To read the media, it is clear that the coalition agreement as it affects the House of Lords has lost something in translation. The agreed document proposes a committee to propose draft motions (on Lords reform) by December of this year. It goes on “It is likely that this bill will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.”
A grandfathering system refers to a situation where it is planned to change a contract but those on an existing contract continue under the terms of the existing contract. In this context, existing peers will continue as members of the House.
Some media have been suggesting there will be a sudden mass influx of new peers. This does not necessarily follow. The coalition (Con + Lib Dem) significantly outnumbers Labour peers and the ‘interim’ may not necessarily be a short one. Downing Street has been downplaying the stories of a large number of new peers being created immediately and has indicated that Lords reform is not a priority relative to the other issues the Government has to address.
The important point for the Lords is that we continue to fulfil our tasks effectively. We need to be ready to deal with any measures that seek to move towards an elected House and to make the case, cogently and consistently, for an appointed House. We also need to make progress on proposals designed to reduce the size of the House. There are steps we can take to enable peers who wish to do so to take permanent leave of absence. That should be the more immediate focus.
UPDATE: I have also included a post on my blog (‘The Norton View’) developing my argument for retaining an appointed second chamber.
The important point for the Lords is that we continue to fulfil our tasks effectively.
=================
Like the washup?
Wasn’t that where you didn’t bother with scrutiny and just passed the bills through?
Money for nothing
Lord Blagger
Lord Blagger: The only problem with your comment is that we didn’t just pass the Bills through. In the case of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, most clauses were removed and what remained was subject to intense negotiation. However, there are problems with the wash-up and there are likely to be changes in the future. Indeed, I favour doing away with the present concept of wash-up.
I think I may use you as a future quiz question: namely, how many screen names do you use?
Lots. Seems to be the only way to get past your censor system.
Don’t worry, I’ve a far better quiz for you than that.
Why did the clerk of parliament make his report into the expenses of Lords secret? This is the same Clerk who was in charge of handing out the money in the first place.
1. He didn’t check the expenses and just passed them
2. It’s public money
3. He didn’t get a record of first or second homes.
4. With no record of what is a second home, how come he’s handed the money out for second homes?
Is it fraud?
Is it malfeasance in a public office?
Is it nobling a police investigation to clear Lords whilst being investigated by the police?
What’s going on with Lord Taylor of Warwick after he made the front cover of the Sunday times where they stated he was a liar?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6945933.ece as a reference for you to read.
Another white wash investigation in progress?
Lord Blagger.
It takes one to know one.
Lord Norton, you are letting your standards slip, that is much too easy to be a proper a quiz question.
Lord Norton – question for you if I may.
What happened to the Dissolution Honours List ? As I understood, this was supposed to be announced before the election date, and press speculated people like John Prescott, Ruth Kelly and Michael Howard would get enobled. In 2001 and 2005, I think the lists were used to enoble retiring MPs, but that the lists were published before polling day.
Then what about Gordon Brown’s resignation honours list, there seems to be no sign of this one either.
So with two lists potentially pending, could that mean that number of Labour Peers could increase as well?
Edward Brunsdon: Yes, I gather two lists are imminent.
“Downing Street has been downplaying the stories of a large number of new peers being created immediately and has indicated that Lords reform is not a priority relative to the other issues the Government has to address. ”
SUMMARY – Lords reform is not a priority…
Music to the ears, and talking of music..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZUUj-nTOMQ
Some random questions, borne from my random thoughts:
Should the Chiltern Hundreds/Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead appts remain? Why the need for both or, what happens when these are filled?
Should it be easier to enact a provision for members of the upper house to honourably resign before those of the Commons?
Is there an equivalent in the HoL of ‘crossing the floor’? How would we know?
“We need to be ready to deal with any measures that seek to move towards an elected House and to make the case, cogently and consistently, for an appointed House”
Oh! I can’t help laughing!
Gareth Howell: You are not alone. There are many who laugh at the different and somewhat ill-considered proposals for an elected second chamber.
(apologies if this appears twice, but I suspect yesterday’s original got lost for some reason)
Some random questions, borne from my random thoughts:
Should the Chiltern Hundreds/Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead appts remain? Why the need for both or, what happens when these are filled?
Should it be easier to enact a provision for members of the upper house to honourably resign before those of the Commons?
Is there an equivalent in the HoL of ‘crossing the floor’? How would we know?
ladytizzy: Both remain to enable MPs to leave the Commons. When an MP has taken up one as a technical office of profit under the Crown, s/he ceases to be an MP. There is no need for that person to retain the position – once out, they are out – so it can be used for another MP who wishes to leave the House.
We are seeking ways to enable peers to take honourable retirement in cases where it would be appropriate to do so (infirm, long service but no longer able to give the time etc). In the Lords, peers can ‘cross the floor’ in the same way that MPs can – and several have – but it tends not get as much publicity as when an MP crosses the floor. As a result, it may be difficult for you to know without checking parliamentary publications or magazines like ‘The House Magazine’.
