House of Lords Act 1999

Infobox UK Legislation
short_title=House of Lords Act 1999
parliament=United Kingdom Parliament
long_title=An Act to restrict membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage; to make related provision about disqualifications for voting at elections to, and for membership of, the House of Commons; and for connected purposes.
statute_book_chapter=1999 c. 34cite web
url=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/ukpga_19990034_en_1
title=House of Lords Act 1999 (original text) |date=1999-11-11 |accessdate=2008-05-21]
introduced_by=Margaret Beckettcite web
url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990119/debtext/90119-08.htm
title=Hansard, Vol 323 No 22 Col 714 |date=1999-01-19 |accessdate=2008-05-19]
territorial_extent=England and Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland
royal_assent=11 November 1999cite web
url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo991111/debtext/91111-11.htm#91111-11_head0
title=Hansard, Vol 337 No 149 Col 1306 |date=1999-11-11 |accessdate=2008-05-19]
commencement=11 November 1999cite web |url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldbrief/10402.htm |title=House of Lords - Annual Report and Accounts 1999-2000 |accessdate=2008-05-19|quote=the Bill received Royal Assent and came into immediate effect on 11 November, the last day of the 1998-99 session.]
repeal_date=
amendments=
related_legislation=
repealing_legislation=
status=Current
original_text=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/ukpga_19990034_en_1
activeTextDocId=1459027|

The House of Lords Act 1999 (1999 c. 34) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that was given Royal Assent on 11 November 1999. It was a major constitutional enactment that reformed greatly one of the chambers of Parliament, the House of Lords. For centuries, the House of Lords had included several hundred members who inherited their seats; the Act removed such a right. However, as part of a compromise, the Act did permit ninety-two hereditaries to remain in the House on an interim basis. The Act decreased the membership of the House from 1,330 (October 1999) to 669 (March 2000). [cite web |url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldbrief/10402.htm |title=House of Lords - Annual Report and Accounts 1999-2000 |accessdate=2008-05-19|quote=This major change had the effect of reducing the total membership of the House from 1,330 in October 1999 - the highest figure ever recorded - to 669 in March 2000] As another result of the Act, the majority of the Lords were now life peers, whose numbers had been gradually increasing since the Life Peerages Act 1958.cite book |title=Lords Reform: The interim House – background statistics; Research Paper 00/61 |url=http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-061.pdf|format=PDF |accessdate=2008-05-23 |last=Cracknell |first=Richard |date=2000-06-15 |publisher=House of Commons Library]

Background

The Lords was once the stronger of the two houses of Parliament. [cite web
url=http://www.parliament.uk/about/history/institution.cfm
title=Parliament: The political institution |accessdate=2008-05-23|quote=During the 15th century, King Henry V put the Commons on an equal footing with the Lords.] A process of gradual evolution combined with such moments of crisis as the English Civil Wars transferred the political control of England, first from the Crown to the House of Lords and then to the House of Commons. [cite web
url=http://www.parliament.uk/about/history/institution.cfm
title=Parliament: The political institution |accessdate=2008-05-23|quote=The Bill of Rights was agreed in 1689. This established Parliament's authority over the monarch] The rising wealth of the Commons eventually allowed it to wage two civil wars, dethrone two Kings, and gradually reduce the power of the Lords. Prior to the House of Lords Act 1999 the power of the Lords had been diminished by the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 which stripped the Lords of the ability to block, or veto, adoption of most bills; at most it could delay bills for one year. Furthermore, the Commons has absolute power when it comes to money bills. [cite web
url=http://www.parliament.uk/about/history/institution.cfm
title=Parliament: The political institution |accessdate=2008-05-23|quote=The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 increased the authority of the Commons over the Lords when passing new laws. The Acts removed the powers of the Lords to amend any Bills concerning money and reduced the amount of time they could delay a Bill.]

