The House off Lord Act 1999 is a law of the British Parliament deeply reforming the House of Lords, one of both room of the Parlement of the United Kingdom.

During centuries, the House of Lords was made up of several hundreds of members who obtained their seat by heritage. The law of 1999 removed this hereditary right. Nevertheless, as a compromise, it made it possible quatre-vingt-douze even hereditary to maintain with the House of Lords for one transitional period. These hereditary pars are primarily elected by the whole of the hereditary pars. Consequently of this law, the majority of the members of the House of Lords from now on consists of “pars with life” (whose title is not hereditary) whose number with gradually increased since the Life Peerages Act 1958.

History

Context

In the beginning, the Lords formed most powerful of the two rooms of the Parliament. A process of gradual evolution, associated with moments of crisis like the First English Revolution, transferred political control from England initially from the Couronne to the House of Lords then to the House of Commons. The increasing richness of the House of Commons finally enabled him to carry out two civil wars, of détrôner two kings, and to gradually reduce the capacity of the House of Lords. Before even the law of 1999, the capacities of this room had been reduced by the Parliament Act S of 1911 and 1949 which withdrew with the Room its right to block the adoption of the majority of the laws; it then can, at most, to delay the adoption of the laws during one year. Moreover, the House of Commons has an absolute capacity about the finance laws.

In 1997, after eighteen years years of being able preserving, the Labor carried out by Tony Blair gains one crushing victory with the House of Commons, imposing with the conservatives their larger defeat since 1832. Since years, the removal of the House of Lords, not elected, figure with the program of the Workers party. In 1992, this objective is replaced by a reform of the Room.

The House of Lords, traditionally preserving, was opposed many times to the laws suggested by the government of Tony Blair. During the first session of the 51e Parlement (which extends on part of 1997 and the essence of 1998), it rejected thirty-three time the bills filed in by the members of the Labor Party. The rejection considered as most litigious was that of European Elections Bill which the Lords rejected five times, which had been seen never yet. Tony Blair declared that the Lords “thwarted” the will of the “House of Commons elected democratically”. Tony Blair found here the occasion to implement one of the electoral promises of the members of the Labor Party: “to reform” the House of Lords.

At the time of the opening of the second session of the Parliament the November 24th 1998, the queen pronounces her traditional Speech from the throne; the speech is written on its behalf by the party in power which specifies its own legislative projects for the year to come and not the personal sights of the sovereign. In this speech, the queen proposes that its government (makes some, the workers party) implements a reform of the House of Lords. This part of speech was followed by approvals on behalf of the Labor partisans and by hostile cries (“Shame! Shame! ”) on behalf of the preserving pars. Such glares were a first, the speech of the queen being traditionally listened by a quiet Parliament.

Adoption

It was awaited that the House off Lords Bill met a wild opposition to the second room. Several Lords threatened to disturb the vote of the other bills of the Government if this last persisted in wanting to abolish the right of the hereditary pars to sit at the House of Lords. The count d' Onslow for example declared: “I am happy to cause a separate vote on each article of Scotland Bill. Each division takes twenty minutes and there are two hundred and seventy articles”. And much of other methods of parliamentary obstruction are at the disposal of the Lords.

In order to convince some pars to vote for her reform, Tony Blair proposes a compromise allowing a certain number of hereditary pars to remain with the House of Lords on a purely transitory basis. The December 2nd 1998, William Hague, chief of the Conservative opposition, protests with the House of Commons against the plan of Tony Blair. It suggests that the compromise suggested by Tony Blair implies by this last a disavowal of its principles. William Hague states then that the Conservative party would not accept a constitutional reform which “would be based on no overall level or any principle”. The remarks of William Hague are turned over against him when Tony Blair reveals that the conservatives of the House of Lords will support finally the reform and that it made a secret agreement with the Cranborne Viscount, chief of the preserving Lords. William Hague immediately dislocated the Cranborne Viscount of her functions but several preserving Lords of foreground resigned as a protest.

The January 19th 1999, the Tony Blair Prime Minister presents the bill to the House of Commons. The March 16th, the Communes adopts it by 340 votes for and 132 against. The following day, it is presented to the House of Lords where the debate is much longer. A significant amendment with the law was the Weatherill amendment, deposited by Lord Weatherill, old announcer of the House of Commons), which sets up the compromise between Tony Blair and the Cranborne Viscount making it possible 92 hereditary pars to remain members of the House of Lords.