“We need to be ready to deal with any measures that seek to move towards an elected House and to make the case, cogently and consistently, for an appointed House”
Good luck to you. While you’re at it, perhaps you could propose a more meritocratic system–nominations based upon review by current peers, taking into account previous achievement, merit and peers’ perception of ability/critical faculty.
The result of appointment through political favour doesn’t seem, to intuition, to be all too overtly independent.
Matt: Thanks for the comments. I favour enhancing the current method of appointment. As you probably know, the independent Appointsment Commission, chaired by Lord Jay of Ewelme, seeks to ensure that all the people it nominates for the cross-benches meet a high quality threshhold and also have some responsibility for checking party nominees as well. There is a case for ensuring its writ covers all nominations, including prime ministerial nominations. It is worth recalling that the furore over ‘cash for peerages’ arose because the system actually worked – various nominations were knocked back by the Commission.
What about the cash for changing legistlation?
From a search, so far there has been no evidence of making that a criminal offence?
What about the second homes fiasco?
Have the Lords been told to nominate a second home yet? After all that was the get out. Has it been fixed?
Lord Blagger
So what about the failures?
1. Criminals still sit in the Lords. Name no names, but people have an idea who they are.
2. People who offer to sell legistlation for cash still sit in the Lords. Apart from the slap on the wrist, they are still there, and I don’t see any evidence that the law has changed or has been enforced.
3. Second homes. Still no action. Where is the list of second homes? Is it a case of dragging it out to make a few bucks in the process?
This is in the power of the Lords to sort out. It doesn’t take the commons to act. Why the delay? The conclusion that I come to is that its a case of keeping the gravy train going.
Lord Blagger
Lord Blagger: Those peers who have been convicted of criminal offences is a matter of public record, though one was convicted decades ago for an offence that is no longer an offence. On dealing with members other than by suspension, this is not in the power of the Lords to deal with. It requires legislation. That is why there is a clause in the House of Lords Bill (the Steel Bill) to provide for expulsion. The power to expel would probably have been law by now if the last Government had not been so lax in getting the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill through Parliament. There has been action on second homes. The authorities tightened up on this at the end of the last Parliament and there is now a very clear process of verification in place. I want to see it taken further and the recommendations of the SSRB implemented as soon as possible.
However, it was you who said very early last year swift action is needed.
Now, a year and an half latter, what progress?
1. The Memo by the clerk is obviously explosive enough that he’s made it a state secret.
2. Lords convicted of criminal offences still are eligible to vote in the Lords.
3. No reform at all
4. You left off second homes and expenses. As far as I can see the Lords have taken no action.
So much for the promises of swift action.
That’s the problem. The Lords, youself included make promises and don’t keep them.
Either because its a sop to opinion at the time or because you are impotent.
If you are impotent, then why are we paying you?
Lord Blagger
It seems the emergence of the green alliance has turned what was an academic argument for an elected house into an ever so civil war, here on the blog. Thankfully the events of the English Civil War are 350 years behind us.
Today and on the one side are the Parliamentarians that want an appointed house. They are led by Lord Norton an honorary officer of the US southern militia; should his war be dubbed the North and Louth? On the other side are the Royalists led by Lord Tyler. His yellow necks along with the blues of the alliance want an elected chamber. Both peers are appointed to the house.
Such peers are reminiscent of 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 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 to the Commons.
On Feb 23, 1657 Sir Christopher Packe presents Cromwell with a remonstrance called the ‘Humble Petition and Advice’. Some months later a Quaker lay preacher called James Naylor is brought before the Commons on trial. The Commons demonstrates its intolerance to religion contrary to its constitution. This horrifies Cromwell and 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; the second house of Life Peers is subsequently abolished never to sit again in that form until the advent of the Life Peerages Act 1958.
It would be unfortunate if the Commons allowed an elected HoL to revert so that the charge “the house of peers is useless and dangerous, and ought to be abolished” and so abolish it. It is also a strange twist of history, a perversity, that the Commons now with its hold on absolute power condemns the HoL for being unelected and because of this, will not endow it with any of its former powers.
Ref: List of those nominated by Cromwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell’s_Upper_House
http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glossary/humblepetition.htm
Second Protectorate Parliament: Naylor Case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Protectorate_Parliament
Senex: Doesn’t that make me the Royalist and Lord Tyler the Roundhead?
No, it makes you both ‘Cromwell’s Peers’ in an appointed house. One promotes the virtues of autocracy and the other democracy. Cromwell chose to put his faith in a restored second house free of the privilege of birthright and its unreliable competence. The reason was to allow a challenge to the power of the power of the Commons whilst under the protection of Parliament.