location=London|date=2005-04-15|accessdate=2008-05-22] in the process inflicting the biggest defeat for the Conservatives since 1832. [cite web
url=http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/1997_general_election.htm
title=The 1997 General Election |work=History Learning Site |accessdate=2008-05-21|quote=the [percentage] of Tory votes for all votes cast, was the lowest since 1832] The Labour Party had for years endorsed abolition of the unelected House of Lords in its election platforms, [cite book|title=The New Hope for Britain; Labour Party Manifesto 1983|publisher=The Labour Party|year=1983| url=http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/man/lab83.htm|accessdate=2008-05-22|quote=Take action to abolish the undemocratic House of Lords as quickly as possible] though since 1992 this had changed to a policy of reforming the House instead. [cite book|title=It's time to get Britain working again; Labour Party Manifesto 1992|publisher=The Labour Party|year=1992| url=http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/man/lab92.htm|accessdate=2008-05-22|quote=Further constitutional reforms will include those leading to the replacement of the House of Lords with a new elected Second Chamber]

During the twentieth century successive Labour governments proposed many bills that were opposed by the traditionally Conservative House of Lords. In the first year of Tony Blair's government the Lords rejected Labour bills thirty-eight times. [cite news|title=Vote 2001: House of Lords reform |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/main_issues/sections/facts/newsid_1214000/1214416.stm |work=BBC News |publisher=British Broadcasting Corporation|location=London|date=2001-03-27|accessdate=2008-05-19|quote=In the first year of Tony Blair's government there were 38 defeats.] The rejection considered the most contentious was of the European Elections Bill, [cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/226849.stm|title=Euro bill forced through|work=BBC News|publisher=British Broadcasting Corporation|location=London|date=1998-12-03 |accessdate=2008-05-19|quote=This is the first constitutional measure which has been not only guillotined but also where a government has been forced to use the Parliament Act procedures.] which the Lords voted down an unprecedented five times. Blair claimed that the Conservatives were using the hereditary peers to "frustrate" and "overturn the will of the democratically elected House of Commons". [cite web
url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo981118/debtext/81118-21.htm
title=Hansard, Vol 319 Col 931 |date=1998-11-18 |accessdate=2008-05-21] Here Blair found an opportunity to implement one of Labour's campaign promises, "reforming" the Lords. [cite book|title=New labour: because Britain deserves better; Labour Party Manifesto 1997|publisher=The Labour Party|year=1997|pages=pp. 32–33| url=http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/man/lab97.htm|accessdate=2008-05-22|quote=The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute...]

On 24 November 1998, in opening the second session of Parliament, the Queen delivered her annual Speech from the Throne; the Speech is written for her by the ruling party and outlines that party's legislative agenda for the upcoming year and not the Monarch's personal views. In it, she suggested that her Government (i.e. the ruling Labour Party) would pursue a reform of the House of Lords. These remarks were followed by shouts of "Hear! Hear!" from supportive Labour Members of Parliament, and by similar shouts of "Shame! Shame!" from Conservative peers; such outbursts were unprecedented, for the Queen's Speech is traditionally heard by a silent Parliament. [cite news|title=Queen's speech spells end for peers|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/24/newsid_4007000/4007601.stm |work=BBC News|publisher=British Broadcasting Corporation|location=London|date=1998-11-24|accessdate=2008-05-19]

The House of Lords Bill

The House of Lords Bill was expected to face a tough fight in the House of Lords. Several Lords threatened to disrupt the Government's other bills if they continued with the plan to abolish the hereditaries' right to sit in the House of Lords. The Earl of Onslow, for instance, said, "I'm happy to force a division on each and every clause of the Scotland Bill. Each division takes 20 minutes and there are more than 270 clauses." [cite news|first=Dennis|last=Sewell|title=Matrix of Power; Lords Reform |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/10/98/matrix/179548.stm |work=BBC News|publisher=British Broadcasting Corporation|location=London|date=1998-10-16|accessdate=2008-05-19] Lords had plenty of other means by which they could obstruct the Government's programme.