Several technical controversies were raised with the House of Lords. One of them concerns the act of Union of 1707 between the Scotland and the England to form the Great Britain. After long debates, the subject was transmitted to the committee privileges of the House of Lords.

According to the act of Union of 1707, the Lords Scot can elect sixteen pars representatives to sit on their behalf with the House of Lords. The Peerage Act 1963 authorizes all the pars Scot to be sat at the House of Lords and either only sixteen of them. The question was to know if the suppression of any Scottish representation enfreignait or not the act of Union. The answer of the Government was that the act of Union considered changes with the election of the pars representatives. The argumentation was that certain parts of the act of Union are inalterable, whereas others are not it. For example Scotland and England are plain “forever”, the Court off Scottish Session must “be maintained in all times to come to Scotland such as it is made up today” and the establishment of the Église of Scotland is “really and inaltérablement assured”. Nevertheless, it was suggested that the election of the pars representatives Scot is not immutable but that it can be amended. Moreover, the Government stated that the Parliament was entirely sovereign and that it could with its own way modify the contents of the act of Union. For example, the act of Union of 1800 linking Great Britain and the Ireland envisages the union “forever” of the two nations. Nevertheless, a law voted by the Parliament in 1922 returned most of independent Ireland. Thus, the reasoning was that even the inalterable clauses are liable to amendment by the authority of the Parliament. The committee accepted this argumentation and submitted his report/ratio with the House of Lords the October 20th 1999. The bill was consequently declared from this point of view in conformity with the right in force.

After the taking into account of this report/ratio, the House of Lords approved the law by 221 for and 81 against the October 26th. After the Lords regulated the differences between their version and that resulting from the vote from the Communes, the law accepted the royal Sanction the November 11th 1999.

Provisions

The House off Lords Act 1999 lays out initially that “no one will not be member of the House of Lords under the terms of a hereditary peerage”; he regards the principality of Wales and the county of Chester as hereditary peerages whereas these titles, given to heir apparents, are never inherited. The law provides then that 92 pars, including/understanding the count Marshall, the Lord great chamberlain and 90 other pars elected according to the payment of the House of Lords are not compelled with this exclusion of the hereditary pars and that after the first session of the Parliament following the Lords will proceed to bys-election to replace the seats become vacant. The law also provides that the hereditary pars have the right to vote and sit at the House of Commons although they are members of the Houses of Lords. Previously, the hereditary pars could not constitutionally be entitled to vote or members of the Communes. Michael Ancram and some others stood as a candidates to the Communes following this provision; the political distribution of the hereditary pars lets think that those which will do it will be primarily conservatives.

The law prohibits even with the hereditary pars being the first to carry their title to sit automatically at the House of Lords. The Government nevertheless agreed to give titles of pars to life with four new hereditary pars.

Peerages with life were also proposed with certain family members royal (the prince Philip, duke of Edinburgh, the prince Charles, prince de Galles, the prince Andrew, duke of York and the prince Edward, duke of Wessex) with new hereditary peerages. These offers were refused.

Before the promulgation of the law by the queen, the House of Lords defined a payment organizing the election of the pars. This payment provides that are elected:

• 2 pars by the Labor pars;
• 3 pars by the pars liberal democrats;
• 28 pars by the nonrelated pars;
• 42 pars by the conservatives;
• 15 pars intended to occupy the stations of defect Lord announcer and other stations. These 15 pars are elected by the whole of the pars.

The elections for the post offices with the House of Lords proceeded the 27 and October 28th and those for the pars elected according to their political affiliation took place the 3 and November 4th. The results were proclaimed with the House of Lords the November 5th. It was requested from the voters to preferably classify by order as many candidates as of positions of power. The candidates having received the greatest number of voices (independently of the row preferably, which returns to a majority Scrutin plurinominal) were declared elected. The rows preferably were examined only in the cases of equality. Then, and until November 2002, the vacant seats were provided by the candidates made after those elected at the time of the poll.

Since November 2002, bys-election fill the vacancies of the seats. The polls are made according to the alternative Vote, the pars classifying the candidates by order preferably. It is possible to specify as many preferences as wished. To gain the election, a par must receive a majority of first preference . If no candidate receives such a majority, the candidate by having the least is eliminated and each vote relating to it is allotted to the candidate present as a second choice. The process continues until a candidate obtains the majority. Two bys-election took place in 2003, 1 in 2004, 4 in 2005 and none in 2006.

The government was to present a law to remove the 92 hereditary pars remaining with the House of Lords, but it was still not presented.

Source