There were some interesting exchanges in the House yesterday when Viscount Tenby asked at Question Time whether the Government planned to change the law to allow peers to vote in general elections. He pointed out that, if prisoners were allowed to vote, the only people barred from voting would be those deemed incapable of voting and peers. The following were among the exchanges that took place:
“Baroness Butler-Sloss: Would not the Minister like to divide the Peers from the lunatics?
Lord Bach: I do that every day.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: Would the Minister confirm that it is in order for Lords spiritual, who are not Peers, to vote in general elections, and that they should therefore be encouraged like all good citizens to use their vote?
Lord Bach: There is no bar to the Lords spiritual voting in parliamentary elections. However, I understand that it has long been the tradition that they do not do so. While they are not Peers, they none the less sit in this House and can therefore participate in person in the proceedings of Parliament instead of being represented in the House of Commons. There is no legal bar to the Lords spiritual voting in a general election; it is very much a matter for them.”
They must be on the electoral register by law,
so it is only a foible not to vote in democratic elections.
There are also county, district, parish and European elections to think about, so why this introspective enquiry should be made yet again, is anybody’s guess.
Gareth Howell: We are all on the electoral register, given that we can vote in European and local elections. We are only precluded from voting in elections to the House of Commons. This can cause confusion: when I went to vote in a local election, the clerks in the polling station had received the wrong information and thought I was not permitted to vote at all! Fortunately, they received the correct information when they checked with the electoral registration officer.
Oh! There are really not that many exceptions to the voting rolls how hard is it to manage to cope with peers. Then again I do have a memory of a government guidance document that told staff in whichever agency it was that there was a special number they could ring if they were having problems with peers. I remember wondering if that was meant to be read two ways!
“Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: Would the Minister confirm that it is in order for Lords spiritual, who are not Peers,”
So the Lord Bishop is not a Lord Peer.
I was unaware, or had not considered that nicety.
The Lord Bishop may come and go depending on his tenure of office of bishop, and when he retires gives way to the succeeding lord bishop.
That brings me back to the notion of Metropolitan city Mayors being Lords…. Mayor, and in the house of Lords, during their tenure of office of Lord Mayor.
Actually if they gave it much thought, they could bring that about as political appointees by their own self selection, during their term of office. I don’t know whether anybody has done that in the past.
Croft: In Hull, it’s a grand total of three peers!
Does the ban on peers voting include those hereditaries who were excluded by Blair? Or is their electoral representation determined by voting one of their number into the Lords whenever one of the sitting 92 expires?
Do the Lords Spiritual get to vote in the Lords or merely contribute to the debate?
Dave H: No, peers excluded by the 1999 House of Lords Act are permitted to vote in parliamentary elections. This is provided in the Act.
The Lords Spiritual can speak and vote in the same way as any other members of the House.
“The Lords Spiritual can speak and vote in the same way as any other members of the House.”
They would find it hard to sit on the X bench!
“peers excluded by the 1999 House of Lords Act are permitted to vote in parliamentary elections. This is provided in the Act.”
Hereditary peers with any sense would have migrated to Brussels and Strasbourg long ago, either as permanent staff or elected members so the loss of apparent value of the word “Peer” or “Lord” for them, would be nominal.
It seem`s a case of hypocrisy again.
You shouldn`t vote because of ? Neutrality ? Yet the House of Lords has become more Political party orientated as the years have gone by. Cranbourne money shows how political the House has become, along with whips etc.
The Lords Spiritual I would expect to be more neutral than anyone else, indeed Lord Norton has remarked that in most cases a Bishop could be seen on either side during a vote.
Aside from neutrality is was bandied that because you represent yourselves in Parliament you do not need an MP to do so. Rubbish you vote for an MP to represent your constituency not you personally, his view in the commons may mean you never get a say on some things. It should be your right to be represented in the other place.
Interestingly I have found this on Government website which states Bishops cannot vote.
At a general election, the following people cannot vote:
•anyone under 18 years old
•members of the House of Lords, including life peers, Church of England archbishops and bishops, and hereditary peers who have retained their seat in the House of Lords – these people can, however, vote at elections to local authorities, devolved legislatures and the European Parliament
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/Politicalpartiesandelections/DG_073240
Carl H: That is an interesting counterpoint to the argument that peers should not vote for MPs as they already have a say in Parliament. The material from the Government website reinforces the level of confusion that exists about the status of the Bishops. It is something I think I will pursue.
My Lord this may help, it has the same info.
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-02208.pdf
My Lord there may also be a case as with those imprisoned that your human rights are being denied.
“The right to vote is an inalienable human right enshrined in Article Three of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
My Noble Lord, I believe also the Queen, represented by the mace when not present, is theoretically allowed to attend the House of Lords for all debates.
The Queen also has the right of a vote.
I fail to understand some of the antiquated laws applicable. Peers are citizens and must have the right to vote.
Perhaps registering to vote using the family name is the key.
Bishops should vote – why advise church members to use their votes carefully and prayerfully if they sit on their hands, due to some outdated convention.
Well, that made everything very clear.
Does informal tradition guide everything in British politics?
And as for ‘those deemed incapable of voting’, I think it would make politics more intresting if we let them vote.
Think of the campaign slogans appealing to the mentally peculiar!
‘Vote for us! The others are lizard-people!’
