The
House of Lords (also known as House of
Peers for ceremonial purposes) is the upper house of the Parliament of
the United Kingdom
and is also commonly referred to as "the
Lords". Parliament comprises the Sovereign, the House of
Commons
(which is the lower
house of Parliament and referred to as "the Commons"), and the
Lords. Membership of the House of Lords was once a right of
birth to
hereditary peers, but
following a series of reforms these now only form a portion of the
membership. the House of Lords has 724 members, 78 more than the
646-seat House of Commons.
The House of Lords, like the House of
Commons, assembles in the Palace of Westminster
.
The full, formal title of the House of Lords is
The Right
Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament
assembled.
History
Today's Parliament of the United Kingdom largely descends, in
practice, from the
Parliament of
England, though the 1706
Treaty of
Union and the
Acts of Union
that ratified the Treaty created a new Parliament of Great Britain
to replace the Parliament of England and the
Parliament of Scotland. This new
parliament was, in effect, the continuation of the Parliament of
England with the addition of 45 MPs and 16 Peers to represent
Scotland.
The Parliament of England developed from the "Great Council" that
advised the King during medieval times. This royal council came to
be composed of ecclesiastics, noblemen, and representatives of the
counties (afterwards,
representatives of the
boroughs as well). The first
Parliament is often considered to be the "
Model Parliament" (held in 1295), which
included archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and
representatives of the shires and boroughs. The power of Parliament
grew slowly, fluctuating as the strength of the monarchy grew or
declined. For example, during much of the reign of
Edward II (1307–1327), the
nobility was supreme, the
Crown weak, and the shire and borough
representatives entirely powerless. In 1322, the authority of
Parliament was for the first time recognised not simply by custom
or royal charter, but by an authoritative statute, passed by
Parliament itself. Further developments occurred during the reign
of Edward II's successor,
Edward
III. Most importantly, it was during this King's reign that
Parliament clearly separated into two distinct chambers: the House
of Commons (consisting of the shire and borough representatives)
and the House of Lords (consisting of the senior clergy and the
nobility). The authority of Parliament continued to grow, and,
during the early fifteenth century, both Houses exercised powers to
an extent not seen before. The Lords were far more powerful than
the Commons because of the great influence of the aristocrats and
prelates of the realm.
The power of the nobility suffered a decline during the civil wars
of the late fifteenth century, known as the
Wars of the Roses. Much of the nobility
was killed on the battlefield or executed for participation in the
war, and many aristocratic estates were lost to the Crown.
Moreover,
feudalism was dying, and the
feudal armies controlled by the
barons became obsolete. Henry VII (1485-1509) clearly
established the supremacy of the monarch, symbolised by the 'Crown
Imperial'. The domination of the Sovereign continued to grow during
the reigns of the
Tudor monarchs in
the 16th century. The Crown was at the height of its power during
the reign of
Henry VIII
(1509-1547).
The House of Lords remained more powerful than the House of
Commons, but the Lower House continued to grow in influence,
reaching a zenith in relation to the House of Lords during the
middle 17th century. Conflicts between the King and the Parliament
(for the most part, the House of Commons) ultimately led to the
English Civil War during the
1640s. In 1649, after the defeat and execution of
King Charles I, the
Commonwealth of England was
declared, but the nation was effectively under the overall control
of
Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector
of England. The House of Lords was reduced to a largely powerless
body, with Cromwell and his supporters in the Commons dominating
the Government. On 19 March 1649, the House of Lords was abolished
by an Act of Parliament, which declared that "The Commons of
England [find] by too long experience that the House of Lords is
useless and dangerous to the people of England." The House of Lords
did not assemble again until the
Convention Parliament met in 1660 and
the monarchy was restored. It returned to its former position as
the more powerful chamber of Parliament—a position it would occupy
until the 19th century.
The 19th century was marked by several changes to the House of
Lords. The House, once a body of only about 50 members, had been
greatly enlarged by the liberality of
George III and his
successors in creating peerages. The individual influence of a Lord
of Parliament was thus diminished. Moreover, the power of the House
as a whole experienced a decrease, whilst that of the House of
Commons grew. Particularly notable in the development of the Lower
House's superiority was the
Reform Bill
of 1832. The electoral system of the House of Commons was not,
at the time, democratic: property qualifications greatly restricted
the size of the electorate, and the boundaries of many
constituencies had not been changed for centuries.
Entire cities such as
Manchester
were not represented by a single individual in the
House of Commons, but the 11 voters of Old Sarum
retained their ancient right to elect two Members
of Parliament. A small borough was susceptible to bribery,
and was often under the control of a patron, whose nominee was
guaranteed to win an election. Some aristocrats were patrons of
numerous "
pocket boroughs", and
therefore controlled a considerable part of the membership of the
House of Commons.
When, in 1831, the House of Commons passed a Reform Bill to correct
some of these anomalies, the House of Lords rejected the proposal.
The popular cause of reform, however, was not abandoned by the
ministry, despite a second rejection of the bill in the Lords in
1832. The Prime Minister,
Earl Grey, then advised the King
to overwhelm the opposition to the bill in the House of Lords by
creating about 80 new pro-Reform peers.
William IV originally
balked at the proposal, which effectively threatened the opposition
of the House of Lords, but at length relented. Before the new peers
were created, however, the Lords who opposed the bill admitted
defeat, and abstained from the vote, allowing the passage of the
bill. The crisis damaged the political influence of the House of
Lords, but did not altogether end it. Over the course of the
century, however, the power of the Upper House experienced further
erosion, and the Commons gradually became the stronger House of
Parliament.
