Sadly, Viscount Bledisloe, an eminent barrister, died on 12 May. Since he was a hereditary peer, a by-election follows automatically. This is a formal affair involving the Electoral Reform Services and a set of rules instituted during the 1999 House of Lords reforms.
There are 29 hereditary peers among the 200-odd crossbenchers and all these are eligible to vote. Notices will be sent out to the electors and to the candidates by 1 June – there are over 100 hereditary peers on the Register of those who wish to stand for election.
Ballot papers have to be returned by 14 July and the count will take place with independent observers on 15 July.
My task in all this is to ensure that whoever is successful in the ballot is genuinely independent. Last year, following the death of Baroness Darcy de Knayth, I organised a ‘hustings’ during which all those who put their names forward had the opportunity to say why they wished to be elected and what their special interest were. This helped to weed out party-pris candidates. One latecomer to the event announced that he was a member of UKIP -which more or less cancelled out his candidacy!
We will hold another gathering so that the 29 electors can have an informed view of the qualities and expertise of those who have put their names forward. With 29 electors at least the crossbenches are not in the slightly difficult position of having more candidates than electors which is the case with the Liberal Democrats who have only three hereditary peers on their benches.
Can I ask an awkward question – and before anyone says I always ask awkward questions 😀 – in order to work out who could stand, in advance of a vacancy, there is no list I can see to consult. You have to wait for candidates to be announced. As I understand the situation the Crown Office keeps a Roll of the Peerage which includes all those who have proved their succession and (where they hold a non-Irish title) are therefore eligible to stand in the by-election. The paper records were converted to an electronic file in 2007 or so with the intent that it be put on the DCA website but to my knowledge is never has. Does anyone know why?
Without naming names, are peers aware of former members or peers who have recently succeeded to titles who are itching to join the house and known to be seeking an opportunity? Or is saying you want to join considered bad form?
What if any efforts are taken to find out if peers have a party interest (undisclosed) apart from questions in the hustings or do you rely on word of mouth?
Baroness D’Souza,
I fear this may all soon become academic. The ‘collateral damage’ to the expenses scandal is that the appetite for Lords Reform, which had seemed fairly minor, is going to increase hugely.
Despite this having been kicked into, well, if not the long grass certainly some ‘on the long-ish side of medium’ length grass, the fact that Nick Clegg is raising it will make it difficult to ignore…
The Speaker tried to ignore Nick Clegg – and look what happened to him..
I’m a fan of the Lords, on balance, but my view that no one would have the political will to reform it in the next generation is going to have to be reviewed. The effect of the ‘Expenses Files’ is that the scales have fallen from people’s eyes about many many aspects of Parliament, and the genie ain’t going to be put back into the bottle any time soon.
I’m not convinced many of you have realised just how big an earthquake the Daily Telegraph has triggered, or the volume of the tsunami of change heading your way really is.
And in any case, it looks as if the prospective hereditaries may be shoved out of the way by Labour MPs with very sharp elbows…
http://www.tomharris.org.uk/2009/05/28/unconvinced-about-a-rush-along-the-corridor/
Man the lifeboats !!
Sorry, what I should have conceded is that this potential ‘chicken run’ may defer ‘Lords Reform’ despite public clamour as stale, time-served and discredited politicians seek a sinecure to provide a fix for their addiction to public money during their sunset years..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/28/labour-reform-a-new-politics
Awkward questions welcome, ability to answer them still unclear! If I understand your query correctly, there is indeed a long list of hereditary peers waiting for a convenient by-election.However when the opportunity arises, many may not want to have their names put forward. Moreover, others will, before 1999, have been sitting on party political benches. This would tend to disqualify them for the crossbench by-election that will be held on 15 July – the point of the hustings is in part to determine independence.
Canvassing – other than discreet words in ears – is frowned upon.
The House authorities keep a list of those newly succeeded to the title and these people are asked it they have an interest in being on the register.
Sorry don’t know about the DCA list – but will find out.
Bedd Gelert – yes, I agree with almost everything you say except the last sentence. On that, I think we do realise that this a vastly (and historic) time and nothing will be quite the same again – the issue is what to do, how soon,and how independently reforms can be instituted.
While, I think one has to be cautious about being driven by the media, the voice of the people in this showdown is almost a Peasants’Revolt moment.Therefore whatever we do MUST have the confidence of the public and this means proper external, independent review and recommendations.
This has begun; the House has set up an external review on expenses, a group has been set up to review the Code of Conduct so that it is utterly unambiguous. The Crossbenchers have set up an informal group to discuss ideas for reform on all aspects of expenses and we intend to convey the results of this debate to the external reviewer.
