Given the enforced restrictions on blogging, I will be forgiven for being a bit prolix?
We are told that there will be a massive influx of new peers arising from the Dissolution list and the new Government’s need to bulk up with whips. The UK has (embarrassingly) at present the largest second chamber in the world at something like 740 members of whom perhaps 450 turn up on any kind of a regular basis. We may get up to 100 more. Meanwhile, despite strenuous efforts by me and others at the end of the last Parliament, there is NO provision for retirement.
There are approximately 189 crossbench peers and if a 100 turn up there is nowhere for at least 30 of them to sit. So they perch themselves on the steps in the gangways or remain below bar from which places no contributions are allowed. If there are 400 peers in the Chamber as a whole – there is hardly breathing room. So why are we having more?
Many of the politicians have been promised peerages as rewards for political loyalty – all well and good. But without an established and dignified retirement system the House will swell to the extent that it becomes a legitimate target for yet more bitter media criticism. To my mind this is one more example of a complete lack of co0ordinated thought and action on Lords Reform.
My solution for today is as follows: give peerages to anyone you (or more properly the Government) wishes. However, such an honour should NOT necessarily qualify one to sit in the House of Lords as a working peer. Thus the distinction would be between a Lord (or Lady) and a working peer (or better still a Senator).
I have just returned from a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting in Swaziland where the average size of Second Chambers (whether in Australia, Canada, Kenya, India etc) is about 70.
Surely the solution is the Conservative one of a cap on attendance? 😉
The question is, why are those politicians being granted peerages? To give them titles, or to give them seats in the legislature? Which is it they are actually expecting? I suspect in many cases it will be the latter, otherwise they could be offered knighthoods.
As I’ve said in reply to one of Lord Norton’s posts, I think there should be no new Labour peers. But even then, it would require 40-50 each of Conservatives and Lib Dems to reflect voting.
Leaving Lords reform for your other post, perhaps a solution to numbers is to enforce retirement for peers who don’t attend regularly. There would have to be a high threshold, for example attending 50% of the time, or else people would turn up once a year just to keep their seats. Those currently on leave of absence should be allowed a year to start attending, and allowances could be made for anyone unable to attend, for example for those recovering from serious illness. But for everyone else it should apply immediately. If they didn’t attend last year, why should they this year?
I haven’t checked attendance figures before writing this, but it would be interesting to see how many peers a 50% threshold would catch.
One interesting thing I noticed is that all new ministers announced are, as far as I can see, drawn from MPs and existing peers. The number of peers is also quite small, and there are no Secretaries of State among them. I think this is a refreshing change from the previous government. The Lords is there to revise legislation, not to allow the PM to appoint whoever he wants into the cabinet.
Shrinking the number of people eligible to comment on legislation simply because the room is a bit cramped seems an odd solution to the problem.
Why not get a bigger room?
One of the huge advantages of the current system is the wide range of experiences and personalities that exists within the Lords – and that diversity is what makes it such a good revising chamber.
If anything, more Lords (and Ladies) will only improve its diversity and ability to act as a check on the elected full-time politicians working down the corridor.
Quite. Besides anything else, even the last Labour government managed to resist the temptation to flood the place with peers to give themselves a working majority.
So what is the right size for a future Lords? If the House is not to require vast and expensive new accommodation, I guess that the maximums are 600 for a part time house, 300 for a full time house and 150 for a full time house with one researcher/assistant per member.
Does the baroness not think that govt could introduce retirement regulations quite swiftly if necessary?
“there is NO provision for retirement.”
Will a certain number of X benchers not be persuaded to take up seats to the left or right of the Baroness speaker?
Well I’ve said as much myself – a non parliamentary life peerage would allow something to ‘prize’ MPs from their seats and for illustrious people who actually deserve an honour but can’t spare the time to work in the Lords.