The status of the House of Lords returned to the forefront of
debate after the election of a Liberal Government in 1906.
In 1909,
the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, David Lloyd
George, introduced into the House of Commons the "People's
Budget", which proposed a land tax targeting wealthy
landowners. The popular measure, however, was defeated in
the heavily Conservative House of Lords. Having made the powers of
the House of Lords a primary campaign issue, the Liberals were
narrowly re-elected in January 1910. Asquith then proposed that the
powers of the House of Lords be severely curtailed. After a general
election in December 1910, the Asquith Government secured the
passage of a bill to curtail the powers of the House of Lords. The
Parliament Act 1911 effectively
abolished the power of the House of Lords to reject legislation, or
to amend in a way unacceptable to the House of Commons: most bills
could be delayed for no more than three parliamentary sessions or
two calendar years. It was not meant to be a permanent solution;
more comprehensive reforms were planned. Neither party, however,
pursued the matter with much enthusiasm, and the House of Lords
remained primarily hereditary. In 1949, the Parliament Act reduced
the delaying power of the House of Lords further to two sessions or
one year.
In 1958, the predominantly hereditary nature of the House of Lords
was changed by the
Life Peerages
Act 1958, which authorised the creation of life baronies, with
no numerical limits. The number of Life Peers then gradually
increased, though not at a constant rate.
The Labour Party had for most of the twentieth century a
commitment, based on the party's historic opposition to class
privilege, to abolish the House of Lords, or at least expel the
hereditary element. In 1968, the Labour Government of
Harold Wilson attempted to reform the House of
Lords by introducing a system under which hereditary peers would be
allowed to remain in the House and take part in debate, but would
be unable to vote. This plan, however, was defeated in the House of
Commons by a coalition of traditionalist Conservatives (such as
Enoch Powell), and Labour members who
continued to advocate the outright abolition of the Upper House
(such as
Michael Foot). When Michael
Foot attained the leadership of the Labour Party, abolition of the
House of Lords became a part of the party's agenda; under
Neil Kinnock, however, a reformed Upper House
was proposed instead. In the meantime, the creation of hereditary
peerages (except for members of the Royal Family) has been
arrested, with the exception of three creations during the
administration of the Conservative
Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.
Whilst some hereditary peers were at best apathetic the Labour
Party's clear commitments were not lost on
Baron Sudeley who
for decades had been considered an expert on the House of Lords. In
December 1979 the
Conservative
Monday Club published his extensive paper entitled
Lords
Reform - Why tamper with the House of Lords? and in July 1980
The
Monarchist (no. 57, p. 27 - 34) carried another
article by Lord Sudeley entitled
Why Reform or Abolish the
House of Lords?. In 1990 he authored a further booklet for The
Monday Club entitled
The Preservation of the House of
Lords.
The Labour Party included in its 1997 General Election
Manifesto a commitment to remove the hereditary
peerage from the House of Lords. Their subsequent election victory
in 1997 under
Tony Blair finally heralded
the demise of the traditional House of Lords. The Labour Government
introduced legislation to expel all hereditary peers from the Upper
House as a first step in Lords reform. As a part of a compromise,
however, it agreed to permit 92 hereditary peers to remain until
the reforms were complete. Thus all but 92 hereditary peers were
expelled under the
House of
Lords Act 1999 (see below for its provisions), making the House
of Lords predominantly an appointed house.
Since 1999 however, no further reform has taken place (see
Lords Reform). The
Wakeham Commission proposed introducing a
20% elected element to the Lords, but this plan was widely
criticised. A
Joint Committee was
established in 2001 to resolve the issue, but it reached no
conclusion and instead gave Parliament seven options to choose from
(fully appointed, 20% elected, 40% elected, 50% elected, 60%
elected, 80%, and fully elected). In a confusing series of votes in
February 2003, all of these options were defeated although the 80%
elected option fell by just three votes in the Commons. Socialist
MPs favouring outright abolition voted against all the
options.
In 2005 a cross-party group of senior MPs (
Ken Clarke,
Paul Tyler,
Tony Wright,
Sir George Young and
the late
Robin Cook) published a report
proposing that 70% of members of the House of Lords should be
elected - each member for a single long term - by the
single transferable vote system.
Most of the remainder were to be appointed by a Commission to
ensure a mix of "skills, knowledge and experience". This proposal
was also not implemented. A cross-party campaign initiative called
"
Elect the Lords" was set up to make
the case for a predominantly elected Second Chamber in the run up
to the
2005
general election.
At the 2005 election, the Labour Party proposed further reform of
the Lords, but without specific details. The Conservative Party,
which had, prior to 1997, opposed any tampering with the House of
Lords, favoured an 80% elected Second Chamber, while the Liberal
Democrats called for a fully elected
Senate.
During 2006, a cross-party committee discussed Lords reform, with
the aim of reaching a consensus: its
findings were
published in early 2007.
On 7 March 2007, Members of the House of Commons voted ten times on
a variety of alternative compositions for the upper chamber.
Outright abolition, a wholly appointed house, a 20% elected house,
a 40% elected house, a 50% elected house and a 60% elected house
were all defeated in turn. Finally the vote for an 80% elected
chamber was won by 305 votes to 267, and the vote for a wholly
elected chamber was won by an even greater margin: 337 to 224.
