Supreme Court
Congratulations to Jonathan and Jason Lower, who were winners of the previous quiz. As they and other contributors showed, the House is not short of members with experience of the press. This time, the questions relate to peers who are not permitted to sit while holding particular offices. As usual, the first two readers to supply the correct answers will be the winners.
1. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 disqualifies from sitting in the House not only those peers who are members of the Supreme Court but also others who hold judicial office (f0r the period that they hold office). Can you name at least two peers, other than members of the Supreme Court, who are presently disqualified from sitting because of their judicial office?
2. It is not only peers who are judges who are disqualified from sitting for the period that they hold office. There is now another category of office-holder that is disqualified. Who is the peer presently disqualified from sitting because of falling in this category?
1) Lord Judge and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
2) Members of the European Parliament: Lady Ludford
I guess Lord Black gets mentioned this week as well, although his ‘office’, while supplied by a Justice Department, is probably not quite what you had in mind 🙂
1. Baroness Clark of Calton, Lord Hardie, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, Lord Judge, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
2. Barones Ludford, elected as an MEP for London
The first three are Judges of the Court of Session, Lord Judge (good bit of nominative determinism here) is Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and Lord Neuberger is Master of the Rolls.
1. Lord Judge (Lord Chief Justice); Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury (Master of the Rolls)
2. Baroness Ludford (MEP)
There is also Baroness Ashton of Upholland, who is the EU’s “foreign secretary” (although perhaps not for long). It seems she is simply on leave of absence from the Lords. Why does this job not mean disqualification too?
Jonathan: Baroness Ashton is indeed on leave of absence. MEPs are excluded while they serve because of the EU’s ban on members of the European Parliament having a dual mandate. It does not impose a similar ban on members of the Commission. I see no reason for the ban on a dual mandate: it is an unnecessary restriction on the choice of electors.
Lord Norton: when did electors choose Baroness Ludford as a member of the Lords?
Jonathan: They didn’t, which is why peers had to be barred from sitting while serving as MEPs. Life peers are precisely that and so we had to accommodate the fact that some were already MEPs that the time the ban on the dual mandate was introduced.
@Lord Norton: As an outsider, meaning, a person who is not a part of your exclusive club, I have to tell you this all sounds a chaotic mess.
On top of which, so obvious chicanery and politically correct aberration. Who are these people who have such privilege and why?
Take Baroness Ashton for a start, what humiliation to our country that such an inept choice could have been made for such an important role for Britain. It has been an entirely wasted position of power for the UK to flourish in. How much could have been achieved had the selection been made for reasons of ability rather than cronyism.
1. Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury as Master of the Rolls and Lord Judge as Lord Chief Justice are disqualified. Also, there are a couple of Judges of the Court of Session who are also peers and who are disqualified.
2. Baroness Ludford as MEP is also disqualified from sitting.
1
a. Lord Judge, LCJ
b. Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, MR
2 Baroness Ludford, MEP
(1)
Lord McKay of Drumadoon
Baroness Clark of Calton
(2)
Baroness Ashton at the European Commission
Bob: As you will see from the comments above, Baroness Ashton has taken leave of absence but she is not disqualified from membership for the period she holds office: she applied for leave of absence, but was not required to do so. It is MEPs who are disqualified from having a dual mandate and so peers have been disqualified from membership for the period that they sit in the EP.
Hanningfield and Taylor.
Now correct me if I’m wrong but the only reason they are barred from sitting is that they are locked up. Otherwise they could attend and vote, in spite of being criminals that the Lords didn’t stop from committing fraud.
Lord Blagger: I think we are all aware of that, hence the provisions of the Steel Bill.
Congratulations to Len and Dave H. who got in first with correct answers.
The effect of the 2005 Act means that the House does not have the benefit of the judges listed, at least while they hold office. MEPs are now excluded from membership while in the European Parliament. At the moment, it is only Baroness Ludford who is affected.
Taking your time aren’t you. I seem to remember you wrote it had been solved, and still we are waiting.
Well, you’ve got two barred at the moment, because they are behind bars.
No thanks to the Lords in that matter.
Lord Blagger: I never said it hads been solved. Hence my reference to the Steel Bill.
Look, its been known about for ages, and yet nothing has been solved.
It just goes to show that when it comes to fraud and criminal acts by Peers, its not in the peers interests to solve it.
Anyway, you sit on the commitee so you know its contents.
Here’s the relevant bit
”
House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]
Part 5 — Supplementary provisions
6
13
Conviction of serious criminal offence
A person found guilty of one or more offences (whether in the United
Kingdom or elsewhere), and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained indefinitely or for more than one year, shall cease to be a member of
the House of Lords.”
So why a year? Are peers hoping the scrape in under the year.
Why not make it convicted of any offence that has a custodial sentence as an option? Why not make it any criminal offence.
Where’s the suspension until the offence comes to court?
What about the other thing. When is alcohol going to be banned for people deciding on the law? If you can’t exercise judgement when driving pissed, it also applies to Peers when legistlating.
Lord Blagger: As I say you confuse Bills. The provision in both is to bring the Lords into line with the Commons (hence the 1-year provision). If the Goverment is willing to provide time for a one-clause Bill, I doubt if there would be any opposition in the Lords. We are keen to see it enacted. Because of shortage of parliamentary time, it is the Government that likes to package provisions. I have no problems with de-bundling provisions.
Why is the clause bundled in with the question of reform? It’s a delaying tactic.
Introduce a one line bill containing clause 15, reduced to convicted of any criminal offence, and you can get it passed quickly.
Lord Blagger: You are confusing your Bills. The draft House of Lords Reform Bill is not the Steel Bill.
I’m skeptical. There are plenty on the lords who want to keep the gravy train going. So bundle it with a bill where there is going to be lots of opposition, and hey presto, kicked into the long grass.
You can solve this. Propose on the committee on which you sit, that its treated as a one off one clause bill. Replace the one year with an exclusion for criminal conviction. Why should some with any criminal convictions committed whilst a peer stay a member?
Likewise, no one to become a peer if subject to any restrictions because of prior convictions. So no people on the sexual offences register, or unspent convictions.
Why not extend that to include cautions?
Which peers are the lords trying to protect against losing the jobs?
Is it all those peers who didn’t attend but claimed?
Lord Blagger: There is actually a lot of work going on to achieve this particular provision of the Steel Bill and some of us on the Joint Committee may be pushing for singling out particular provisions, such as that on expulsion, for being treated separately and early.
Still bundled with the Steel bill.
Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.
So by attaching it to a bill that abolishes part of the Gravy train for some, it’s not going to pass.
So still no comment on why we should have any peers with criminal convictions? Why should we even have any MPs with criminal convictions too?
Lord Blagger: If you were following amendments that have been tabled, you would have noticed that the Bill is becoming less bundled. The point about turkeys and christmas seems irrelevant, not least in the context of criticisms of the Bill. No one, apart from you, appears to be arguing that minor offences should preclude someone from continuing to serve in the legislature. There has also been objection to any element of retrospection, not least because at least one peer was once convicted of an offence that is no longer treated as an offence.
I’m not surprised no Lords are arguing for criminals to be banned. After all that would mean a lot of them losing the gravy train.
So who is the Peer with the criminal record and what was their offence?
Lord Blagger: Do you ever bother to read what other people write? To say that no Lords are arguing for criminals to be banned is demonstrable nonsense.
1. You’re not arguing for all criminals to be banned.
2. You haven’t read my post.
Who is the peer with the criminal record that you’re referring to?
We know about Archer.