In response to an earlier post, Croft asked if I would write about the choice of supporting peers for a peer’s introduction into the House of Lords.
Newly created life peers, archbishops (on appointment or translation), and bishops (on first receiving a writ of summons or on translation to another see) are ceremonially introduced before taking their seats. As the Companion to the Standing Orders records, ‘new lords are normally supported on introduction by two others of the same degree in the House’, though archbishops may act as supporters for bishops and vice versa.
New peers select who they would like to act as supporters. It is the usual practice to choose two peers from one’s own grouping. A Conservative peer will normally have two Conservative peers as supporters, a cross-bench peer two cross-benchers and so on. Although it is the usual practice, it is not the invariable practice. I was one of the exceptions. Given that my career was based on studying Parliament, I felt it appropriate to select supporters who reflected my interest in the institution. I therefore approached two peers who I felt most appropriately reflected this and who enjoyed widespread respect for the work they did when they served in the House of Commons: Lord Weatherill, a cross-bench peer, who had been Speaker of the House of Commons, and Lord Newton of Braintree, a fellow Conservative, who had served as Leader of the House of Commons.
Prior to the introduction, you are entitled to invite family and supporters to lunch in the Lords. Lord Weatherill was on good form, recounting his experiences as a tailor prior to entering Parliament. When I told him I had practiced the oath, in order to get the emphasis right, he replied: ‘Oh you are too academic. I just read out the words!’
Well that was very quick! I assumed that generally it goes by party and had noticed you broke with that norm. You say, as I thought, it is an exception but how exceptional?
As I always had a high opinion of Weatherill I liked the choice, I supposed he would have no fear of fluffing his lines as the Lords must seem a very relaxed and unintimidating chamber after the Commons. I seem to remember him saying on some occasion or other – and the quote sticks in my mind – that when he first entered the commons a Tory complained “My God, what is this place coming to? They have elected my tailor.”
It must has been a lot easier with your background, some new peers especially non political peers must find the whole exercise far more confusing/unnerving. Do members have an ‘induction’ or some sort of help system or are they left to find their own feet in the house and it’s workings? MPs often seem to say it takes them a parliament before they understand how things work and how to work within the system – by which time some of them are out! The latter doesn’t matter for peers but the former must be some sort of issue.
I watched proceedings in the lords today for about an hour I have to say ten out of ten to the lord’s speaker for commitment. I heard her on the woolsack before proceedings started talking to Lord Basam (labour chief whip). They were talking about the traitorous conditions in London, the lords speaker said “I know my Mercedes was skidding all over the road so I abandoned and walked six miles to get her!” Please pass on my congratulations!! It’s a pity the press don’t report the commitment that peers put into the job. Whilst most workers in London would walk back home, lady hayman does not give in to the elements!
Croft: It is fairly exceptional. I would need to do some research to determine who else had done it. There is, indeed, some induction for new peers. There is a seminar organised to explain structures and procedures. Each new peer is shown round by the Clerk of the Parliaments and has a meeting with Black Rod to discuss such matters as the procedure for introduction. In my case, Black Rod said ‘oh you will know all this’ and simply fast-forwarded the video of an introduction ceremony! Lord Weatherill (always known as Jack) was a delightful person, totally reliable and a fund of stories – which he was quite happy to recount on more than one occasion. (I ended up knowing some of them by heart!) He frequently recounted the story to which you refer. Shortly after being elected to the Commons, he was in a cubicle in the Gents when two other Conservative MPs came in and he overheard one of them saying ‘What on earth is this place coming to? They have just elected my tailor.’
Tory Boy: I like to think the dedication of the Lord Speaker is not untypical of members of the House. Two or three years ago, during our longest sitting in history, we adjourned at 1.00 a.m. and were scheduled to sit again at 5.00 a.m. At 5.00 a.m. the chamber was full: you wouldn’t know it wasn’t a normal daytime sitting. Members felt it was their duty to be there and so were there. I think that was fairly symptomatic of the commitment members have to the House.
I’ve just noticed yesterday’s introduction:
“Evan Mervyn Davies Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Davies of Abersoch, of Abersoch in the County of Gwynedd, was introduced and took the oath, in English and in **Welsh**, supported by Lord Gavron and Baroness Vadera.”
I can’t say I’ve noticed that before. Can you take it in any native language or even any language?
Perhaps members can’t take in too much too soon but it does seem in the best interests of the house to provide as full an induction system as is practicable/desired by members.
I had wondered if any of the husbands/wives/siblings/parents etc had stood as supporters as there are and have been more than a few of all of them.
I must admit that I slightly miss one largely pre-99 feature of the introduction or maiden speech. Namely the house recounting anecdotes of new the peers father or sometimes grandfather.
Lord Norton, An interesting case, that your readers might enjoy, is that of Lord Janner.
He was introduced by colleague Lord Merlyn-Rees (who took a title to reflect his own first name and last name – one of my favourite traditions in the Lords) and Lord Morris of Kenwood (his brother-in-law). Since that time, he has introduced a number of other peers, two which are particularly notable.
Lord Carey, upon his introduction, asked him to lead him in. A Labour Jewish peer introducing a crossbench former Archibishop of Canterbury. Incredibly unconventional.
More recently, crossbench peer Lord Hameed was again introduced by Lord Janner, and Lord Dholakia. That’s a crossbench Muslim peer, introduced by a Labour Jewish peer and a Lib Dem Hindu peer.
Michael: Those are truly excellent finds! Thank you. I assume that was a quite deliberate attempt to show religious unity but no worse for it. I don’t know if anyone else remembers the same but I saw in one lords reform discussions a catholic bishop expressing in strong terms that he didn’t want the Anglican bishops to be removed from the lords as in effect he felt any religious input/voice (even of another religion) was better than no voice. I suspect that on many political issues all religions establishments probably have more in common than that which divides them.
As a none member he house, but has a visitor in the Visitors Gallery ,since I was 22 years old (now I am 50) I have never be able to witness and introduction of a peer. I find that sad I I so enjoy visitingt he chamber, even if I pop in for a a short time.