Significantly this last vote represented an overall majority of
MPs, giving it huge political authority. Furthermore, examination
of the names of MPs voting at each division shows that, of the 305
who voted for the 80% elected option, 211 went on to vote for the
100% elected option. Given that this vote took place after the vote
on 80% – whose result was already known when the vote on 100% took
place – this shows a clear preference for a fully elected upper
house among those who voted for the only other option that passed.
But this was nevertheless only an indicative vote and many
political and legislative hurdles remained to be overcome for
supporters of an elected second chamber. The House of Lords, soon
after, rejected this proposal and voted for an entirely appointed
House of Lords.
In July 2008 Jack
Straw, the Secretary
of State for Justice and Lord
Chancellor, introduced a white paper
to the House of Commons
proposing to replace the House of Lords with an
80-100% elected chamber, with one third being elected at each
general election, for a term of approximately 12–15 years.
The
white paper states that as the
peerage would be totally separated from membership of the upper
house, the name "House of Lords" would no longer be appropriate: It
goes on to explain that there is cross-party consensus for the new
chamber to be titled the Senate, however in order to ensure the
debate remains on the role of the upper house rather than its
title, the white paper is neutral on the title of the new
house.
Lords Spiritual
Members of the House of Lords who sit by virtue of their
ecclesiastical offices are known as Lords Spiritual. Formerly, the
Lords Spiritual were the majority in the House of Lords, including
the
Church of England's
archbishops,
diocesan
bishops,
abbots, and
priors. After 1539, however, only the archbishops and
bishops continued to attend, for the
Dissolution of the
Monasteries suppressed the positions of abbot and prior. In
1642, during the
English Civil
War, the Lords Spiritual were excluded altogether, but they
returned under the
Clergy Act 1661.
The number of Lords Spiritual was further restricted by the
Bishopric of Manchester
Act 1847, and by later acts.
The Lords Spiritual can now number no more
than 26; these are the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Winchester and the 21
longest-serving bishops from other dioceses
in the Church of England (excluding the dioceses of Sodor and
Man
and Gibraltar in Europe, as these
lie entirely outside the United Kingdom).
The current Lords Spiritual represent only the Church of England.
Bishops of
the Church of
Scotland
traditionally sat in the Parliament of Scotland but were
excluded in 1638 following the Scottish Reformation. There are
no longer
bishops in
the Church of Scotland in the traditional sense of the word,
and that Church has never sent members to sit in the Westminster
House of Lords. The
Church of
Ireland did obtain representation in the House of Lords after
the union of Ireland and Great Britain in 1801. Of the Church of
Ireland's ecclesiastics, four (one archbishop and three bishops)
were to sit at any one time, with the members rotating at the end
of every parliamentary session (which normally lasted approximately
one year). The Church of Ireland, however, was
disestablished in
1871, and thereafter ceased to be represented by Lords Spiritual.
The
Church in Wales originally had
representation within the Lords, but ceased to be a part of the
Church of England in 1920 and was simultaneously
disestablished in
Wales. Accordingly, bishops of the Church in Wales were no longer
eligible to be appointed to the House as bishops of the Church of
England.
Other ecclesiastics have sat in the House of Lords as Lords
Temporal in recent times:
Chief Rabbi
Immanuel Jakobovits was
appointed to the House of Lords (with the consent of the Queen, who
acted on the advice of Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher), and his successor
Chief Rabbi
Jonathan Sacks did as
well.
In
recognition of his work at reconciliation and in the Peace Process, the Archbishop of
Armagh (the senior Anglican bishop in Northern
Ireland
), Lord Eames was
appointed to the Lords by John
Major. Other clergymen appointed include Reverend
Donald Soper, Reverend
Timothy Beaumont, and some Scottish
clerics. There have been no
Roman
Catholic clergymen appointed, though it was rumoured that
Cardinal Basil Hume was offered
a peerage, but refused, and accepted instead the
Order of Merit, a personal
appointment of the Queen, shortly before his death. Roman Catholics
who have received Holy Orders are forbidden by
Canon Law from holding offices connected with the
government of any state other than the Holy See, so it is unlikely
that any Catholic cleric will ever sit in the House of Lords.
Lords Spiritual rarely attend Parliament or vote in the Lords. By
custom, however, at least one of the Bishops reads prayers in each
legislative day (a role taken by the chaplain in the Commons),
ensuring that at least one Lord Spiritual is present for at least
part of the day. They do occasionally speak, however; in 2004
Rowan Williams, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, opened a
debate into sentencing legislation.
Measures (proposed laws of the Church of
England) must be put before the Lords, and the Lords Spiritual have
a role in ensuring that this takes place.
Lords Temporal
Since the
Dissolution of
the Monasteries, the Lords Temporal have been the most numerous
group in the House of Lords. Unlike the Lords Spiritual, they may
be publicly partisan, aligning themselves with one or another of
the political parties that dominate the House of Commons. Publicly
non-partisan Lords are called
cross-benchers. Originally, the Lords Temporal
included several hundred hereditary peers (that is, those whose
peerages may be inherited), who ranked variously as
dukes,
marquesses,
earls,
viscounts, and
barons (as well as Scottish
Lords of Parliament). Such hereditary
dignities can be created by the Crown, in modern times on the
advice of the Prime Minister of the day.
In 1999, the Labour government brought forward the House of Lords
Act expelling several hundred hereditary peers from the House. The
Act provided a temporary measure that only 92 individuals may
continue to sit in the Upper House by virtue of hereditary
peerages.Two hereditary peers remain in the House of Lords because
they hold hereditary offices connected with Parliament: the
Earl Marshal and the
Lord Great Chamberlain. Of the
remaining 90 hereditary peers in the House of Lords, 15 are elected
by the whole House. Seventy-five hereditary peers are chosen by
fellow hereditary peers in the House of Lords, grouped by party.