Now the Commons knows it has over reached itself and allows those outside to shackle it with paper chains. These jailers have no constitutional protection and can be persuaded in devious and subtle ways to conform to the wishes of those they would seek to restrain.
Senex: I want to be a Royalist!
Dear Lord Norton
Way not abandon the socialist Reform of the House of Lords totaly with its breake with the peerage in favour of an elected House.
I suggested instead an partly appointed chamber and an elected one. The election would by the british people of peers of their choise. I further suggest that the House of Lords be added as an World Herritage. Pleace stop defending Labours marxist-lenninist reform, in the name of democracy, wich we don’t need. Sincerely David Fredin
David Fredin: Senex characterises me as a Parliamentarian rather than a Royalist and now you seem to think I support some Marxist-Lenninist reform! Can I just fall back on the simple observation that I am a Conservative and that I believe in maintaining, if necessary enhancing, that which works well – and the House of Lords works well. It may not be brilliant – few institutions are – and can be strengthened, but it fulfils a valuable role and is worth fighting for.
Dear Lord Norton
My Lord, I am so Sorry for the incorrect judgement of You I made in my comment, presuming You were Labour, I should have been better informed then I made my hasty remarks. I hope You will accept my apology,I am deeply sorry, it will not happen again. I’ll confess that I read your blogg rather quickly, at the last minutes at the Library computer, and I jumped over some of Your text, may be that contributed to the error I made.
I would be thankfull to You my Lord if You would make a comment on the prospect of making the House of Lords a World Herritage or a Herritage of Britain protected by law.
The idea behid my thought is that it would make it impossible introduce a reform that ends the ties between appointments and the peerages to the House of Lords.
One of my conserns is that a brake with the past would have implications in the long run to dresscode of Queen in Parlament. The Labour Party could argue that the Queen should not have a crown on her head or wearing her robe at the State Opening after a reformed House, to conform with the new.
Sincerely David Fredin
My main concern about the electoral process proposed, any sort of direct election, comes from the nature of the political process and of elections. I vote for one of the political parties and I trust them to select a candidate who is trustworthy, hard-working and of similar views to my own. If this same procedure is adopted for the House of Lords, then why should it be a second chamber and not of equal standing to the Commons? If it is not, then how can I vote since I am unlikely to have any reliable knowledge of any of the candidates? Worse still, the 2nd chamber might end up full of “celebrities” since these are the only candidates that the electorate will have even heard of.
Years ago there were 2 main groups in society with the expertise to govern, the landowners and the church, and they formed the House of Lords. Now there are many more, so the second chamber needs to reflect this. By all means have fewer Anglican Bishops but in their place include Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Jews, as well as Engineers, Lawyers, Teachers, Trade Unionists, etc. each in proportion to their constituency.
As to how to elect it is more important to ensure that the member is trustworthy, hard-working and representative than to impose some notion of a fair election. Let each group decide their own mechanism. I would be perfectly content if one group decided that their President or immediate past President should represent them and another decided to hold a specific election.
Harry MacDonald: You are not the first to make such a suggestion. My response is to point out that to a large extent we already have what you seek to achieve. There are members of the Lords drawn from a wide range of religions – Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Roman Catholics, Methodists and so on – as well as of none (there is an active Humanist group). We have leading lawyers, doctors, academics, trade unionists, and others, usually selected because they are at the head of their discipline or organisation. The present system offers some degree of flexibility, avoiding the rigidity and conflict that may arise if some organisations are offered places and others not. Members are appointed on individual merit rather than as a representative or mouthpiece of a particular organisation. My preference is for the existing system.
HM: One of the anomalies in the house concerns the Bishops. In theory every one of them could turn up and fill the place but in practice and by design only a few ever do.
One of the limitations of the appointments system is what happens if an individual fails to live up to what is expected of them as you are stuck with them for life. This is not a problem for the Bishops as they are not a finite resource and they share the privilege of sitting in the house on a rotating basis.
As to clerics generally and for practical reasons, they would be appointed in an elected house for very practical reasons. Individually they could make the case that as the Bishops are able to rotate their ranks why shouldn’t they.
Another anomaly is why the Bishops turn up in a cassock when perhaps a plain suit might more appropriately blend in. If we followed this example in terms of a baptised Sikh then they would sit complete with Kirplan, a dagger, something that might alarm house security. Having said that they would come with a nicely set turban so in terms of symbolism it amounts nonetheless to a cassock.
Clerics are in the house to inform the legislative process.
“My response is to point out that to a large extent we already have what you seek to achieve.”
Yes we do, but there are moves to throw it away in favour of some sort of election. Better an indirect election of the sort I was talking about than any sort of general election, proportional, alternative vote or any other.
One other point is that surely all members of the current (and past) government should be excluded from deciding on this issue on the grounds that they have a vested interest in the outcome – they might become members of the Lords.