For anybody who has not seen the news, the House of Lords Appointments Commission yesterday announced they were recommending the appointment of four new life peers who will sit on the cross-benches. They include Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson, Britain’s most successful Paralympian.
Well done to those four, for being pillars of the community in their particular disciplines, and for standing up to public scrutiny of their working lives.
I am particularly keen on Olympians, not on the disabled Olympian particularly, although disabled myself, but Tami Gray Thompson is a marvellous example of sporting prowess, and to the disabled, never to give up!
Also to a Royal Opera house dedicatee, well done! May the modulated and trained voice enhance many an HofL speech, and hold noble peers in thrall like Placido Domingo at the
Met!
Gsreth Howell: I have heard very positive comments about the new peers and what they will be able to add to the House.
Welcome and well done to the new peers, lets hope they find time to join in the blog.
Carl H: That’s a very good point.
Lord Norton,
Quick question, I understand that the House of Lord Appointments Commission recommends all non-party-political life peers. Is there a solid reason why all life peers cannot be recommended by this committee based on merit and their potential to add useful expertise to the second chamber?
http://www.governing-principles.com
Clarification: Would it be possible/practical to remove the political parties from the House of Lords nomination process? (Hopefully, removing all possibility of another “Cash for Peerages” Scandal)
governing principles: The Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords (the Wakeham Commission) recommended that there should be an Appointments Commission with responsibility for nominating party as well as non-party (i.e. cross-bench) peers. In the event, a non-statutory Appointments Commission was created to nominate non-party peers. Though only being responsible for putting forward names for cross-bench peers, it does have a role vetting the names of those nominated by the political parties. The reason the ‘cash for peerages’ scandal arose a few years ago was because the system actually worked – some party nominees were blocked because the Commission was not satisfied they the met the necessary criteria.
I favour putting the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis, but I recognise the reason why it has been given a proactive role in relation to non-party peers and a reactive one in relation to party nominees. I think the parties should be responsible for their own nominees, with the Commission checking that those nominated meet a high quality threshold.
A quick question – has anyone else actually been refused entry into the Lords, besides the cash-for-honours scandal ones? I haven’t heard anything in the press apart from the Commission recommending against Lord Sugar; but he came into the Lords. Thanks in advance Lord Norton!
Personally, I would like a larger role for the Commission – including imposing flexible limits on new party and non-party peers in a parliamentary session, but I recognise that’s not going to happen any time soon.
Lord Norton, does this not depend on what you mean by “quality”? At present, the Appointments Commission checks the propriety and integrity of party political candidates, but presumably not whether they would add anything useful to the Lords. You could have someone who is perfect honest and a good citizen, but simply hopeless when they come to sit in the chamber.
Lord Norton, thank you for answering my question.
I was asking because I find the modern House of Lords very difficult to explain to apolitical/foreign friends. I usually describe it as “an unelected Second Chamber of experts from every field that scrutinizes legislation”. This particularly cheers the Americans who, worried that the legislature is supreme in UK politics, see it as offering the same protection against populism as the Constitution/Supreme Court.
However, my description falls apart as soon as they access Wikipedia and, upon reading about politically nominated peers, they start to describe it as “jobs of the boys”. I never can really counter this accusation as, whatever may be the truth, “jobs of the boys” is certainly what it looks like. Maybe a statue enshrining the Appointments Committee would also make its role clearer to the general public.
Also, while I am sure the Wakeham Report’s suggestions would be very workable, I worry that a two tier House of Lords would be difficult to explain to the public. I often feel that people’s apathy towards politics is due to lack of understanding, and I am not sure Lords Wakeham’s suggested changes would help this.
Johnathon,
And if a hopeless candidate is in, you can’t get rid of them.
If they sell the law for cash, they aren’t kicked out. They get a slap on the wrist and get told don’t turn up. Come back later when the heat is down.
Under investigation by the police? Suspended? nope. Carry on claiming the expenses.
Have the lords changed the regulations? Tightened up on expenses? Nope. Not a single new law.
Have the Lords shopped anyone to the police? Nope. So much for self regulation
This may make me appear terribly ignorant, which I won`t deny.
Who decides when to allow more Lords and how many?
“You could have someone who is perfect honest and a good citizen, but simply hopeless when they come to sit in the chamber.”
Laugh.
“Who decides when to allow more Lords and how many?” 1) need for a majority
2) PM
At the end of a term of parliament, those MPs who want to “go up”, do so, and anybody else who can spin a few words together in debate.
This is such a trivial discussion I don’t know why I even bother to reply to gentleman Carl.
“This is such a trivial discussion I don’t know why I even bother to reply to gentleman Carl.”
So I don`t go blurting a lot of spiel that I maybe wrong about….Again 😉
I mean, I`d hate to go shouting off that it`s actually open ended. That the people who control how much tax we pay could say “oh go on, a few more won`t hurt the tax payer much”. That they could put into office the people they want who wouldn`t oppose them.
Thank God we`re English and understand that the Country is in so much deficit it would be immoral to appoint more. I mean we`ve just paid £6.5m for IPSA, £1.5m on expenses inquiries and Court cases to come and we understand the taxpayer is not a bottomless pot don`t we ? I mean it`s laughable that if we weren`t so astute and did things like that we`d possible have to cancel Police recruit training at Hendon for 2000, or cut back on recruiting for the Army, or even cut back on all the Armed Forces budgets and a lot more stuff like that. Whoops sorry lad no field morphine available, we`ve appointed another Labour Lord.