You may know that the Act of Union with Ireland had a provision (Article 4) that prevented the crown from creating new peerages until 3 old peerages were lost down to a limit (100 peers) when creations could occur 1:1 I can’t help but think something of the same would be helpful with the parties limit set as some proportion of their popular vote (averaged over several elections to stop wild fluctuations in the limit)
I am worried about the numbers too, very selfishly I am very glad I’ve already got a desk! I do hope that with more Conservatives we shall find a few of them interested in Health and Social Care issues, the emptiness of the back benches when we are in committee on these issues has been disgracefully small this past 2-3 years.
“a non parliamentary life peerage would allow something to ‘prize’ MPs from their seats”
The Orders of Knighthood are based on the Various Royal peculiar chapels and meet for ceremonies with varying frequency.
The Order of the Bath is based on Westminster
Abbey, (of which services I was once fond)
and would it not be appropriate for such an
“Order of Peerage” to be based on the Abbey?
I am just following up Croft’s idea, which I did not quite garner until the penny dropped as to precisely what he was thinking of.(I don’t think that is a mixed metaphor!)
My Solution is even more simple.
Why not drop the whole nonsense of Electing Peers, or making a Senate, and bar overly political appointments?
I have said before I’d allow the Hereditary Peers back in, and I would. Appointed Peerages should be given to those how have actually contributed to the community, and be given by the Queen or the House of Lords itself, not by Political Parties granting its own members Peerages for Loyalty to a Partisan Political Cause.
Here in America the Senate has only 100 persons. But thwre all reallyt he same sort of person. Eahc is a Poliician who i CHarismatic and knows how to manipulate the Masses. Eahc is Maitious to hain and keep Power. They all have the same gneral Personality Traits. Thats nto true int he House of Lords. Meek members exist, as do those not particularity charismatic or interested in Self Promotion.
The Senate is also divided along party lines. The Lords has the potential not to be.
The Senators go to greater extremes against each other over time as Political Parties need to differentiate themselves. this is not true of a Peer.
I don’t understand the Modern Love of Democracy. Given how the Commons is a bunch of Clowns there because of party and whim, and has made a complete Comedy of Government, how do we think the Lords will benefit form being the same sort of thing?
Personally, I am fully in favour of a fully appointed House of Lords, but the vast amount of peers currently sitting in the House of Lords is of course a slight problem. However, to me there seems to be a solution to the issue as well.
By not granting every single peer a seat in the House of Lords, peerages could once again be granted as a sign of respect and honour for services to the Crown, instead of for services to a single party. This could mean a return to older tradition were peers are called to the Parliament by Wits of Summons, which could be issued for each new Parliament.
By doing so, a great amount of new peerages could be created with a vast amount of cross-bencher peers, as well as representatives for each party. This would also allow the creation of a “new” House of Lords after each election, which in turn would reflect the current standing in the House of Commons. The size of the House of Lords could also be decreased, as there would be no need to create hundreds of new peerages to balance the situation after each election.
Of course there are some flaws in this plan, as the PM would be allow to choose quite freely who to place in the House of Lords. However, due to the long tradition of Dissolution Honours in Britain this risk seems to be quite small.
As many of you will know, there was an earnest attempt by backbenchers from all parties and from the crossbenches to introduce some small but important incremental changes to HoL reform – notably the need to introduce a dignified retirement system.
However, these clauses to the Constitutional Renewal and Governance bill right at the end of the last Parliament – proved controversial. A deal was done largely emanating from the House of Commons to ditch any controversial bits of the bill in order to ensure that the greater part of it was adopted and could become law. The risk was that the whole bill could have run out of time and be lost.
There was a great deal of discontent about dealing with several important consitutional issues in such an abrupt and cursory way particularly when there was absolutely no need for it to have been rushed through at such immoderate speed!
Why do you need a retirement from a non job?
You keep telling us that you only do it for the expenses. There is no salary.
So how about a 50% of salary retirement package?
Or perhaps its just the blag
Lord Blagger
Takes one to know one.