, rose in the House of Commons to attack Tony Blair's plans. He suggested that Mr Blair's changes indicated his lack of principles. Hague further suggested that the Conservative Party would never agree to such constitutional reforms that were "based on no comprehensive plan or principle."cite web
url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo981202/debtext/81202-18.htm#81202-18_spnew3
title=Hansard, Vol 321 Col 875 |date=1998-12-02 |accessdate=2008-05-19] Mr Hague's remarks backfired when Blair revealed that the Conservative Party in the House of Lords, rather than oppose his reforms, would definitely support them, and that he had done a secret deal with the Conservative leader in the House of Lords, Viscount Cranborne. Mr Hague immediately removed Viscount Cranborne from office, [cite news|title='I require you to step down' |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/226809.stm |work=BBC News|publisher=British Broadcasting Corporation|location=London|date=1998-12-02|accessdate=2008-05-19] but, in protest, several Conservative Lords who held front-bench positions resigned. [cite news|title=Hague leadership in crisis |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/227197.stm |work=BBC News|publisher=British Broadcasting Corporation|location=London|date=1998-12-03|accessdate=2008-05-19|quote=Tory Lords are already in open revolt over his sacking of their leader Viscount Cranborne, with six of them resigning.]

, introduced the House of Lords Bill into the House of Commons. The House of Commons passed the bill by a vote of 340 to 132 on 16 March. [cite web
url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990316/debtext/90316-37.htm#90316-37_div106
title=Hansard, Vol 327 No 55 Col 995 |date=1999-03-16 |accessdate=2008-05-19] The next day it was presented to the House of Lords, where debate on the bill was far longer. One significant amendment made to the Bill was the so-called "Weatherill Amendment", named for the Lord Weatherill, the former Speaker of the House of Commons. The Weatherill Amendment put into place the deal agreed to by the Prime Minister and Viscount Cranborne, and allowed ninety-two hereditary peers to remain members of the House of Lords. [cite news |last=White |first=Michael |coauthors=Lucy Ward |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/1999/may/12/lordreform.constitution |title=Suspicious peers back reform |work=guardian.co.uk |publisher=Guardian Media Group |location=London |date=1999-05-12 |accessdate=2008-05-23 |quote=peers reluctantly endorsed the compromise 'Weatherill amendment' which will reprieve 92 of its 750 hereditary members]

Several controversies relating to the technicalities of the bill were brought up in the House of Lords. One issue regarded the language used in clauses 1 to 7, which was described by Lord Mayhew of Twysden as "uncertain in its effects and would leave the position of most hereditary Peers uncertain if the Bill was enacted." [cite web
url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990727/text/90727-03.htm#90727-03_head2
title=Hansard, Vol 604 No 127 Cols 1399-1422 |date=1999-07-27 |accessdate=2008-05-19] A second issue was related to the Treaty of Union of 1707 uniting Scotland and England into Great Britain. [cite web
url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990727/text/90727-08.htm#90727-08_head2
title=Hansard, Vol 604 No 127 Cols 1422-1433 |date=1999-07-27 |accessdate=2008-05-19] After lengthy debates, both matters were referred to the House of Lords Committee on Privileges.

Under the Articles of Union agreed to in 1707, Scottish Lords would be entitled to elect sixteen representative peers to sit on their Lordships' behalf in the House of Lords. In 1963, the Peerage Act was passed, allowing all Scottish peers to sit in the House, not just sixteen of them. It was felt that removing all Scottish representation would breach the Articles. [cite web |url=http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10809.htm |title=Second Report from the Committee for Privileges; Statement of Issues agreed between the Lord Gray and Her Majesty's Government |accessdate=2008-05-28 |date=1999-10-20|publisher=The Stationery Office |quote=The primary issue that the question raises is whether the Bill (as so amended) would... breach Article XXII of the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707.] The Government, however, responded that the Articles did envisage a change in the election of representative peers. It was argued that some portions of the Treaty were entrenched, while others were not. For instance, Scotland and England were united "forever," the Scottish Court of Session was to "remain in all time coming within Scotland as it is now constituted," [cite web |url=http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10809.htm |title=Second Report from the Committee for Privileges; Extract of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 (Article XIX) |accessdate=2008-05-28 |date=1999-10-20|publisher=The Stationery Office] and the establishment of the Church of Scotland was "effectually and unalterably secured." [cite web |url=http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10809.htm |title=Second Report from the Committee for Privileges; Extract of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 (Article XXV s2) |accessdate=2008-05-28 |date=1999-10-20|publisher=The Stationery Office] However, it was suggested, the election of Scottish representative peers was not entrenched, and therefore could be amended. Furthermore, the Government argued that Parliament was entirely sovereign and supreme, and could at its will change the Articles of Union. For example, the Treaty of Union joining Great Britain and Ireland required that the two nations be united "for ever." [cite web |url=http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10811.htm |title=Second Report from the Committee for Privileges; Case for Her Majesty's Government (point 68) |accessdate=2008-05-28 |date=1999-10-20|publisher=The Stationery Office] Nonetheless, in 1922, by an Act of Parliament, most of Ireland was made independent as the Irish Free State. Thus, even entrenched clauses were argued to be open to amendment by the authority of Parliament. The Committee agreed and reported to the House on 20 October 1999, that the Bill was indeed lawful in this regard.cite web |url=http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10801.htm |title=Second Report from the Committee for Privileges |accessdate=2008-05-19 |date=1999-10-20|publisher=The Stationery Office |quote=it is the unanimous opinion of the Committee that the House of Lords Bill (as amended on Report) would not, if enacted, breach the provisions of the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland.]