Thank you Gareth and Lord Norton for the astonishing information.
Carl H: The Appointments Commission is largely responsible for determining how many new non-party peers to recommend. Other nominations are determined by the Prime Minister. There is an occasional list of working peers, the PM determining how many to be nominated by each party, and various one-off nominations. At the end of a Parliament, a Prime Minister can publish a dissolution honours list.
All four newly appointed cross bench peers are warmly welcomed and I have already written to them
However, we did a small inventory of the ‘gaps’ in our number in terms of desired expertise. We need a media person to provide impartial and excellent information on key issues such as privacy, standards, publics service broadcasting and media laws. We also need expertise on the built environment – another area which touches on a number of different disciplines but is none the less much needed.
Let us hope that this “where are the gaps” approach to appointments will become the norm in the future?
Baroness D’Souza: is the Appointments Commission allowed to look at where the “gaps” in expertise are? Or does it simply have to judge each application individually according to the criteria (which just require “a range of experience, skills and competencies”)?
I doubt the Commission has attempted to make such a balance in the past. Off the top of my head, I can think of two peers they recommended who work in the same department at Oxford University, for example. Is there an argument to make ensuring a balance on the cross-benches a remit of the Commission: a balance not just in expertise, but also to reduce geographical (and institutional) bias?
It’s a myth. There is no need for expertise in the Lords.
Cut the numbers to 100, and if they need expertise in a particular area hold a public hearing and get the experts in.
It’s constantly trotted out, the Lords have specialist skills. However, with 400 attending each day (check in check out), the 400 don’t have the specialist skills for the discussions of the day.
Another myth put out to justify the 2,000 pounds a minute.
Wolfgang: There is a very strong need for expertise in the Lords. That case is recognised by the public. Holding public hearings with experts is by itself no answer. If it were, the Commons would be an effective body and not require a second chamber. You need a fairly expert or informed body to engage with experts, otherwise you don’t know what questions to put and, equally importantly, how to evaluate and pursue the answers. You are hardly in a position to accuse others of myth-making, given your capacity to generate your own. You misunderstand the funding of the House. Part of the expenditure of the House would be incurred even if peers did not exist. The Palace of Westminster (a Grade 1* World Heritage Site) has to be maintained and the 1 million people who visit it each year have to be provided for. The Lords also contributes to the education service as well as to such things as The History of Parliament, a massive historical research enterpris. These costs cannot be lumped in with the costs attributed to the members and the support provided to members.
Put simply, going to parliament gets different people in different ways.
To the other place, they “stand and get elected” they “enter”, they “take their seat”, all sorts of different ways, which is as much the preferred description of the individual as
anything prescribed.
I have noted in the last few days about five different ways, of going to the House of lords, either less or more formal.
DT/Times jargon would describe it as “being elevated”. Some of my noble friends
would have described themselves as “going up”.
Some ancient aristos would merely “take their seats”, to name but three methods!
Now that the chamber is properly described as
the second chamber, it can scarcely be described as an “elevation” or a “going up”.
It may, as a curiosity, be described as “getting elected” !!!
“Entering” the house of lords is also a possibility, and would be a much better description of what is done, more in keeping for everybody, considering the newly reformed status of the place.
The supreme court no longer forms a part of it.
An interesting mix of new peers, I wonder if there are any budding bloggers among them. It would certainly be interesting to hear about their first impressions on joining the house.
Rob: I agree. A very good point.
Len: I understand that there have been cases when names have been knocked back (as has been the case with other honours) but I do not have any hard evidence. I agree with your comment on the Commission. I think it is already enhancing its role, not least in terms of what it expects of those nominated for peerages.
Jonathan: I agree that it depends on definition. The Commission does look at what people could bring to the House and is now taking a more rigorous approach to time commitments. It made the following last year: “The Appointments Commission wants to ensure that future nominees are willing to commit the time necessary to make an effective contribution to the House of Lords, rather than, as now, merely “having the time available” to do so.”
governing principles: I take your point about making the Appointments Commission a statutory body. This was one of the provisions of the Steel Bill. Those of use responsible for the Bill were, and remain, keen to put the Commission on a statutory footing and provide as well for the criteria for appointment to be put on a similar footing. I also share your views about the Royal Commission recommendations. A two-tier House is th worst, rather than the best, of both worlds.
Wolfgang: You have obviously not bothered to read either the Steel Bill or the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. The House has already used the power to suspect members and it is important that we also have the power to expel members.
Assuming anyone will even read new comments on this old post, I watched the introductions of the first two of the new peers today.
As someone who takes an interest in the old vs new county debate, I was surprised that they created Baron Hall of Birkenhead, of Birkenhead in the County of Cheshire, rather than Merseyside. I thought the convention was to use the present counties and areas, not historic ones. I know when he was born there it was Cheshire, but given how pedantic the Garter King of Arms seems (judging for other lords’ blogs) how did he allow this?
And for the peers who apparently like to keep a tally, I note that both new peers swore rather than affirmed. Let’s see what happens next week…