The number of peers to be chosen by a party reflects the proportion
of hereditary peers that belongs to that party (see
current composition below). When an
elected hereditary peer dies, a by-election is held, with a variant
of the
Alternative Vote system
being used. If the recently deceased hereditary peer was elected by
the whole House, then so is his or her replacement; a hereditary
peer elected by a specific party is replaced by a vote of elected
hereditary peers belonging to that party (whether elected as part
of that party group or by the whole house).
The Lords Temporal also included the
Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, a
group of individuals appointed to the House of Lords so that they
could exercise its judicial functions. Lords of Appeal in Ordinary,
more commonly known as Law Lords, were first appointed under the
Appellate Jurisdiction
Act 1876. They were selected by the Prime Minister, but were
formally appointed by the Sovereign. A Lord of Appeal in Ordinary
had to retire at the age of 70, or, if his or her term was extended
by the government, at the age of 75; after reaching such an age,
the Law Lord could not hear any further legal cases. The number of
Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (excluding those who were no longer
able to hear cases because of age restrictions) was limited to
twelve, but could be changed by
statutory instrument. Lords of Appeal
in Ordinary traditionally did not participate in political debates,
so as to maintain judicial independence. Lords of Appeal in
Ordinary held seats in the House of Lords for life, remaining
members even after reaching the judicial retirement age of 70 or
75. Former Lord Chancellors and holders of other high judicial
office could also sit as Law Lords under the Appellate Jurisdiction
Act, although in practice this right was infrequently exercised.
Under the
Constitutional Reform Act
2005, the existing Lords of Appeal in Ordinary became judges of
the new Supreme Court of the United
Kingdom
in 2009 and are barred from sitting or voting in
the House of Lords until they retire as judges. One of the
main justifications for the new Supreme Court was to establish a
separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature. It
is therefore unlikely that future appointees to the Supreme Court
of the United Kingdom will be made Lords of Appeal in
Ordinary.
The largest group of Lords Temporal, and indeed of the whole House,
are
life peers. Life peers with seats in
the House of Lords rank only as barons or baronesses, and are
created under the
Life Peerages
Act 1958. Like all other peers, life peers are created by the
Sovereign, who acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. By
convention, however, the Prime Minister allows leaders of other
parties to select some life peers so as to maintain a political
balance in the House of Lords. Moreover, some non-party life peers
(the number being determined by the Prime Minister) are nominated
by an independent House of Lords Appointments Commission. If a
hereditary peer also holds a life peerage, he or she remains a
member of the House of Lords without a need for an election. In
2000, the government announced it would set up an Independent
Appointments Commission, under
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, to
select fifteen so-called "People's Peers" for life peerages.
However, when the choices were announced in April 2001, from a list
of 3,000 applicants, the choices were treated with criticism in the
media, as all were distinguished in their field, and none were
"ordinary people" as some had originally hoped.
In many historical instances, some peers were not permitted to sit
in the Upper House. When Scotland united with England to form Great
Britain in 1707, it was provided that the Scottish hereditary peers
would only be able to elect 16 representative peers to sit in the
House of Lords; the term of a representative was to extend until
the next general election. A similar provision was enacted in
respect of Ireland when that kingdom merged with Great Britain in
1801; the Irish peers were allowed to elect 28 representatives, who
were to retain office for life. Elections for Irish representatives
ended in 1922, when most of Ireland became an independent state;
elections for Scottish representatives ended with the passage of
the
Peerage Act 1963, under which
all Scottish peers obtained seats in the Upper House.
Qualifications
Several different qualifications apply for membership of the House
of Lords. No person may sit in the House of Lords if under the age
of 21.
Furthermore, only citizens of the United
Kingdom
, Commonwealth citizens, and citizens
of Ireland
may sit in the House of Lords. The
nationality restrictions were previously more stringent: under the
Act of Settlement 1701, and
prior to the
British
Nationality Act 1948, only natural-born subjects were
qualified.
Additionally, some
bankruptcy-related
restrictions apply to members of the Upper House. A person may not
sit in the House of Lords if he or she is the subject of a
Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (applicable in England and Wales
only), or if he or she is adjudged bankrupt (in Northern Ireland),
or if his or her estate is sequestered (in Scotland). A final
restriction bars an individual convicted of
high treason from sitting in the House of Lords
until completing his or her full term of imprisonment. An exception
applies, however, if the individual convicted of high treason
receives a full pardon. Note that an individual serving a prison
sentence for an offence other than high treason is
not
automatically disqualified.
Women were excluded from the House of Lords until the Life Peerages
Act, passed in 1958 to address the declining number of active
members, facilitated the creation of peerages for life. Women were
immediately eligible and four were among the first life peers
appointed. However, hereditary peeresses continued to be excluded
until the passage of the Peerage Act 1963. Since the passage of the
House of Lords Act 1999, hereditary peeresses remain eligible for
election to the Upper House; there are three among the 92
hereditary who continue to sit.
Officers
Traditionally the House of Lords did not elect its own speaker,
unlike the House of Commons; rather, the
ex officio
presiding officer was the
Lord
Chancellor. With the passage of the
Constitutional Reform Act
2005, the post of
Lord Speaker was
created, a position to which a peer is elected by the House and
subsequently appointed by
The Crown. The
first Lord Speaker, elected on 4 May 2006, is
Baroness Hayman, a former
Labour peer. As the Speaker is expected to be an impartial
presiding officer, Baroness Hayman has resigned from the Labour
Party.
