a chamber of experts rather than one of overly verbose performers!
“A majority is always better than the best repartee.”- Benjamin Disraeli
“An extraordinary affair. I gave them their orders and they wanted to stay and discuss them.” Lord Wellington on the Lords
In reply to ladytizzy, a good vote in the Commons for a Bill on Second Reading establishes the case for the ends of the Bill, which the House of Lords does not then seek to challenge; the House focuses on the detail of the Bill – the means rather than the ends – and some of the detail can prove contentious, either between the parties or between peers in different parts of the House and the Government.
In response to The Lords – Independent or Impartial??, a blog from a Lords Spiritual could certainly be interesting. I’m sure the same could be said of a blog by a law lord, but I think there may be some difficulty in persuading a current law lord to participate, given the confidentiality that surrounds judicial deliberations.
Thank you for your reply. Very pleased to see you are replying, and in a straightforward and non-demeaning way.
I did a little research on you, something I wouldn’t have done if this blog did not exist and you had not interacted, perhaps a hidden bonus for the Hansard Society to know when they decide the future of this site.