One question posed by ladytizzy is: does the Queen have a regular consultation with a representative of the House of Lords, similar to the weekly audience with the PM?
The answer is straightforward: no. There is no reason why she should. She sees the PM in his capacity as her principal minister, not as a representative of the House of Commons.
Each House formally enjoys the corporate right of access to the monarch, so the Queen may receive the decisions of each House, through addresses or occasionally messages (for example, of condolence). There is no right of access for individual MPs. Members of the Lords do enjoy an individual right of access, given that peers have always had the role of advisers to the sovereign, though as far as I am aware this is now essentially a formal right. Some peers who have been infuriated by some policy have occasionally sought to exercise the right, but with little effect: the Queen by convention abides by the advice of her ministers.
Lord Norton,
Although I have not researched this particular topic in great depth, I would have thought that the Lord Spirituals, or at the very least the Arch Bishop of Canterbury would have individual right of access to the Monarch on a regular basis. Whilst this may stem from the Arch Bishop of Canterbury’s position as chief prelate as appose his membership of the House of Lords, does this constitute the most significant individual right of access to the Monarcg in the Lords?
The Archbishop of Canterbury is Primate of All England and the senior commoner in the land – he enjoys precedence next to the royal family. He enjoys a right of access in his capacity as Archbishop of Canterbury. It is because of that position that he sits in the House of Lords. As you recognise, his right of access thus does not derive from the fact that he is a member of the House: his right of access and his membership are both a consequence of the position he holds. Among members, his is the most significant, or most senior, right of access.
Why have you stopped publishing my comments? Can you please publish them? I’d hate to have to inform my blog readers that the new Lords blog does not believe in free speech. Failing to publish my comments would also tell my readers that my words rang true.
Can you please watch these videos and let me know if it is true that disagreeing with mass immigration from third world countries will become ilegal?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoUJI07a6GI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FVp8w_Oz0U&feature=related
I’m not aware that we are not publishing comments. Not sure what the query has to do with the post. When I tried to watch the first clip, my PC crashed! I would, though, pass on the advice we give students. The fact that something appears on a website does not by itself give it any authority. You need to check the provenance of the piece in order to evaluate it. What is the source of the piece, has it been refereed by others, and is it published under the aegis of a reputable organisation or body?
Do you know why peers do not receive their ‘honour’ (their peerage) in person from Her Majesty? Those given Knighthoods and Damehoods and other honours do. It seems a shame peers do not.
Hello Lord Norton and thank you for addressing my query.
I am very well aware that not all things are as they first appear. I am just a layman and put things to you for verification or vandalism. Only those in the know hold the answers and I’m certainly not one of them. You could call me a conspiracy theorist, a nutter or an open minded investigator. The choice is yours.
Maybe in light of the following information you could start a new topic on the subject so I am not off-topic.
Here is the gist of my missing comment…
DEATH PENALTY PERMITTED BY LISBON TREATY
http://secretperson.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/the-eu-reintroduces-death-penalty-full-details/
The Lisbon treaty gives full legal powers to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. And contained within this document are the relevent passages:
Article 2 states:
1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.
The paragraphs of interest are the footnotes to this seemingly clear statement:
(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’
(b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’
…………………………………………….
Insurrection definition: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.
Could a peaceful demonstration which got out of hand due to heavy handed policing be described as an insurrection?
‘for the purpose of peacefully quelling a riot’
So shooting into a crowd of dissenting demonstrators would be permitted?
‘in order to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained’
This would suggest a person could be executed in order for him to be arrested. If a demonstrator managed to escape the clutch of a policeman, it would also justify his death.
‘in times of war’
We are at war now and at any one time we are threatened with imminent war. Does this mean the death penalty could be carried out pretty much anytime? I think a court of law would rule it did.
Ask a layman in which circumstances would he feel the death penalty could be used for the benefit of society and he would probably say in ridding society of paedophiles and terrorists. It is most troubling that civil unrest is the EU’s most worrisome circumstance. Is that because they anticipate civil unrest?
IMPORTANT: This information was hidden in a footnote. What other frightening changes to our way of life have been hidden from view of the average MP or Lord who is too busy or trusting to look at the small print? Why was it in a footnote in the first place?
Lord Norton, the death penalty issue was first raised by public law professor Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider at the University of Nürnberg-Erlangen in Germany. You can contact him at KASchachtschneider@web.de
His quotes have appeared throughout the web and also in the Brussels Journal very recently.
Can you authenticate the footnotes?
“I’m not aware that we are not publishing comments.”