This reform of the post of Lord Chancellor was made due to the
perceived constitutional anomalies inherent in the role. The Lord
Chancellor was not only the Speaker of the House of Lords, but also
a member of the Cabinet; his or her department, formerly the Lord
Chancellor's Department, is now called the Ministry of Justice. The
Lord Chancellor is no longer the head of the judiciary of England
and Wales. Hitherto, the Lord Chancellor was part of all three
branches of government: the legislative, the executive, and the
judicial. The overlap of the legislative and executive roles is a
characteristic of the
Westminster
system, as the entire cabinet consists of members of the House
of Commons or the House of Lords; however, in June 2003, the Blair
Government announced its intention to abolish the post of Lord
Chancellor because of the office's mixed executive and judicial
responsibilities. The abolition of the office was rejected by the
House of Lords, and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was thus
amended to preserve the office of Lord Chancellor. The Act no
longer guarantees that the office holder of Lord Chancellor is the
presiding officer of the House of Lords, and therefore allows the
House of Lords to elect a speaker of their own.
The Lord Chancellor wore black and
gold robes whilst presiding over the House of Lords.
The Lord Speaker may be replaced as presiding officer by one of his
or her deputies. The Chairman of Committees, the Principal Deputy
Chairman of Committees, and several Deputy Chairmen of Committees
are all deputies to the Lord Speaker, and are all appointed by the
House of Lords itself. By custom, the Crown appoints each Chairman,
Principal Deputy Chairman, or Deputy Chairman to the additional
office of Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords. There was
previously no legal requirement that the Lord Chancellor or a
Deputy Speaker be a member of the House of Lords, though the same
has long been customary; thus the Woolsack upon which the Lord
Chancellor sat was notionally not in the House of Lords, although
situated in the middle of it.
Whilst presiding over the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor
traditionally wore ceremonial black and gold robes. This is no
longer a requirement for the Speaker except for State occasions
outside of the chamber.
The Speaker or Deputy Speaker sits on the
Woolsack
, a large red seat stuffed with wool, at the front
of the Lords Chamber. When the House of Lords resolves
itself into committee (see below), the Chairman or a Deputy
Chairman presides, not from the Woolsack, but from a chair at the
Table of the House. The presiding officer has little power compared
to the
Speaker of the
House of Commons. He or she only acts as the mouthpiece of the
House, performing duties such as announcing the results of votes.
This is because, unlike in the House of Commons where all
statements are directed to "Mr/Madam Speaker", in the House of
Lords they are directed to "My Lords", i.e. the entire body of the
House. The Lord Speaker or Deputy Speaker cannot determine which
members may speak, or discipline members for violating the rules of
the House; these measures may be taken only by the House itself.
Unlike the politically neutral Speaker of the House of Commons, the
Lord Chancellor and Deputy Speakers originally remained members of
their respective parties, and may participate in debate, however
this is no longer true of the new role of Lord Speaker.
Another officer of the body is the
Leader of the House of Lords, a
peer selected by the Prime Minister. The Leader of the House is
responsible for steering Government bills through the House of
Lords, and is a member of the Cabinet. The Leader also advises the
House on proper procedure when necessary, but such advice is merely
informal, rather than official and binding. A Deputy Leader is also
appointed by the Prime Minister, and takes the place of an absent
or unavailable Leader.
The
Clerk of the
Parliaments is the chief clerk and officer of the House of
Lords (but is not a member of the House itself). The Clerk, who is
appointed by the Crown, advises the presiding officer on the rules
of the House, signs orders and official communications, endorses
bills, and is the keeper of the official records of both Houses of
Parliament. Moreover, the Clerk of the Parliaments is responsible
for arranging by-elections of hereditary peers when necessary. The
deputies of the Clerk of the Parliaments (the Clerk Assistant and
the Reading Clerk) are appointed by the Lord Speaker, subject to
the House's approval.
The
Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod is
also an officer of the House; he takes his title from the symbol of
his office, a black rod. Black Rod (as the Gentleman Usher is
normally known) is responsible for ceremonial arrangements, is in
charge of the House's doorkeepers, and may (upon the order of the
House) take action to end disorder or disturbance in the Chamber.
Black Rod also holds the office of
Serjeant-at-Arms of the House of Lords, and
in this capacity attends upon the Lord Speaker. The Gentleman Usher
of the Black Rod's duties may be delegated to the Yeoman Usher of
the Black Rod or to the Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms.
Procedure
- See also the stages
of a bill section in Acts of Parliament in
the United Kingdom
The House
of Lords and the House of Commons assemble in the Palace of
Westminster. The Lords Chamber is lavishly decorated, in
contrast with the more modestly furnished Commons Chamber. Benches
in the Lords Chamber are coloured red; thus, the House of Lords is
sometimes referred to as the "Red Chamber". The Woolsack is at the
front of the Chamber; supporters of the Government sit on benches
on the right of the Woolsack, while members of the Opposition sit
on the left. Neutral members, known as
Cross-benchers, sit on the benches immediately
opposite the Woolsack.
The Lords Chamber is the site of many formal ceremonies, the most
famous of which is the
State
Opening of Parliament, held at the beginning of each new
parliamentary session. During the State Opening, the
Sovereign, seated on the Throne in the
Lords Chamber and in the presence of both Houses of Parliament,
delivers a speech outlining the Government's agenda for the
upcoming parliamentary session.