When have they said they only do it for the expenses? Or is that your assumption? If you were in a position to try to achieve better laws for this country, would you only be motivated by the expenses? Or would you perhaps think that you should try to advance your beliefs and contribute your knowledge because you think you are right?
Your childish demeanour (that last sentence particularly) does a disservice to the case against the Lords. There are those against our upper house (I don’t agree with them personally but I know they exist), but you do nothing to advance their cause.
Cynicism is no substitute for the truth.
If you post the truth on this website, they censor your posts.
It’s not childish either. Its very serious.
These people are in charge and affect your life.
These people over which you have no democratic control, have run up debts that you will have to pay.
0.8 trillion going on to 1.4 trillion in government debts.
1.2 trillion for civil service pensions.
1.5 trillion for the state pension.
More than income tax each year goes in benefits paying for people to do nothing.
And what have the Lords done? Nothing.
Try analysing their expenses, and you will see. There are large numbers who might speak on a couple of days a year, in the chamber or the committees, and yet manage to turn up on most days that the Lords sit.
It’s your money. If you want to fund them, they you can fund them.
I don’t want to fund them one iota. Abolishing the Lords would save over 600 million over the term of parliament. That’s with putting a proper democratic control over parliament in place.
ie. It is the failure of the Lords to hold their own members, and the HoC to account that is the problem. There is no sign it will stop.
If we take one exaple, one lord has stated on this Blog that Lords taking money to change legistlation isn’t a problem, because they wouldn’t have managed to get legistlation changed.
So far it hasn’t been made a criminal offence (although I believe it is fraud), and the Lords still haven’t changed the rules. It’s a slap on the wrist offence. We have convicted criminals still in the Lords. They haven’t been expelled.
Has the second home mess been cleared up? Nope. No changes to the rules have been anounced. No definitions of second homes.
It goes on and on
Cynic? You bet.
Lord Blagger
Lord Blagger; your posts are not censored and you know that. Your previous post was rejected because it contained a personal attack on an individual. All readers are reminded of the rules of posting for the site and they are clearly posted here. If you cannot abide by these then your posts will be rejected. Simples.
Andy
As you know. I have had to contact you on several occasions, as well as change my sign on to get posts past and place on the blog. Most if not all were critical of the Lords.
If you think that the question of Lords selling legistlation for cash is not a valid topic, post openly to that effect.
If you think that Lords claiming for properties that they don’t live in is a personal attack, post openly and say that its not acceptable to discuss it.
If its not acceptable to comment that Lords who are convicted criminals can vote, please post and say that is not allowed on your blog.
…
Lord Blagger
There was another Commonwealth that of the Republican Protectorate, that also allowed up to 70 appointed individuals to sit in a second house. It will eventually become known as Cromwell’s ‘Other House’.
On March 11, 1656 the House of Commons passes a bill creating a second house which allows 63 Life Peers to be nominated by the Lord Protector; of the 42 peers that eventually sit; only George Lord Eure was elected before the interregnum. The formal name of this second house becomes an ongoing dispute that is never resolved during the time of the Protectorate.
Earlier, in 1649 the Commons debates the motion “the house of peers is useless and dangerous, and ought to be abolished”. The house is abolished and peers keep their titles but loose their privileges. In return they become eligible for election, not appointment, to the Commons.
On Feb 23, 1657 Sir Christopher Packe presents Cromwell with a remonstrance called the ‘Humble Petition and Advice’. Some months later James Naylor is brought before the Commons on trial for a judicial matter that of the crime of blasphemy. The court finds him guilty and he is punished with considerable prejudice.
Cromwell rejects the petitions attempt to curtail his power by making him King and is persuaded that the Commons should not act as a court in a judicial capacity. In June 1657 he accepts a redrafted petition that creates a second chamber of Life Peers.
Parliament is dissolved April 22, 1659 after the second house tries to find ways of disbanding the army; this second house of Life Peers is subsequently abolished never to sit again in that form until the advent of the Life Peerages Act 1958.