Hmm.. I’m not entirely convinced by this. I would still like someone to comment more generally about the extensive [conflicts of] business interests by people in the House Of Lords. If this continues, then the benefit and advantage over the ‘other place’ will be eroded and lost.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/inside-heathrows-protest-camp-a-battle-to-save-the-world-462080.html
“There are a slew of deserving targets submitted for discussion: the offices of Heathrow’s operator, BAA, which has tried to have this protest declared illegal; the building for the new ecocidal disaster of Terminal Five; the garden of Sir Clive Solely, the former Labour MP who became campaign director of Heathrow Future; a carbon offset company to punish them for the keep-on-flying myths they peddle, and more.”
Maybe the answer is to disallow anyone who has been ‘contaminated’ by working in the ‘other place’ as an MP to be sent to the House of Lords.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/05/311769.html
Drastic, but it may be necessary…
In response to Britney British, I will defer to the lawyers who specialise in the field. I don’t. However, the principal point I would make is that the Member States of the EU are already signatories to the ECHR. The provisions you detail already apply. What the Treaty of Lisbon does is to provide that the provisions of the ECHR apply to the institutions of the EU.
In response to Bedd Gelert, I would argue that the Lords benefits from having members drawn from a wide range of backgrounds. I would therefore be against banning any category, such as former MPs, from membership. The exclusion of former MPs would prevent, for example, those who have held senior Government office (Prime Minister, Cabinet members) from serving.
On conflict of interest, the issue of ensuring that members abide by clear rules and declare interests has been the subject of investigation by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and of debate in the House. The House tightened the rules on declarations of interest to the extent that, in many respects, they are much more severe than those utilised in the Commons. A Code of conduct was agreed in 2001 and the new rules on declaration took effect in 2002. The Register of Interests can be found:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldreg/reg01.htm
There is also a very useful House of Lords briefing paper at:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HoLBpRegister.pdf
Lord Norton, thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience on the world wide web. Firstly, Do many people read the blog entry, if so are the figures of the number of people who jhave read the blogs available? Secondly, by removing the Prime Minister’s patronage power, could such scandals as the cash-for-peerages be avoided under the current powers of the Independent Appointments Commission/ Committee, as Meg Russsel has claimed? Thirdly, after your years of experience in academia and asd a peer do you believe the House of Lords could be improved?
Thank you for taking the time to read this and any comments you have will be helpful.
Thanks for the link to the ‘Register Of Interests’. Sadly the other link is not working, so that means the document has probably been moved to another location.
On an other ‘off-topic’ point, I am concerned, along with many others, about the apparent abuse of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act [RIPA] by local councils using it for snooping on minor misdeameanours.
Is this something the Lords can take some action on, or would this have to be instigated within the House of Commons ? My concern is that they will simply turn around and say that the councils are ‘operating within their powers’, which whilst adhering to the letter of the law, breaks the spirit of the law which we were assured would not be used for such trivial matters.
status quo: on the figures for visitors to the blog, some data have already been provided by the Hansard Society in response to an earlier post. We have now had over 25,000 page views and appear to be attracting several hundred visitors each day.
On the other questions you raise, I am in favour of a statutory independent appointments commission. The commission would be responsible for ensuring party nominees met a high quality threshold and for being proactive in identifying and selecting high quality candidates for the non-party (cross-bench) nominees. This was one of the provisions embodied in the House of Lords Bill, introduced early in this session by Lord Steel of Aikwood. I had a role in drafting the Bill. (It also provides for the removal of the by-election provision for hereditary peers, for peers to take permanent leave of absence, and for those convicted of serious criminal offences to be removed from membership of the House.) You can see the Bill at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/003/08003.i-ii.html
The Bill is a Private Member’s Bill and will not reach the statute book, but it conveys well the sort of changes that I think are desirable.
In addition to these changes requiring legislation, I can see the case for some structural and procedural changes within the House. For example, there is a case for making greater use of select committees for investigative work: we have increased the number in recent years, but I would like to see their use extended. There is also a case for making use of evidence-taking committees for legislation. The Commons now utilises evidence-taking public bill committees (replacing standing committees) and we could usefully do something similar, especially for bills that are introuduced in the Lords.
What the House of Lords does, it does well. I think we can and should build on strength. The House adds value to the political process by complementing the Commons, undertaking tasks that the elected House does not have the time, political will or sometimes the resources to undertake. I am against destroying the existing benefits of the system. I am opposed to election, but that is another argument…
Bedd Gelert: if the other link is not working, that may be my fault – I may have mis-typed the web address. (The briefing note is available via the parliament website.) On the effects of the RIPA, you are quite right that recent revelations are causing considerable concern. Those concerns can quite legitimately be raised by members in either House and I suspect will be.
Lord Norton,
Maybe a message board would be better than a blog 😉
I’ve been looking into the Lisbon Treaty death penalty clause and found out about the ECHR Protocol 6. Here it is…
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/114.htm
It only states that the death penalty is permitted ‘in times of war’. Is the document I found valid? If so, that would suggest the Lisbon Treaty has done more than incorporated the provisions of the ECHR.