“Does informal tradition guide everything in British politics?”
I find tradition a fascinating subject. There must a good body of literature on it, in the discipline of psychology. Those who are most insecure, need the most tradition, in their personal lives, and attempt to impose it on others.
It may be an instinctive need, since it is probably closely akin to “ceremony” at which the religious are usually so adept, and is it not said, that those attracted to religions, are the mot insecure, that it gives them personal comfort and support, that the reciting of prayer, and holy words gives them the reassurance they need?
“Informal” tradition is surely an observation that either an individual, or a small group, has such ways of seeking re assurance.
Tradition is just a set of rules and procedures that have evolved over time. It’s usually stuff that worked (or appeared to often enough) and was often introduced for a good reason, and remains even if that good reason no longer applies. Some of it was probably introduced as a means to control the masses by preying on superstition and encouraging them to listen to and obey their leaders. One could argue we’ve still got that when the government raises the terror threat level whenever it wishes to get another controversial bit of legislation through Parliament.
Some parts of Parliamentary tradition are present simply because they’ve always worked well enough and there’s no need to change them. Some parts are there as a reminder of how the system evolved – Black Rod getting the door of the Commons shut in his face is one of them.
Interestingly “Idiots” are not allowed to vote as well as “Lunatics”……
So I guess compulsion to vote can be ruled out for most of us.
“Echoing the rather arcane language of the legislation, “idiots” may not vote and “lunatics” only during their lucid periods. Those compulsorily detained in psychiatric hospitals, for example, cannot vote. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/news/vote2001/hi/english/voting_system/newsid_1171000/1171908.stm
It does seem slightly odd that peers can’t vote because they “participate in person in the proceedings of Parliament”. So do MPs! Yet the latter can actually vote for themselves, while Lords, who don’t need to stand for election, can’t vote at all.
@Ernest: surely you’re not suggesting Lords should register under false names in order to vote? Just putting false information on an electoral registration form can mean a fine of £1000, and presumably there are stiffer penalties for actual voting fraud.
In passing…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7465537/Catholic-adoption-agency-wins-gay-rights-exemption-ruling.html
Jonathan: MPs can vote because at the time of the election they are no longer MPs. Have a read of this piece on our blog if you want to know more: http://hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/edemocracy/archive/2010/03/04/can-your-mp-use-their-email-once-parliament-is-dissolved.aspx
Andy
I was aware that MPs may not describe themselves as such once an election is called, and have noted a large number of websites where the domain name contains “MP”. So to whom do I report any I find still operating after dissolution?
MPs with any sense will use URLs that don’t contain “MP” as then they can continue to use the same address, which will be a huge boost to visitor numbers, compared to a new site with no incoming links or search engine ranking.
I’ve certainly see a fair few as well though I thought parliament had cracked down on this.
I wondered about that too! Does seem a bit silly, bordering on arrogant, to have a web address with “mp” in it. Like a tattoo bearing the name of an ex-wife, something they may one day regret.
Maybe they could persuade the Parliamentary authorities that “mp” stands for something else in that context. Witty suggestions welcome.
Chris K: how about “my page” (not very witty). Of if they are standing down at the election, “maybe peer”.
Chris: In light of the expences scandal perhaps MP is ‘maybe prosecuted’
Whatever the arguments for or against dis-establishment we might have had an act permitting vampirism on the statute before long without the philosophical intervention of one of the gracious Bishops recently.
Morals and ethics, whilst not a complex subject, take specialization.
“We might have had an act permitting vampirism on the statute”
I protest most strongly, it is objectionable on the grounds of equality to state vampirism not be allowed yet the actions of fleas, ticks, leeches and other types of parasites….”I say nothing here nor do I infer”….be allowed.
😉
But if a member is a conservative when the election is declared, may he then rejoin as an elected Labour member, observing that it is not lawful to be a member of two parties?
A change of party whilst in parliament is often done by oral writ, meeting the Leader of the other party at St Stephen’s entrance and greeting him. A camera nearby is convenient.
Gareth Howell: Who said it was not lawful to be a member of two parties?
My Noble Lord, I posted comment to Lord Myners blog but it doesn`t appear to be going in.
Unfortunately there is no button for contacting Admin re the incident.
Apologies for the interuption.
“Gareth Howell: Who said it was not lawful to be a member of two parties?”
Noble Lord Irvine advised me individually, quite why I didn’t know.
Gareth Howell: Who said it was not lawful to be a member of two parties?”
Noble Lord Irvine advised me individually, quite why I didn’t know.
Except for the Coop and Labour parties, which have an agreement.
I think it’s probably that the membership rules of political parties prohibit simultaneous membership of another party rather than the law.
Gareth Howell: He was wrong!
The parties would be capable of taking their own proceedings in the magistrates court for the breaking of their own rules perhaps?
Which may have been what lord Irvine intended to say.
Rt Hon George Osborne put a rather less polite construction upon the noble lord’s interpretation, during a debate in the OP.
Twm O’r Nant: No, it would be a matter for the parties themselves, usually by expelling a member who supports any other party.
I wasn’t quite expecting so many comments on a post about the status of Bishops. Mind you, I am struck by the extent to which the Lords Spiritual continue to fascinate people.
Perhaps one of the bishops or one of the others faiths that have been granted a LP as a ‘representative’ of that faith might be persuaded to make a guest post!