One could argue by historical precedent that those peers that promote and advocate an appointed chamber and the removal of its last elected peers are ‘Cromwell’s Peers’. These peers bring no historic continuity to the HoL only the needs of the immediate and its bureaucracy; by doing so they court a repetition of history. The house should be elected in a form that allows them to fade away but incorporates and tests their finer points through the act of suffrage.
Ref: List of those nominated by Cromwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell’s_Upper_House
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humble_Petition_and_Advice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Protectorate_Parliament#Naylor_case
Interesting post.
However, senex let me ask you these questions?
Why have any second house at all?
Plenty of countries manage perfectly well without. The only relevant comment made is that the UK has more laws and needs more politicians to manage them. That’s a failure of the Lords. One country doesn’t need more laws than any other. The assumption is based on the premise that we are all criminals and need more laws to control us.
Secondly, if you think that the current system of patronage and accident of birth is wrong, why not get rid of them all now? Why prolong an unacceptable position?
The only excuse here is the one being floated by some peers that the deserve a pay off at the public expense.
Now for Andrew’s comments.
There has been an email converstation going on. At the end of it Andrew states that this blog is for a one way dialogue. It’s not for the plebs to ask the Lords questions. Its for the Lords to determine what gets discussed.
You know your place. They tell you, and you do as you are told.
Lord Blagger
Senex, what you’ve said may well be an argument against political appointees, but its not really an argument for Electing the Peers.
The only Argument I hear for this is “Its Democratic”, which doesn’t win me over. Why should I think politicians who run on promises with the backing of a Political party would be better than appointed-for-life Peers?
Its the same question I asked about the Hereditarians. Why should I believe the Hereditary peers are not good? Because they aren’t Democratic?
You are right when you say “but its not really an argument for Electing the Peers” but consider the politics of this.
The Lords now is a hybrid version of Cromwell’s ‘Other House’. Serendipity has worked in its favour such that the accusation “the house of peers is useless and dangerous, and ought to be abolished” can never again be the basis for a Commons motion and debate.
This ‘Other House’ is, the instrument of a republic. The first estate of governance, the Monarchy, has ‘always’ allowed its nobility to enjoy suffrage in its appointments to Parliament and there is good reason for this.
The HoL is now filled with a nobility that uses the written word to fight its battles because the pen is mightier that the sword. It has many armies that simply dangle from the shoulders of its members.
However, in former times any Lord or group of Lords could raise an army to threaten the Monarchy or even depose it. At court any one of these Lords could be accused of being a favourite and the bickering and backstabbing would have been a continuous, unending headache for the King, to the rescue, suffrage.
It’s a political and constitutional thingy; choose your side.
My side is for people who know what they are doing and who have no Political affiliation to sit in the Lords by Inheritance or by Merit, appointed by the Crown or internally by the Lords.
Politicians aren’t really anythign but sideshow entertainers hwo make promises to voer blocks to secure power by number of voters, and have a totally different mindset. They canot be brave, for they must fear the Electorate and their party. They must push a Party Line. They must act in the interest of the moment nto liong term. They never make hard and unpopualr descisions, beuse this ill cost them their jobs.
Its silly madness to think they are better.
I don’t see the relevance of this international comparison. The UK is one of the only countries, if not the only country, to have an upper chamber of expertise. That makes the HoL a unique institution. Having over 1000 peers isn’t a problem if the chamber never holds more than a couple of hundred at any one time – in other words – if only the peers with expertise in the matter attend.
Your question with regard to the practicality of having so many members in the Lords is pertinant. However, I don’t see the solution as being restricting the number of members. Build a bigger chamber! The layout is impractical, the decor is outdated and the size is restrictive. The Lords has updated it’s function, membership and workload. In those circumstances, a change to the physical chamber is not mere window dressing.
The solution is so so straightforward … Put the life peers through the same kind of ‘sifting’ process that the hereditaries had to go through. I’m still waiting for a life peer to propose that. I have a feeling I’ll be waiting a very long time.