What have the Rt Rev. John Charles, Bishop of Lincoln, and Eliza Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, got in common?
Answer: They were both introduced into the House of Lords today. The Bishop joins the House by reason of seniority, replacing a retiring Bishop. Baroness Manningham-Buller is, as far as I am aware, the first former head of MI5 to be elevated to the peerage. She is not, though, the first member of the security service to become a peer.
Her elevation also has a political consequence. A Labour peer, Lord Lipsey, recently moved to the cross-benches as a result of taking up a public appointment. The number of cross-bench peers thus reached 201, exactly the same number as there are Conservative peers. Lady Manningham-Buller will sit as a cross-bencher, thus making the cross-benchers the second largest group in the House (after Labour, with 215 peers). This exclusive position, though, will not last long. Next Monday (7 July) a new Conservative peer (Michael Bates, a former MP) will be introduced.
What an interesting post. Lord Norton, I wonder if you could do a post on your own introduction. Did you buy your own robes? Who introduced you? Why did you choose them? Did you mark your introduction in any way? What did it feel like to be introduced? How long did you wait to make your Maiden speech?
On a more prosaic point, could you tell polite working-class non-deferential, non-subservient types like myself, who are sadly lacking in the obsequiousness bred into our fore-fathers what the correct form of address is pre and post being inducted into the House of Lords ‘hall of fame’ ?
My Finishing School didn’t cover these points in a great deal of detail [or maybe I wasn’t paying attention] and I’m still waiting for Amazon to deliver my copy of Debrett’s Book of Correct Form. On a related point, where is there training for working class types to acquire the details of the arcane fine points of parliamentary procedure ??
You could ask Lord Bragg, but one suspects he is too busy broadcasting and enjoying leisurely lunches to assist – and who can blame him ?
Much as I do applaud your diligent public service ethos, I would be following Melvyn’s example, given half a chance.
Toodle – pip,
Bedd Gelert
howridiculous: Thanks for the questions. Given their nature, I think I will do a post on my introduction to the Lords. Bedd Gelert: you will find that the Debrett’s book – I have a copy – gives you all the details you need (and a lot you probably don’t need!) on the correct form of address. There are just two points I would make. First, the important point in terms of form of address is not when you enter the Lords but rather when your title takes effect. You are made a peer – that’s when the title takes effect – and you are then introduced into the House (there can be quite a gap between the two). Second, in terms of address, it is fairly straightforward, in that letters are normally addressed to ‘Lord Bloggs’ and the letter begins ‘Dear Lord Bloggs’ (formally, it should be ‘My Lord’ but the usual practice is now ‘Dear Lord Bloggs’). On procedure, our basic guide is ‘The Companion to the Standing Orders’, though we also have a useful little folded card with some useful basic information. Most of it is straightforward procedural information to ensure things flow and we use the correct terminology. As for Lord Bragg, I would mention that he is to be seen in the House and variously gets something to eat in the Bishop’s Bar, a small sandwich bar in the House: I’m a regular diner there – it’s basic but I like it.
Thank you, Lord Norton. I shall look forward to that post. I wonder if you would also considering doing one on The Lords Spiritual and what might be called the Lords spiritual – that is those peers who hold office in non-Anglican denominations such as Lord Griffiths of Burry Port?
It’s interesting that you mentioned the political consequences of new
members being introduced to the Lords. How is the balance of power
maintained? If the PM has power of patronage can he not game the
system by elevating more of his political colour to the Lords?
You mentioned a former Labour Peer is now a cross-bencher. How
independent are the cross benchers? Are they completly free of any
party line, as I understood it even party peers tend to vote against
their party line more often than their cousins in the other place.
Hmm a lot of questions there. Perhaps you could cover the political
balance of the Lords in a separate post?
Alex Bennee: you raise very relevant questions. Not everyone who sits on the cross-benches is actually a ‘cross-bencher’! The cross-bench group of peers does not admit everyone who moves from one of the main parties. There are about a dozen peers classified as ‘non-aligned’ who, for various reasons, do not wish to be part of the cross-bench group or have not been accepted by the group.
The picture is muddied by the fact that various minor parties have members sitting in the cross-bench group, as there is, as yet, no formal recognition of them as distinct entities in the House: Ulster Unionist and Democratic Unionist peers, for example, sit as cross-benchers.
Cross-benchers have their own organisation of cross-bench peers – they are the only group in the House with their own website – and elect a convenor (presently Baroness d’Souza). However, they do not have a ‘party’ line on issues and can vote as they wish. It is interesting to see how they divide on issues: sometimes they notably go in one particular direction whereas in another vote they may split more or less 50/50.
On the PM’s power of patronage, you are absolutely right. There is always scope for manipulating the system to give the Government side a notable advantage. There is now something of a self-denying ordinance on the part of PMs – I have no problem with the current balance – but there remains the potential for mis-use. That is why some of us favour a statutory independent appointments commission, with the power of the PM to recommend names for peerages to be limited.
Hah! I can update this. As of today, Wednesday 2nd July, there are 203 Independent Crossbench Peers (ICPs) and likely to be another by the middle of this month. This makes the ICPs the second largest grouping.
But this is not the entire story. In the past couple of months three peers have crossed the floor as it were. Lady Flather formerly on the Tory benches applied for membership of the IPCs (a very informal matter) and was warmly accepted as a member.
Two other peers, Lord Lipsey and most recently Lord Smith of Finsbury have taken up posts that require a degree of political neutrality and thus have asked to join the Crossbenches. While welcome, since their intention is to re-join the Labour benches when their terms of office come to an end, they are classed as non-affiliated peers rather than proper ICPs.
The distinction is subtle but relates to the fierce belief in genuine political independence that characterises the Indpendent Crossbench Peers.