After the Committee's first and second reports were considered, [cite web |url=http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/106i/106i01.htm |title=First Report from the Committee for Privileges |accessdate=2008-05-19 |date=1999-10-18|publisher=The Stationery Office] the Lords passed the bill 221 to 81 on 26 October 1999. [cite web
url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo991026/text/91026-31.htm
title=Hansard, Vol 606 No 142 Col 290 |date=1999-10-26 |accessdate=2008-05-19] Once the Lords settled the differences between their version of the bill and the Commons version thereof, the Bill received Royal Assent on 11 November 1999 and became an Act of parliament. The Act then came into force the same day.

Membership of the House of Lords

The House of Lords Act 1999 provides firstly that "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage." (The Act treats the Principality of Wales and the Earldom of Chester as hereditary peerages, though those titles, granted normally to the heir-apparent, are never inherited.) The Act then provides that ninety-two peers, including the Earl Marshal, the Lord Great Chamberlain and ninety other peers elected in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House would be excepted from the exclusion of hereditary peers, and that after the first session of the next Parliament, whenever one of these seats fell vacant, the Lords would have to proceed to a by-election. The Act also provided that a hereditary peer would be entitled to vote in elections for, and sit in, the House of Commons, unless he or she was also a member of the House of Lords. Previously, hereditary peers had been constitutionally disqualified from being electors to, or members of, the House of Commons. The first hereditary peer to gain a seat in the Commons under this provision was John Thurso. [cite web
url=http://www.libdems.org.uk/party/people/viscount-john-thurso.html
title=John Thurso MP Biography |accessdate=2008-05-27|quote=He is the first and only hereditary peer to have been elected to the Commons having previously sat in the Lords.]

[
thumb|upright|Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon, was made a life peer in 1999] The Act prevents even hereditary peers who are the first to hold their titles from sitting automatically in the House of Lords. The Government did agree, however, to give life peerages (the titles of which are indicated in parentheses) to four such new hereditary peers: Toby Austin Richard William Low, 1st Baron Aldington (Baron Low), Frederick James Erroll, 1st Baron Erroll of Hale (Baron Erroll of Kilmun), Francis Aungier Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford, 1st Baron Pakenham (Baron Pakenham of Cowley) and Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon (Baron Armstrong-Jones). Additionally, life peerages were created for former Leaders of the House of Lords: John Julian Ganzoni, 2nd Baron Belstead (Baron Ganzoni), Peter Alexander Rupert Carington, 6th Baron Carrington (Baron Carington of Upton), Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, Viscount Cranborne (Baron Gascoyne-Cecil), George Patrick John Rushworth Jellicoe, 2nd Earl Jellicoe (Baron Jellicoe of Southampton), Malcolm Shepherd, 2nd Baron Shepherd (Baron Shepherd of Spalding) and David James George Hennessy, 3rd Baron Windlesham (Baron Hennessy). [cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/503329.stm|title=Snowdon leads Lords converts |work=BBC News|publisher=British Broadcasting Corporation|location=London|date=1999-11-02|accessdate=2008-05-23]

