Peers can vote in local and European Parliament elections, but cannot vote in elections to the House of Commons. Some members of the House object to this and believe they should be entitled to vote. The issue came up again at Question Time yesterday. The minister, Lord Bach, was asked what the rationale was for peers not being permitted to vote for members of the Commons. The minister explained that:
“Parliament consists of three estates: the Sovereign, the Lords and the Commons. The Lords sit in their own right while Members of the Commons are elected by the remainder of the estate of commoners to represent them in Parliament. There was therefore no case for the Lords to vote to elect representatives since they were able to sit in Parliament anyway. Further, even if they had voted, they did not belong to the estate from which the Commons was elected and which it represented.”
It is clear that the Government is not minded to act on the issue in the near future. I see no particular reason why they should. There is still force in the argument that we are able to sit in Parliament and can therefore speak for ourselves. If we have a particular problem where it would appear an abuse of position to act on our own behalf, we can always approach an MP: the fact that we cannot cast a vote does not mean we cannot contact the local MP. I am not sure if electors would be that impressed if time was taken up providing for members of the Lords to have a vote in parliamentary elections. I for one am content with the present position.
It seems a pretty inventive argument to seriously argue that they are being denied representation. Another blind grope at an ECHR (3) argument? Members have personal representation and voluntarily lose their vote. I was slightly amused a few years back when a peer tried to push the same argument but included in his question the to the minister the statement that “(peers) are all commoners now!”
The only point in which I do perhaps think there is some argument of fairness is that perhaps all peers, not just hereditaries (at 21 or 1yr from succession) ought to be able to disclaim their titles. In this way there is always a way open to members to make the choice and/or retire.
Croft: I agree with your comments in your first paragraph. On the second paragraph, there is a case for peers being able to apply for permanent leave of absence: this is one of the provisions in the House of Lords Bill being debated in the House on Friday.
I am reading The Federalist Papers right now and I found a delightful quote I am going to memorise: “in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four”.
I think it applies to many matters.
My understanding is that at present leave of absence has no effect on your right to vote. I have seen in the House of Lords Bill a clause to achieve exactly that but as a private members bill it’s not going to happen.
Croft: You are correct that leave of absence has no effect on the right to vote. The House of Lords Bill being debated tomorrow is designed to make the case for a provision to apply for permanent leave of absence. It is a means of highlighting the issue and ensuring a response from the Government.
In a way, not allowing Peers to vote in General Elections shows one of the few checks and balances of the British political system, in so far as peers have the ability to amend laws put forward by the Commons and therefore it could be questioned whether or not they should be able to chose who puts those laws forward.
Craig: I agree. The very fact that peers enjoy such a privileged position distinguishes them from those who can vote in General Elections.