The House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill – the Byles Bill – is now one step closer to making it to the statute book. Introduced in the Commons by Dan Byles, it received its Second Reading in the Lords on 28 March. The Bill removes non-attending peers from membership of the House and brings the Lords into line with the Commons in respect of members convicted of serious offences – being sentenced to a year or more in prison results in expulsion. Both provisions enjoy support in the Lords, as variously demonstrated in previous sessions when Lord Steel’s House of Lords Reform Bill was discussed. The problem has been finding time in the Commons, and Government support, in order to get the provisions on to the statute book.
Dan Byles, MP for Warwickshire North, had the opportunity to introduce a Private Member’s Bill in the Commons and achieved support for its passage from the Government. Various amendments were discussed by MPs and the Bill, as it left the Commons, was acceptable to the Lords. As a result, the motion to commit the Bill to a committee was discharged when it came before the House yesterday. This happens when no amendments have been tabled and no peer has indicated a wish to speak. If a Bill is not amended in committee, there is no Report stage. The Bill thus moves straight to Third Reading. This is scheduled for next Tuesday. Once approved then, and with no amendments to be sent for approval by the Commons, it will go for Royal Assent.
There was a suggestion that the list of 100 hereditary peers
varies so much in composition that it is impossible to know who is attending or not. So does the exclusion of non-attending peers extend to the hereditary ones, and how?
Otherwise excluding non-attenders does at least reduce theoretical numbers possibly by as many as 50, but none of the money grubbing Lifers who arrive, go through the turnstiles, and leave, just for the fee? A practice amongst the
Life peers as bad now as it ever was amongst the hereditary peers 30 years ago.
Its hard to know which is worse; a large, expensive bureaucracy to deal with every duck pond, or an office of five
which merely runs a database for £20m a year fees, going through on the nod.
Physically injured as I was as a direct result of my activities in parliament, and reputation therefrom, in early 2003, I wouldnt mind the fee for myself.
Yes – the 90 hereditary peers may be excluded or resign. A by-election would then be triggered (cl. 4(7)). As Lord Steel put it ‘Mr Byles fended off an ungracious amendment to the effect that any hereditary Peer retiring should be deemed to be dead, so that their heir could stand in a by-election.’
Presumably then if the hereditary peer resigns, he may then stand for election to the house of commons in the name of Mr. or Esq. and so on. I wonder if his son would then be allowed to take a hereditary seat in the Second chamber? Still not?
Mr Wedgood Benn was an MP, but I am not sure what 3rd Viscount Stansgate, his son, called himself meanwhile, and when. That is certainly his nomeclature now.
Honoris Causa: The Bill deals with the point. Having left the House, one could seek election to the Commons (as has happened with an excluded hereditary peer, Viscount Thurso). It has no bearing on the inheritance of the title and the son, after inheritance, would be eligible to be on the list of peers eligible to stand in a hereditary peer by-election.
One assumes that this legislation is evidence based so why have you not provided a link to it? The evidence should show why peers are not attending and give reasons.
Lets say that a legal peer becomes afflicted with a blight that forces them to add punctuation to any sentence they write. Their employer feeling that this would be a serious liability lets them go and now the peer is serving burgers in a bar in Lincoln town centre. The peer pleads with his employer to let him attend the HoL but the employer insists that his job is now to serve burgers. A peers fortune can be fleeting.
In another example several hundred peers have been rendered by the CIA and are being held at GITMO. The house clerks become aware of this and ask the CIA why they are being held. The CIA responds by saying that matters of national security are not up for discussion even though peers are pleading to attend the HoL to debate an upcoming invasion of Maryland by the armed forces.
And lastly, numerous peers in their absence have died and to avoid death duties have not informed the authorities of their death. The evidence should show how many of the absent peers are actually alive or were last known to be alive.
Senex: Again, this is covered in the Bill.
@Senex.
The very best life experience a peer could get is to be forced to live on a zero hours job contract or get a job at McDonalds, which i believe has now become a zero hours employer as well.
This great way to live and work was first introduced in the forerunner USA about thirty years ago. When the bright sparks there decided that whilst on the job, either in a department store as a salesman or working as a waiter, when you are standing waiting for the next customer or it was a break time of some sort, or, you had to walk to a store room or take a leak, you clocked off. That way you were not entitled to pay within those clocked off hours. But, you had to remain there, trapped, ready for the next customer and to make sure you landed on him like a blood sucker.
This is like the immigration thought process, have them stand around for any job and you can pay them a shilling an hour, as the desperation level rises to insanity.
And if every single Lord had to do this kind of ‘work’ for at least one year, if not five, before taking up a seat, then at least we would know he/she would have had a sample of what he was bestowing on others as he votes on our behalf. As long as they had to go home to the inner city council estate studio room when they clock off. The first in line for the treatment must be IDS and his cronies. I would cut off my right arm to watch him squeal and plead ‘disability’ should he face such a test of mind and body.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqlVVCvak18
Oh, and of course he would have to be watched and have it confirmed it was actually him who turned up to give us his sample.
Senex, what are the odds of a peer attending HoL or opting to work in a burger bar? In Lincoln?
Oh, and though Lord Lucan is 79, I have a hunch he wouldn’t have put his name forward to be one of the 92 back in 2000 (can’t supply the evidence for this, can we call it a woman’s intuition?).