| Standards of Conduct in the House of Lords | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3.1 The House of Lords has undergone considerable institutional change in the past two years, and is widely regarded as being in a transitional state. This chapter describes the most significant recent developments in the composition and structure of the House, while the next chapter explores some of the possible implications for our study. 3.2 Despite recent developments, many of the House of Lords' chief characteristics have remained unaltered. Some of them serve to make the House a unique form of second chamber.1 3.3 Amongst these features are:
Terms under which members of the House serve 3.4 Two main documents describe the terms under which a member of the House of Lords serves. The first are the Letters Patent, which, among other things, set out the peer's title and the grant of certain rights. The second is the Writ of Summons, which calls on the member to attend on the Sovereign in Parliament and carry out certain functions. 3.5 The Letters Patent state the Sovereign is:
3.6 An excerpt from the text of the Writ of Summons reads thus:
3.7 These documents have different functions. The Letters Patent state the rights, privileges and other benefits being granted by the Sovereign to the new peer. The Writ of Summons is a command to attend and advise and "give counsel", and lists the services which the peer must provide to the Sovereign. 3.8 The references in the Letters Patent to "rights, privileges, pre-eminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging" need to be borne in mind in discussing what kind of penalties can properly be imposed by the House in case of a breach of its rules. In particular, there is an issue whether the suspension of a member from the House is an infringement of any of these rights or privileges.2 3.9 Peers can be granted Leave of Absence. This is a provision that is used very infrequently, particularly with the departure of the hereditary peers.3 Reimbursement of members of the House of Lords 3.10 Members of the Lords are not paid; none of them receives a salary apart from a small number of members who are salaried by virtue of the office they hold. Nor do they receive an allowance: the principle behind the arrangements is that expenses such as travel, subsistence and secretarial costs should be met. 3.11 The claim for expenses is related to daily attendance in the Chamber, the voting lobbies or in committee rooms during meetings. This is consistent with the fact that many members attend on a part-time basis. 3.12 Apart from travelling expenses, peers are entitled to reimbursement of a number of other expenses. The Annual Report of the House sets out the position in this way:
Legislative changes 3.13 The last two years have seen significant change in the composition and status of the House of Lords. The 1997 Labour Manifesto contained the following proposal:
3.14 The Government published a White Paper on House of Lords' reform in January 1999 6 and, at the same time, announced the establishment of a Royal Commission. On 8 February 1999 the Royal Commission, chaired by the Rt Hon Lord Wakeham, was appointed to consider the role and functions of the second chamber and the method or combination of methods of its composition. Its report, A House For the Future ,7 was published on 20 January 2000. The Government has made an initial response to the report, welcoming it in principle,8 but the exact form of their proposals has not been announced. The Government "aim to establish a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the parliamentary implications of the Royal Commission ... proposals for the composition of the second chamber".9 3.15 The House of Lords Bill, which embodied the self-contained initial changes, received its Second Reading in the Lords on 30 March 1999. An amendment to except 92 hereditary peers from the exclusion provisions was accepted at Committee Stage on 11 May 1999. 3.16 The amendment provided for 75 hereditary peers to be elected from their own party or cross-bench groups (42 Conservatives, 28 cross-benchers, three Liberal Democrats and two Labour). Fifteen hereditary peers were also to be elected to act as Deputy Speakers or Committee Chairmen. Two hereditary royal appointments, the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, were also retained. The elections took place in October and November 1999. 3.17 The House of Lords Act received Royal Assent on 11 November 1999 and came into effect and was implemented on the same day, the last day of the Session. On that day, 654 hereditary peers were removed from membership of the House. Compositional changes 3.18 Since the Labour Government came to power in May 1997, 202 life peers have been created -- a larger number than in any equivalent period since 1958, when the first life peers were created (save for those granted under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 to Law Lords). This, together with the removal of all but 92 hereditary peers10 has changed the composition of the House of Lords markedly. The composition of the House of Lords in October 2000
3.19 Another development will to a certain degree alter the composition of the House - the House of Lords Appointments Commission, whose membership and remit were announced by the Prime Minister in May 2000.11 This is a non-statutory advisory body which will make recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen on non-party-political life peers and also vet for propriety all future recommendations for peerages. It has advertised widely for nominations from the public. A changed house - a changed ethos? 3.20 We heard a considerable range of views as to whether these changes in composition had altered the ethos and atmosphere of the House. Some felt that they had made little difference. Among those who took this view was the Rt Hon Lord Trefgarne, the Chairman of the Association of the Conservative Peers, who said of the new composition:
3.21 The Rt Hon Earl Ferrers, developing this thought, said:
3.22 Baroness Turner of Camden saw little alteration as a result of the removal of most hereditary peers:
3.23 Other witnesses perceived partial change only, or regarded the differences as transitional, and the result of a temporary upheaval. Among these was Lord Wakeham, who believed that:
3.24 A number of witnesses felt on the contrary that change in the ethos of the House was both significant and irreversible. The Rt Hon Lord Richard QC, for example, described the House of Lords as " moving from a wholly amateur House, as at one stage it was, to a House that is much more professional, and all sorts of problems will arise as a result of that".16 Lord Lipsey, in a New Statesman article describing his experiences as a new 'working' peer, said that earning a living outside was made " practically impossible" by the life of the House and "the attentions of the Whips".17 3.25 The impression of a House whose members are now expected to attend regularly is reinforced by very recent amendments to the wording of the passage on leave of absence in the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords, issued under the authority of the Procedure Committee. In this case, indeed, the changes apply to all members, whether or not they take a party whip. As we noted above,18 the 18th edition of the Companion, published in October 2000, requires members to "attend the sittings of the House". If they cannot attend, members should obtain leave of absence. The language of the previous, 1994, edition was noticeably less emphatic, requiring members only "to attend the sittings of the House if they reasonably can" (emphasis added). It could perhaps be said that the changed wording tracks, or at least foreshadows, the development of a more 'professional' House. 3.26 The Rt Hon Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank said that "the House has become a much more professional place. It always claimed to be very expert but its expertise was limited. It has been greatly broadened by the new people who have come into the House." 19 3.27 The changes in composition have led to claims on several sides that the decisions of the House have acquired greater legitimacy. The Rt Hon Baroness Jay of Paddington, writing in September 1999, said that: "The House of Lords without the hereditary peers will be more legitimate, because its members have earned their places, and therefore more effective in playing its part in our bicameral constitution."20 In June 1999, the Rt Hon Lord Strathclyde, Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords, referred to the "authority [that] will be given to representative peers in respect of the Weatherill amendment" (a reference to the amendment to the House of Lords Act 1999 that allowed for the election of hereditary peers). 21 3.28 The effect of the party composition within the House is that the political balance of power lies with neither the Government nor with the main Opposition party but with the Liberal Democrats (9 per cent) and the independent cross-benchers (24 per cent). Analysis of membership by party strength - 27 September 2000
(A) Table excludes three life peers on leave of absence (B) The two are the Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal (Conservative) and the Marquess of Cholmondeley, Lord Great Chamberlain (cross-bench) Impact on political activity 3.29 We heard evidence that the level of party political activity and division had increased since the removal of the hereditary peers. The Rt Hon Lord Biffen judged that there had been "some almost measurable change" in this area since their exclusion. In what he considered "perhaps ... an irony", he sensed that because of the removal, "there has been more of a combative spirit in the House of Lords and more frequent defeats of the Government." 22 3.30 Professor Robert Hazell developed this line of thinking, seeing the potential for such "combative spirit" on several sides. He felt that the Lords might become a more important House as it became more willing to vote down the Government, and that consequently, "the Government, increasingly, may challenge or criticise the Lords for, in effect, daring to obstruct the will of the elected chamber. We have already seen the occasional remark of that kind by frustrated Ministers. That may lead in future to a more sophisticated analysis than in the past of a breakdown of votes in the Lords." 23 3.31 Peter Riddell saw recent changes as highly significant:
3.32 Recently, there has also been the first defeat of a Statutory Instrument since 1968 - when the Lords voted down such an Instrument on the grounds that it did not provide a free mailing for candidates in the 2000 election for Mayor of London.25 3.33 Whether or not the House is more legitimate, evidence given to us suggests that its perceived entitlement to exercise its own independent judgement on the merits of Government legislative proposals, whether or not already approved by the Commons, is leading to a greater degree of journalistic interest and external observation. The votes of the House are likely to come under greater scrutiny, especially as the numbers of the two main parties become more equal and the possibility of closely-contested divisions increases. The effect of the highly publicised selection of candidates by the Appointments Commission may also be to strengthen public interest in the rules which govern the House, its members and their activities. 3.34 Although there has been
no fundamental alteration in the powers of the House of Lords, the structural
changes described in this chapter are potentially profound. In the light
of them, the Committee believes that the time is right for an examination
of the rules that govern the conduct of the House's members.
1 Meg Russell, Reforming the House of Lords: Lessons from Overseas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), details some of the differences between the House and other second chambers. 3 The latest edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords (18th edition, October 2000) contains this passage (para 1.26): "Members of the House are to attend the sittings of the House. If they cannot attend, they should obtain leave of absence". This compares with the wording of the requirement contained in the previous, 1994 edition of the Companion, which says: "Lords are to attend the sittings of the House as often as they reasonably can" (p 9). For a full discussion of this point, see para 3.25 below. Only three peers are currently on leave of absence. 4 House of Lords Annual Report and Accounts 1999-2000, HL104 (1999-2000), pp 45-6. 5 1997 General Election Manifesto: New Labour - Because Britain Deserves Better, p 32. 6 Modernising Parliament: Reforming the House of Lords, Cm 4183 (January 1999). 8 The Leader of the House of Lords, the Rt Hon Baroness Jay of Paddington, said in a Lords debate on the Wakeham Report, Hansard (HL) 7 March 2000, col 912:
9 Hansard (HL) 3 July 2000, col WA122. 10 There are provisions for filling vacancies. 11 Hansard (HC) 4 May 2000, col 181W 17 New Statesman, 7 August, 2000, p 21. 18 See footnote 3 to this chapter. 20 The House Magazine, 27 September 1999 p 20. 21 Hansard (HL) 15 June 1999, col 228. 22 Day 6 (pm).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