In the House of Lords, members need not seek the recognition of the
presiding officer before speaking, as is done in the House of
Commons. If two or more Lords simultaneously rise to speak, the
House decides which one is to be heard by acclamation, or, if
necessary, by voting on a motion. Often, however, the Leader of the
House will suggest an order, which is thereafter generally
followed. Speeches in the House of Lords are addressed to the House
as a whole ("My Lords") rather than to the presiding officer alone
(as is the custom in the Lower House). Members may not refer to
each other in the second person (as "you"), but rather use third
person forms such as "the noble Duke", "the noble Earl", "the noble
Lord", "my noble friend", "The most Reverend Primate" etc.
Each member may make no more than one speech on a motion, except
that the mover of the motion may make one speech at the beginning
of the debate and another at the end. Speeches are not subject to
any time limits in the House; however, the House may put an end to
a speech by approving a motion "that the noble Lord be no longer
heard". It is also possible for the House to end the debate
entirely, by approving a motion "that the Question be now put".
This procedure is known as
Closure, and is
extremely rare.
Once all speeches on a motion have concluded, or Closure invoked,
the motion may be put to a vote. The House first votes by
voice vote; the Lord Speaker or Deputy Speaker
puts the question, and the Lords respond either "Content" (in
favour of the motion) or "Not Content" (against the motion). The
presiding officer then announces the result of the voice vote, but
if his assessment is challenged by any Lord, a recorded vote known
as a
division follows. Members of
the House enter one of two lobbies (the "Content" lobby or the
"Not-Content" lobby) on either side of the Chamber, where their
names are recorded by clerks. At each lobby are two Tellers
(themselves members of the House) who count the votes of the Lords.
The Lord Speaker may not take part in the vote. Once the division
concludes, the Tellers provide the results thereof to the presiding
officer, who then announces them to the House. If there is an
equality of votes, the motion is decided according to the following
principles: legislation may proceed in its present form, unless
there is a majority in favour of amending or rejecting it; any
other motions are rejected, unless there is a majority in favour of
approving it. The
quorum of the House of
Lords is just three members for a general or procedural vote, and
30 members for a vote on legislation. If fewer than three or 30
members (as appropriate) are present, the division is
invalid.
Leave of Absence
In 1958, to counter criticism that some peers only appeared at
major decisions in the House and thereby particular votes were
swayed, the
Standing Orders of the
House of Lords were enhanced. Peers who did not wish to attend
meetings regularly or were prevented by ill health, age or further
reasons, were now able to request Leave of Absence. During the
granted time a peer is expected not to visit the House's meetings
until either its expiration or termination, announced at least a
month prior to their return.
Committees
The Parliament of the United Kingdom uses committees for a variety
of purposes; one common use is for the review of bills. Committees
of both Houses consider bills in detail, and may make amendments.
In the House of Lords, the committee most commonly used for the
consideration of bills is the Committee of the Whole House, which,
as its name suggests, includes all members of the House. The
Committee meets in the Lords Chamber, and is presided over not by
the Lord Speaker, but by the Chairman of Committees or a Deputy
Chairman. Different procedural rules apply in the Committee of the
Whole House than in normal sessions of the Lords; in particular,
members are allowed to make more than one speech each on a motion.
Similar to the Committee of the Whole House are the Grand
Committees, bodies in which any member of the House may
participate. A Grand Committee does not meet in the Lords Chamber,
but in a separate committee room. No divisions are held in Grand
Committees, and any amendments to the bill require the unanimous
consent of the body. Hence, the Grand Committee procedure is used
only for uncontroversial bills.
Bills may also be committed to Public Bill Committees, which
consist of between twelve and sixteen members each. A Public Bill
Committee is specifically constituted for a particular bill. A bill
may also be referred to a Special Public Bill Committee, which,
unlike the Public Bill Committee, has the power to hold hearings
and collect evidence. These committees are used much less
frequently than the Committee of the Whole House and Grand
Committees.
The House of Lords also has several
Select Committees. The
members of these committees are appointed by the House at the
beginning of each session, and continue to serve until the next
parliamentary session begins. The House of Lords may appoint a
chairman for a committee; if it does not do so, the Chairman of
Committees or a Deputy Chairman of Committees may preside instead.
Most Select Committees are permanent, but the House may also
establish
ad hoc committees, which cease to exist upon the
completion of a particular task (for instance, investigating the
reform of the House of Lords). The primary function of Select
Committees is to scrutinise and investigate Government activities;
to fulfil these aims, they are permitted to hold hearings and
collect evidence. Bills may be referred to Select Committees, but
are more often sent to the Committee of the Whole House and Grand
Committees.
The committee system of the House of Lords also includes several
Domestic Committees, which supervise or consider the House's
procedures and administration. One of the Domestic Committees is
the Committee of Selection, which is responsible for assigning
members to many of the House's other committees.
Legislative functions
legislation may be introduced in either House, but, most commonly,
is introduced in the
House of
Commons.
The House of Lords debates legislation, and has some power to amend
or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill
passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the
Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be
presented for the
Royal Assent without
the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override
the Lords' veto). The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a
bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons,
solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than
one month. Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of
Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar
year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that
originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of
extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further
restriction is a
constitutional
convention known as the
Salisbury Convention, which means that
the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the
Government's election
manifesto.