I could understand the need to shoot dead a soldier, in times of war, who was leaking information to the enemy or in some way putting the lives of fellow soldiers at risk. However, killing someone so you can arrest them, if they resist arrest, to quell a riot or to avoid civil upheavel are completely different things. These provisions are aimed at controlling the indigenous population and not an invading one.
I’ll wait to see what conclusions your solicitors come to.
Thank you for your answer to this, and on the Desert Island choices which appear to disprove your claim of being a self-publicist.
I understand your reluctance to exclude ex-Cabinet Ministers on grounds of democracy and their experience. Can you be persuaded that a fair few ordinary folk who eventually vote them out don’t want to see them popping up in a new guise? I’m pro-appointment in principle, yet not on this point. If they are so committed to continue in public service they can rub by on their pension and contribute freely on Committees etc.
If this even gives you a moment of pause, look at the current intake and think of the future, think of our future!
ladytizzy: I guess the flipside of an appointed chamber is that you might not like what you get and you cannot do anything about it. You might not like former MPs, someone else might not like former City bankers, someone else might not like religious leaders, someone else might not like former members of the armed forces… one might even conclude that we should have some kind of system for allowing us all to express an opinion about who sits there…
Britney British: what you are referring to is Protocol 6 of the ECHR which was opened for signature in 1983 and took effect in 1985. The Lisbon Treaty has no effect on the content of the ECHR and its Protocols. The ECHR applies already to Member States. That is the important point. What concerns you is something that already applies. The Lisbon Treaty has no effect on what Member States are permitted to do or are precluded from doing under the ECHR. There is a useful summary of Protocol 6 in the latest edition of A. H. Robertson and J. G. Merrills, ‘Human Rights in Europe’.
ladytizzy: I would not exclude specified categories since that would be to rule out potentially able people who may have something to contribute to the legislature. There may be a case for being more discriminating in the selection of those who may have served in public positions (and not all former Cabinet ministers can be said to have been voted out)but that is a different argument.
Lord Norton,
The Vice-Chamberlain of the Royal Household writes to the Queen everyday to let her know the day’s proceedings in the COmmons. Do you know if this covers the Lords as well or is there an equivalent whip in the Lords who communicates the days business in the Lords to Her Majesty?
Forgive me Lord Norton but I’m confused. Once the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, which rules apply? The rules of the ECHR or the rules laid out in the Lisbon Treaty? If the latter, doesn’t the clause in the Lisbon Treaty (i.e. the use of the death penalty to civilian purposes as well as war) mean the death penalty can be used in more circumstances after ratification than before?
Will the death penalty be permitted in more circumstances?
Sorry for being a pain but I just want to be sure I understand.
Britney British, I’ll tell you what’ll happen… nothing. Every time there is a new European treaty, those hostile to the EU tell us that it will spell the end of Britain, and that we will all be locked up by the Euro-Stasi.
There is no sinister blueprint, there is no secret plan to dominate us. The European Union, like it or loathe it, is simply a novel way for nations to work together on some of the global challenges that confront us.
Britney British: the Lisbon Treaty does not lay out any rules not already in the ECHR. What you are referring to already applies, and when and if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified those particular provisions (death penalty etc) are not likely to have much bearing on the institutions of the EU. The position of the Member States remains unchanged: what you list re the death penalty etc already applies to them and is unaffected by the Treaty.
James Holden: the point you make was one I had been contemplating including in the original post. As you say, the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household (a senior Government whip) writes a daily report of proceedings for the Queen. This is confined to the Commons and my understanding is that it is usually no more than a couple of A4 pages and nowaydays may be transmitted electronically. Lord Renton (who as Tim Renton served as Government Chief Whip 1989-90) recounts in his book ‘Chief Whip’ that when Spencer Le Marchant was Vice-Chamberlain ‘his summary was particularly appreciated at Buckingham Palace; he was a keen follower of the horses and often managed to slip racing tips into the day’s proceedings.’
The whips in the Lords hold Household positions but none as far as I am aware performs an equivalent function to that of the Vice-Chamberlain in the Commons.
Fair points, Stuart and Lord Norton, and I admit not fully knowing how peerages are vetted and approved though the process has clearly been abused in some cases. It is also a key issue that the normal term for a peer is lifelong.
I look forward to reading and debating the pros and cons of the various suggestions for a reformed second chamber.
Tiz
Britney of the British you said:
“Maybe a message board would be better than a blog”
If by a message board you mean a Forum then perhaps we should have both? Its strength would be that open questions could be posted and answered by MVP’s (Most Valued Peers) if they wanted to. At least the workload could be shared about in the House. Short straws perhaps? No disrespect to the Lord Chancellor intended.
howridiculous: I believe the monarch did normally attend the invesiture of a peer but the practice was ended by James I (who created quite a few) and has never been resumed.