Yesterday (Friday), the House gave an unopposed Second Reading to the House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill. You can read the debate here. The Bill has already been taken through the House of Commons by Dan Byles and was introduced in the Lords by Lord Steel. The Bill is a shortened version of the original Steel Bill. It makes modest but nonetheless important changes, not least providing that peers convicted of serious criminal offences are expelled. It brings us into line with the position in the Commons. It also enables peers to resign and provides for the removal from membership of those who never attend. The Bill is up against serious time pressures, but it has the support of both Government and Opposition. There is strong support in the House to get it on to the statute book. It should just be able to complete its remaining stages before the House is prorogued in May.
“It also enables peers to resign and provides for the removal from membership of those who never attend”
The question of the right to use the nomenclature “Lord” or “Baron” arose the other day, and it got me wondering what the rights are now that the judiciary is no longer a formal part of the House. If you said you were a member of the House of lords at one time and were not, it might well have been fraudulent, relying as it might on the power of the “appeal court” (supreme court) and its judges That is no longer so (although the supreme court judges do attend the chamber, do they not?)
Anybody may call himself “Lord” as a christian name, as he always might have done.It has been suggested that it would still bring the House of lords in to disrepute for a mere gentleman to say that he is a peer, and profit from it, and might well therefore be a petty crime of some sort!
What would the rights be of those who do not attend or who resign?
The peers whose membership of the House ceases would still be peers and would keep their titles. They would simply no longer be entitled to attend, just as hereditary peers are still peers but not members of the House. The same arrangements already exist for peers who have chosen to retain their “non-dom” status.
This also applies to those imprisoned for serious offences. Many people I’m sure would like to see them stripped of their titles, but at a guess that would make the Bill more controversial and so less likely to get through.
Supreme Court justices who are peers are barred from membership of the House of Lords for their term in office. They may return to the House once they retire. Since December 2010, Supreme Court justices who are not peers are entitled to style themselves “Lord” by Royal Warrant.
Lord Norton, have you seen Meg Russell’s post at http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2014/03/06/meg-russell-the-bylessteel-bill-unless-amended-holds-grave-dangers-for-the-lords/?
If there is no amendment to allow a cooling off period between Houses, her reluctant conclusion is that the bill should be voted down.
A little more action by the government could have redressed her clear concerns – and indeed just a little more time and government responsibility could have seen a relatively simple but full evolutionary solution when Nick Clegg’s destroy and replace idea fell.
JH: That point has been much rehearsed, much to the increasing frustration of peers, and was dealt with in the Second Reading debate.
Many thanks. When I get a moment I will look forward to reading it.
@LN:
Reading through this little scenario is truly amusing. This notion of reform has been hacked away to the point of ‘no nib left to the quill.’ Clearly Mogg’s idea of a leg up for every walk out is the answer… ROTFWL… A Baronetcy followed by Viscount, followed by an Earldom, that may well be enough of a bribe to prise their fat rumps off the red seats? He certainly has ideas above his station, doesn’t he?
In other words, the drive behind this stance has lost all motivation. At this point only drastic action can advance democratic rule for the British nation.
Does anybody know exactly when the prorogation (doffing of the hats) ceremony will take place this year? Cannot seem to find the date.
Senex: The precise date is not yet known – it depends on progress with business – but it has been announced that it should be no later than 21 May.
Thank you. I must admit to some confusion. The Queen is a member of the HoL executive but never attends. Commensurate with this is an equality of status with other peers. It is difficult to see how you can prospectively get rid of non attending peers without the resulting Act being used to remove her from her house. Similarly, if she was to break the law in some way the Act could also be used to get rid of her. This bill in these respects is a Trojan horse.
Senex: Er, no in every respect.
The Queen is an ex officio Head of State and also an ex officio head of the Anglican Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury is an ex officio member of the HoL along with twenty other bishops. You can see my confusion in thinking the Queen is also an ex officio member of the HoL like her Archbishop.
Is the Queen an ex officio member of the HoL?