I wondered in writing about the seemingly arcane by-election of a hereditary peer would provoke comments such as yours. It is an anachronism and must go. Those hereditaries who sit on the crossbenches and work pretty tirelessly and effectively could all immediately be converted to life peers which would end the by-election system.
There are other reforms that could be instituted without too much legislative delay and many of us wonder why the Government is hesitating.
Bedd Gelert et al,
Is it time to remind ourselves that it was the elected hereditaries in the House of Lords who voted for their own abolition in october 1999? The third reading of the Blair government’s House of Lords Bill was passed by 221 votes to 81. And Lord Strathclyde, the current leader of the opposition, also an elected hereditary, is a staunch advocate of removal of the remaining hereditaries. Very few of those who sit currently would oppose their removal or alternatively, and a fair way to hang on to the skills of the current ones who make such a contribution, is simply to stop elections. Gradually death and retirement would remove them but we wouldn’t lose the expertise and dedication of those who are current contributors. I was full of revolutionary zeal to evict the remaining 90 when I first arrived but I’ve modified my view in the light of the practical contribution they make. I would still vote to exclude them if that were an option but increasingly I feel a gradual extrusion would be better.
I do hope you are right that constitutional reform of the Lords will be encouraged by the current Telegraph campaign but I’m sceptical, the moment the tirade ceases we’ll move onto the next ‘shock horror’ or ‘scandal’ and wow won’t we all be relieved. I’ll bet the bankers are feeling better already.
Baronesses Murphy and D’Souza,
I’ve never really been a fan of the ‘boot the hereditaries’ out movement. I merely think that the ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t try and fix it’ inertia which has existed is likely to change.
The Lords are by no means the biggest problem facing politics, but I think that the old ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ approach cannot really work when the canines have been comprehensively roused from slumber by the racket coming from the Commons.
The problem, as ever, is that a panic reaction may lead to jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. Already I’m worried that the population might be more amenable to moving powers from Westminster to Europe or devolved assemblies which is by no means a solution to the current problem.
There was a bizarre intervention from Wales where people are now saying that opposing greater powers for the Welsh Assembly to impose the views of a minority party onto the majority is a bad thing because Westminster has lost ‘moral authority’.
Worrying times indeed.
Yes, worrying times – in particular because it would be so easy to be politically expedient now when what is needed is proper, sober and radical reform which will not be subject to oceans of media discontent etc. The calmer we can all be while at the same time introducing transparent thought-out procedures the better.
Flayling about would be the worst option for a Parliament which should somehow muster the dignity and authority to put itself right.
Bedd Gelert: There were 47 new peers in the ’97 resignation list (mostly Labour 31). If Brown were to allow half the 52 Labour MPs between now or at a presumed resignation list any new government would undoubtedly feel a need to create at least a marginal advantage of being the largest party in the lords and would in turn need to create ~ 62 peers of it’s own 🙄 (Based on approx Lab 214/Tory 196 presently or 214+26=240 and for a similar 18 vote advantage the Tories would need +62) Blair created >350 peers which is simply unsustainable. Frankly we need everyone to stop nominating party peers for a while until the present numbers thin out.
baronessmurphy & Baroness D’Souza: The difficulty with the ‘get rid of the hereditaries’ line seems to me that part of the reason they were kept was to act as a big sign saying Lords reform unfinished. So just removing the hereditaries seems the constitutional equivalent of solving the problem of your fire alarm going off by removing the battery; there is still smoke if not yet a fire. 😐 Obviously at some point parliament has work out what the Lords is supposed to do, and how best to constitute it to fulfil that role.
If they do convert the hereditary peers to ‘life peers’ which I think is probably most practical for a smooth transition I do hope more sense is used than in ’99. Rather than simply including a clause in the bill saying for the purposes of the Act all peers who had been created a hereditary peer, were in receipt of a writ of acceleration or who had held the office of Leader of the House of Lords shall be considered life peers and retain their seat we saw all peers in those categories offered life peerages and having to have new letters patent drawn up. What a waste of time and effort!
If the only introduction to the present crossbenchers is the hustings new peers, as opposed to pre ’99 peers, would seem at a huge disadvantage in the election process.
Thanks for looking into the DCA/internal house list. It just puzzles me that a list of prospective legislators is maintained but not published (so far as I can find) No doubt a clumsy route is available via a FoI request but open government and all…
Baroness Murphy: it is not surprising that hereditary peers such as Lord Strathclyde are happy to see an end to elected hereditaries, as long as it’s done by a system that means they retain their own seats.
As for “hang on to the skills of the current ones who make such a contribution”, surely the issue is that, had the system of elections not existed (or had hereditary peers never sat in the Lords) you would never have had those people in the House in the first place – from your comments, seemingly a great loss. One answer to this conundrum would be to instead have peers chosen by the electorate. This is why removing the remaining hereditary peers should only be done as part of the fully-implemented second stage of Lords reform.