By a custom that prevailed even before the Parliament Acts, the
House of Lords is further restrained insofar as financial bills are
concerned. The House of Lords may neither originate a bill
concerning taxation or Supply (supply of treasury or exchequer
funds), nor amend a bill so as to insert a taxation or
Supply-related provision. (The House of Commons, however, often
waives its privileges and allows the Upper House to make amendments
with financial implications.) Moreover, the Upper House may not
amend any Supply Bill. The House of Lords formerly maintained the
absolute power to reject a bill relating to revenue or Supply, but
this power was curtailed by the Parliament Acts, as
aforementioned.
In March 2006, it was reported that, among other reforms, the
Government are considering removing the ability of the Lords to
delay legislation that arises as a result of manifesto commitments,
and reducing their ability to delay other legislation to a period
of 60 days.
class=htc href="LiveCall:93-8014445">93-8014445fef7a.htm
ePolitix.com - Lords reform moves up the agenda
Judicial functions
Historically, the House of Lords held several judicial functions.
Most notably, until 2009 the House of Lords served as the
court of last resort for most instances
of UK law.
Since 1 October 2009 this role is now held
by the newly created Supreme Court of the United
Kingdom.
The Lords' judicial functions originated from the ancient role of
the
Curia Regis as a body that addressed
the petitions of the King's subjects. The functions were exercised
not by the whole House, but by a committee of "Law Lords". The bulk
of the House's judicial business was conducted by the twelve Lords
of Appeal in Ordinary, who were specifically appointed for this
purpose under the
Appellate Jurisdiction Act
1876. The judicial functions could also be exercised by Lords
of Appeal (other members of the House who happened to have held
high judicial office). No Lord of Appeal in Ordinary or Lord of
Appeal could sit judicially beyond the age of seventy-five. The
judicial business of the Lords was supervised by the Senior Lord of
Appeal in Ordinary and his or her deputy, the Second Senior Lord of
Appeal in Ordinary.
The jurisdiction of the House of Lords extended, in civil and in
criminal cases, to appeals from the courts of England and Wales,
and of Northern Ireland.
From Scotland, appeals were possible only in
civil cases; Scotland's High Court of Justiciary
is the highest court in criminal matters.
The House of Lords was not the United Kingdom's only court of last
resort; in some cases, the
Privy Council performs
such a function. The jurisdiction of the Privy Council in the
United Kingdom, however, is relatively restricted; it encompasses
appeals from
ecclesiastical courts,
disputes under the
House of Commons
Disqualification Act 1975, and a few other minor matters.
Issues related to
devolution were
transferred from the Privy Council to the Supreme Court in
2009.
The twelve Law Lords did not all hear every case; rather, after
World War II cases were heard by panels
known as Appellate Committees, each of which normally consisted of
five members (selected by the Senior Lord). An Appellate Committee
hearing an important case could consist of more than five members.
Though Appellate Committees met in separate committee rooms,
judgement was given in the Lords Chamber itself.
No further appeal lay
from the House of Lords, although the House of Lords could refer a
"preliminary question" to the European Court of Justice in cases
involving an element of European
Union law, and a case could be brought at the European
Court of Human Rights
if the House of Lords did not provide a
satisfactory remedy in cases where the European Convention on Human
Rights was relevant.
A distinct judicial function—one in which the whole House used to
participate—is that of trying
impeachments. Impeachments were brought by the
House of Commons, and tried in the House of Lords; a conviction
required only a majority of the Lords voting. Impeachments,
however, are to all intents and purposes obsolete; the last
impeachment was that of
Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount
Melville in 1806.
Similarly, the House of Lords was once the court that tried peers
charged with high
treason or
felony. The House would be presided over not by the
Lord Chancellor, but by the
Lord High Steward, an official especially
appointed for the occasion of the trial. If Parliament was not in
session, then peers could be tried in a separate court, known as
the Lord High Steward's Court. Only peers, their wives, and their
widows (unless remarried) were entitled to
trials in the
House of Lords or the Lord High Steward's Court; the Lords
Spiritual were tried in Ecclesiastical Courts. In 1948, the right
of peers to be tried in such special courts was abolished; now,
they are tried in the regular courts. The last such trial in the
House was of
Edward
Southwell Russell, 26th Baron de Clifford in 1935.
The
Constitutional Reform Act
2005 resulted in the creation of a separate Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom, to which the judicial function of the House of
Lords, and some of the judicial functions of the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council
, were transferred. In addition, the office
of Lord Chancellor was reformed by the act, removing his ability to
act as both a government minister and a judge. This was motivated
in part by concerns that the historical admixture of legislative,
judicial, and executive power, may not be in conformance with the
requirements of the
European Convention on Human
Rights (a judicial officer having legislative or executive
power not being likely to be considered sufficiently impartial to
provide a fair trial), and in any case are considered undesirable
according to modern constitutional theory concerning the separation
of powers.
The new Supreme Court is located at Middlesex
Guildhall
.
Disciplinary powers
By contrast with the House of Commons, the House of Lords has not
had an established procedure for putting sanctions on its members.
When the
Cash for Influence
scandal was referred to the Committee of Privileges in January
2009, the
Leader of the
House of Lords also asked the Privileges Committee to report on
what sanctions the House had against its members. After seeking
advice from the
Attorney General and
the former
Lord Chancellor Lord Mackay of
Clashfern, the committee decided that the House "possessed an
inherent power" to suspend errant members, although not to withhold
a
Writ of summons nor to expel a
member permanently. When the House subsequently suspended
Lord Truscott and
Lord Taylor of
Blackburn for their role in the scandal, they were the first to
meet this fate since 1642.
There are two other motions which have grown up through custom and
practice and which govern questionable conduct within the House.