Life peerages were also offered to members of the royal family with new hereditary peerages, but declined: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Charles, Prince of Wales, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. [cite news |last=Watt |first=Nicholas |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/1999/nov/03/lordreform.constitution |title=Dismay as Snowdon stays in Lords |work=guardian.co.uk |publisher=Guardian Media Group |location=London |date=1999-11-03 |accessdate=2008-05-23 |quote=four "peers of the royal blood", whose titles were created in their lifetimes, would not take life peerages]

Before the granting of Royal Assent, the Lords had adopted a Standing Order making provision for the election of peers. [cite web
url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990726/text/90726-03.htm#90726-03_head2
title=Hansard, Vol 604 No 126 Cols 1290-1292 |date=1999-07-26 |accessdate=2008-05-19] The Order provided that there be elected:
*Two peers by the Labour peers
*Three peers by the Liberal Democrat peers
*Twenty-eight Crossbench peers
*Forty-two Conservative peers
*Fifteen peers, to serve as Deputy Speakers and in other offices, by the entire House of LordsThe elections for officers of the House were held on 27 and 28 October 1999, while those for peers elected by party were held on 3 and 4 November; the results were proclaimed to the House on 29 October and 5 November. [cite web
url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo991029/text/91029-02.htm#91029-02_head0
title=Hansard, Vol 606 No 145 Col 510 |date=1999-10-29 |accessdate=2008-05-23] [cite web
url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo991105/text/91105-02.htm#91105-02_head0
title=Hansard, Vol 606 No 150 Cols 1135-1136 |date=1999-11-05 |accessdate=2008-05-23] Voters were required to rank in order of preference, on a ballot prepared by the Clerk of the Parliaments, as many candidates as there were places to be filled. The candidates receiving the greatest number of votes (without regard to the ranking on the ballots, so in effect block voting) were declared elected. Only if there were ties would the ranking be examined. Thereafter, until November 2002, if a vacancy occurred, the next-highest vote-getter (the rankings being examined, again, only in the case of ties) in the original election would fill the seat.

Since November 2002, by-elections have been held to fill vacancies. Voting is by preferential voting, with peers ranking the candidates in order of preference. As many or as few preferences as desired may be indicated. To win the election, a peer must receive a majority of first preference votes. If no candidate receives such a majority, the candidate with the fewest number of first preference votes is eliminated, with each of his votes being redistributed according to the second preference marked on the ballot (see Instant-runoff voting). The process is continued until one candidate receives a majority. Two by-elections have been held in 2003 and a third in 2004. A further four by-elections were necessary in 2005, with none occurring in 2006. A by-election was held in March 2007 following the death of Lord Mowbray in late 2006. [cite web|url=http://www.election.demon.co.uk/lords.html|title=House of Lords Act: Hereditary Peers Elections |accessdate=2008-05-19|last=Boothroyd|first=David|work=United Kingdom Election Results]

It was expected that the Government would eventually present a bill to remove the remaining ninety-two hereditary peers from the House of Lords, [cite web
url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo981202/debtext/81202-18.htm#81202-18_spnew3
title=HC Hansard, Vol 321 Col 875 |date=1998-12-02 |accessdate=2008-05-23|quote=Yes, we are certainly prepared to agree to a proposal that would allow us to remove the hereditary peers altogether, in two stages. We are perfectly prepared to agree that in the first stage one in 10 hereditaries stays, and in the second stage they go altogether.] but as of May 2008 this has yet to occur. [cite web
url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080514/debtext/80514-0004.htm
title=Hansard, Vol 475 No 94 Col 1389 |date=2008-05-14 |accessdate=2008-05-23|quote=the Secretary of State for Justice will publish a White Paper on reform of the House of Lords]

ee also

*House of Lords
*Reform of the House of Lords
*List of hereditary peers elected to sit in the House of Lords under the House of Lords Act 1999

References

External links

* [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/ukpga_19990034_en_1 Text of the statute] as originally enacted
*UK-SLD|1459027
* [http://www.dca.gov.uk/elections/rpacirculars/pdf/rpacir431.pdf Home Office document from the Constitutional Unit] Annex B lists the hereditary peers who lost their seats.