Croft: I don’t agree about the Life Peerages. Historically, e.g. when Scottish or Irish peers weren’t entitled to sit, they were given British peerages to enable them. It used to be quite normal for peers to have multiple titles, and it would certainly make reading biographies on Dodonline more interesting!
Jonathan: What you say about Scottish/Irish titles is perfectly true but while I found a certain amusement in seeing the 7th Earl of Longford – who had first sat in the Lords as a new hereditary (Baron Pakenham) in 1945 then had to take an oath again on succeeding his brother as earl (mostly Irish titles but Baron Silchester was British) in 1961 – having to take a new oath again as a Life Peer (Baron Pakenham of Cowley) aged 94 it is not a useful exercise in anyone’s time even if it makes the hereditaries’ biographies in dods good reading. 🙂
Baroness D’Souza: Your reply to Bedd Gelert: “a Peasants’Revolt moment”. Yes, the Justice Minister had one of those and so did Margaret Thatcher.
From the link below:
“The immediate cause of the revolt was the unprecedented amount of taxation the peasantry faced from the Government.”
This is not over by any means.
Ref: The History of the Peasants Revolt by Jeff Hobbs
http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/peasantsrevolt.html
PS: Is there any substance to the BBC offering you an upcoming cameo role as Mère to Lady D’Souza’s in an upcoming Dr Who timeline? Mums the word of course but it would be great publicity for the House of Lords.
I absolutely agree that it is both likely and highly undesirable that we have a huge influx of new peers at the next general election. The House of Lords is already rather shamefully large and according to my calculations could be reduced by about 250 – which is why I keep harping on about offering honourable retirement.
I reckoned that if the HoL is to fufill its Committee functions it needs about 450 peers, say 500 to allow for competition for Select Committee seats. At the moment we have almost 750 and it is possible that numbers could swell to over 800. There is no room in the chamber, no offices available and I think the administration of the House would suffer unless it too was strengthened. None of this seems to be necessary.
The Government does argue that to allow small reforms might preclude larger, more radical reforms. I’m not so sure. The seemingly small changes of 1999 have had profound effects and I think tightening up rules, abolishing hereditary by-elections and introducing retirement would be a relatively painless but effective way to go
On new peers and hustings – it always surprises me how up-to-date the hereditaries are about their fellow nobles. Certainly there will be favourites from the pre-1999 cohort but this would not preclude serious consideration of new hereditaries as was shown at the last hustings – where a relative newcomer was elected.
Relative newcomers yes: iirc the Earl of Stair (XB) had taken his seat in ’98 (elected 2008) Viscount Eccles (C) April ’99 (elected 2005) and Earl Cathcart (C) in Oct ’99 (!) (elected 2007)
Going by the average age of peers even a short pause of creations would have a brisk impact.
Slightly tying onto Jonathan’s question I was slightly intrigued by one of your flock. Civil servants cannot speak or vote in the Lords (by convention). The military only with permission (although in something of a bon mot by the late Lord Longford as minister replied that ‘the (military) Service rules apparently do not apply to those who reach the highest eminence.’) Could you comment on the ‘rules’ for police officers?
On the subject of “genuinely independent” crossbench peers, a question occurred to me yesterday. Is it acceptable for crossbenchers to vote in the European elections? Of course, this isn’t an issue at general elections, but peers will be eligible to vote next week. Is it OK to vote for a party, just not to be a member of one?
Jonathan, yes peers can vote in both European and local elections and clearly they can vote for whomever they wish – party or non-party!
Croft, as far as I can see erstwhile civil servants, the armed forces and the police all vote with impunity in the House of Lords as peers of the realm. Was this really your question?
baronessdsouza: It was thankyou. I’d been reading Lord Longford’s ministerial statement on the matter so I thought I was clear on the military and serving (not former) civil servants but had never heard a comment on the police.
Croft, as I understand it the list of those registered for any future election as a hereditary peer is published and can be accessed on –
http://pa/ld/ldelect.htm
There are also plans to update the list in between the annual updates.
Very sorry got distracted and the correct address is
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldelect.htm
Thanks for that it’s definitely a starting point. As you suggest updates on a reasonable basis are needed for it not to get rather confusing after successions as to whether the present or former peer is/was on the list – as they don’t give a d.o.b or any qualifying details to help clarify it. Obviously we’re 6 months out of date at present.
Do you have an approx date for when we know who is actively ‘standing’
Please can we not have any more nonsense about the hereditary by-elections having to go, because of the small numbers of electors. All that needs to happen is to have all hereditary replacemnents elected by the whole house. Job done.