They are brought into play by a member standing up, possibly
intervening on another member, and moving the motion without
notice. When the debate is getting excessively heated, it is open
to a member to move "that the Standing Order on Asperity of Speech
be read by the Clerk". The motion can be debated, but if agreed by
the House, the
Clerk of the
Parliaments will read out Standing Order 33 which provides
"That all personal, sharp, or taxing speeches be forborn". The
Journals of the House of Lords record only four instances on which
the House has ordered the Standing Order to be read since the
procedure was invented in 1871.
For more serious problems with an individual Lord, the option is
available to move "That the noble Lord be no longer heard". This
motion also is debatable, and the debate which ensues has sometimes
offered a chance for the member whose conduct has brought it about
to come to order so that the motion can be withdrawn. If the motion
is passed, its effect is to prevent the member from continuing
their speech on the motion then under debate. The Journals identify
eleven occasions on which this motion has been moved since 1884;
four were eventually withdrawn, one was voted down, and six were
passed.
Relationship with the Government
Unlike the House of Commons, the House of Lords does not control
the term of the Prime Minister or of the Government. Only the Lower
House may force the Prime Minister to resign or call elections by
passing a motion of no-confidence or by
withdrawing supply. Thus, the House of Lords'
oversight of the government is limited.
Most Cabinet ministers are from the House of Commons, rather than
the House of Lords. In particular, all Prime Ministers since 1902
have been members of the Lower House. (
Alec Douglas-Home, who became Prime
Minister in 1963 whilst still an Earl, disclaimed his peerage and
was elected to the Commons soon after his term began.) In recent
history, it has been very rare for major cabinet positions (except
Lord Chancellor and
Leader of the House of Lords)
to have been filled by peers. Exceptions include
Lord Carrington, who
was the
Foreign
Secretary between 1979 and 1982,
Lord Young of Graffham (
Minister without Portfolio, then
Secretary of State for
Employment and then
Secretary of State for
Trade and Industry from 1984 to 1989),
The Lady Amos (
International Development
Secretary, 2003) and currently
Lord
Mandelson, who is serving as
Secretary
of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and
President of the Board of
Trade and
Lord Adonis (
Secretary of State for
Transport).
Lord Cockfield and
the
Earl of Gowrie both held Cabinet
posts while members of the House of Lords, and
George Robertson was briefly a peer whilst
serving as
Secretary of
State for Defence.
The House
of Lords does remain a source for junior ministers, such as
Lord Malloch-Brown (Foreign and
Commonwealth Office
). Since 1999 the
Attorney-General has
been a Lord; currently it is
Lady Scotland of Asthal. The
House of Lords also has a
Chief Whip -
currently
Lord
Bassam.
Current composition
The House of Lords, as of 2 November 2009:
Note:
These figures exclude 13 peers who are on leave of absence, 2 peers
who are suspended, 16 peers disqualified as serving senior judges
and 1 peer who is disqualified as an MEP
.
†The number of hereditary peers "allocated" to each party, which is
based on the proportion of hereditary peers that belongs to that
party, is:
- Conservative Party: 39 peers (previously 42)
- Labour Party: 2 peers
- Liberal Democrats: 3 peers
- Crossbenchers: 28 peers
Of the initial 42
hereditary peers
elected as Conservatives, one (
Lord Brabazon of
Tara) now sits as a non-affiliated member, having become the
House of Lords' Chairman of Committees, and another (
Lord Willoughby
de Broke) now sits as a UKIP member.
In a move that had not occurred since the 17th century, the House
voted to suspend two Labour peers, Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of
Blackburn, on the 20 May 2009, for the period to the end of the
current session of Parliament. They remain members of the House of
Lords, but are suspended from its meetings and voting.
A report in 2007 stated that many members of the Lords
(particularly the life peers) do not attend regularly - the average
daily attendance was around 408.
There is no maximum limit to the number of life peers who may be
members of the House of Lords at any one time (however the number
of hereditary peers is limited to 92, and of Lords spiritual to
26).
Current political leaders in the Lords
See also
References
- Loveland (2009) p.158
- Shell (2007) p.54
- Shell (2007) p.53
- Shell (2007) p.55
- " The Powers of the House of Lords in respect of its
Members", First Report of the Privileges Committee in session
2008-09, paragraph 2.
- " The Powers of the House of Lords in respect of its
Members", First Report of the Privileges Committee in session
2008-09, paragraph 8.
- Andrew Sparrow, "'Sullied' members suspend two peers in first
case since 1642", The Guardian, 21 May 2009, p. 6.
- " Companion to the Standing Orders and guide to the
proceedings of the House of Lords", October 2006, paragraph
4.58.
- " Standing Orders of the House of Lords", printed
16 July 2007.
- See Lords Journal vol. CIII p. 629, vol. CIV p. 381, vol. 182
p. 90, and vol. 231 p. 644 and 648-9.
- " Companion to the Standing Orders and guide to the
proceedings of the House of Lords", October 2006, paragraphs
4.59 and 4.60.
- See Lords Journal vol. CXVI p. 162, vol. CXXIII p. 354, vol.
192 p. 231, vol. 215 p. 200-1, vol. 218 p. 119, vol. 221 p. 539,
vol. 225 p. 194, vol. 226 p. 339, vol. 228 p. 308, vol. 229 p. 89,
and vol. 233 p. 791.
- BBC News Lords vote to suspend two peers
Bibliography
Further reading
External links
Top topics
Wikis
Quiz
Facts
Map
Misc
Search
