House of lords

It was easy to miss because even at the best of times the House of Lords doesn’t grab public attention. But this week, something remarkable happened in parliament. In narrow legislative terms, peers have forced the government to accept amendments to the Ministerial and Other Maternity Allowances Bill. The Bill will make it possible for a minister who is pregnant — such as Suella Braverman, the Attorney General — to take leave from work without resigning ministerial office. That should be uncontroversial, but the language of the Bill left something to be desired. The Bill passed the Commons earlier this month using phrases such as ‘the person is pregnant’ and

‘Terms and conditions will apply.’ That, or something near it, was Dan Rosenfield’s initial response when Boris Johnson invited him to become Chief of Staff in No.10. Naturally, Mr Rosenfield was tempted. But he wanted assurances that he would have the authority to run a serious political outfit. He was not interested in becoming a zoo-keeper. That was not a problem. The zoo has been closed down. The Dominic Cummings era is over. Boris’s willingness to hire a completely different character, following the appointment of Simon Case as Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service, suggests that the PM can recognise and value seriousness in others, even if he

Having only recently entered the House of Lords, I must tread with caution, but I had always understood that it is chiefly a revising chamber. By strong convention, it does not reject legislation arising from the election manifesto of the party victorious in the House of Commons. Yet on Monday night, faced with the Internal Market Bill (which helps provide for a full Brexit), it attempted no revision at all. The House was sitting in committee, whose very purpose is revision, but the anti-government majority was on such a high horse that it happily let an amendment from critics of the government fall. It refused to engage. A key feature

Evgeny Lebedev, owner of the Independent and the Evening Standard  – and son of the former KGB spy Alexander Lebedev – has been nominated for a peerage by Boris Johnson today. The appointment has certainly raised eyebrows in Westminster, and perhaps suggests that Boris will be hoping for slightly more positive press in the tycoon’s papers in the months and years to come. Perhaps the appointment is not too surprising though. The Prime Minister attended a lavish party thrown by Lebedev in Regent’s Park the day after winning the 2019 election, as well as attending one of the media owner’s Italian parties in 2018. After being accused of collecting compromising material on Boris

It is no credit to British democracy that we have the second largest legislative chamber in the world. The only one larger than the 792-strong House of Lords is the 2,980-member Chinese National People’s Congress. In the coming days the House of Lords will grow even bigger as the Prime Minister announces another batch of peerages. We can expect a bad-tempered reaction if, as expected, a slew of Brexit campaigners such as Ian Botham are included while former speaker John Bercow is left out. But no one should be too surprised. Prime ministers have always used their patronage to appoint likeminded peers, as have leaders of the opposition. Moreover, the

I imagine that in recommending Philip Hammond and Ken Clarke for peerages, Boris Johnson sees himself in engaging in a Tory healing process. ‘I may have kicked them out of the parliamentary party,’ he is saying, ‘but let bygones be bygones – I’m big enough to honour my former enemies.’ And of course, unlike David Gauke and Dominic Grieve, neither had the temerity to stand against the Conservative party in the general election, so it is some kind of reward for not complaining too bitterly when punished for disloyalty. But is that really the message that Boris needs to be handing out regarding the House of Lords – underlining its

This government has just suffered its first defeat of the parliament in, unsurprisingly, the House of Lords. The Lords voted for the Oates amendment which entitles EU nationals to a physical document attesting to their right to stay in the UK after Brexit. In truth, the government and the Lords aren’t that far apart on this question. The government thinks that a digital database is sufficient while peers want a physical piece of paper. But it is the willingness of the Lords to defeat the government on this question that is most interesting. The word from the House of Lords is that peers will back down once the Commons strips

It was announced last night that the government’s recently appointed ‘anti-Semitism tsar’ John Mann would be given a seat in the House of Lords. Mann resigned the Labour whip over the weekend after 18 years as an MP, blasting his former leader as unfit to govern following the party’s risible attempts to remove anti-Jewish members. The move will see the recently appointed Lord, who probably would have lost his seat of Bassetlaw at the next election, continue to hound the opposition over the party’s anti-Semitism problem. However, his elevation to the Lords – and the £305 daily allowance that comes with it – will no doubt have caused Lord Mann much

The Lords have lost it. They’re out of control. They have taken a wrecking-ball to the government’s plans for Brexit 14 times in recent weeks, putting themselves on a war footing with the people we actually elect. They are behaving like they did in the first decade of the 20th century when they arrogantly vetoed the Liberal government’s People’s Budget. ‘The House of Lords regards all our liberties and political rights as enjoyed and as enjoyable only so long as they choose to let us go on having them’, fumed Winston Churchill back then. Where’s the modern Churchill to put these ermine-robed loathers of the largest democratic vote in British

Labour’s decision to whip against the EU withdrawal bill might well have more of an impact in the Lords than the Commons. In the Commons, as I wrote on Monday, the number of Tory rebels might well be offset by Labour ones—and I suspect that Labour’s decision to whip against the bill at second reading will make it easier for the Tories to peel off Labour rebels on amendments later on. But in the House of Lords, the government doesn’t have any sort of majority. If Labour whip against it there and team up with Liberal Democrat and cross-bench peers,  the bill could end up only passing with significant amendments.

John Bercow’s decision to allow MPs in the House of Commons to dispense with ties has been hailed by some as a great liberation, and by others as an insult to tradition cast by a man who ought to be wearing a wig. But Tina Stowell, who joined the government as a secretary and ended up Leader of the House of Lords, has a different view: that ties (and, indeed, standard dress code) are a social leveller. She writes on her blog:- ‘As someone without a degree who travelled a long path myself, I can see now that one of the most insidious ways those of us in powerful positions have diminished