Lords Temporal and the House of Commons: Navigating the Restrictions on Concurrent Membership
It is a fundamental principle in British constitutional law that Lords Temporal (life peers) and hereditary peers cannot simultaneously hold seats in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. This article explores the legal and political frameworks that govern such concurrent membership and explains why, in most cases, resignation from one chamber is necessary when seeking election to the other.
Legal Provisions and Barriers
The House of Lords Act 1999 and the Representation of the People Act 1981 explicitly state that members of the House of Lords are precluded from sitting in the House of Commons. This prohibition is rooted in the unique nature of the two legislative bodies and the assumption that individuals already representing peers in the House of Lords should not need additional representation in the House of Commons.
Retaining a Seat in the House of Lords
A person holding a peerage can only retain a seat in the House of Lords and not the House of Commons. For example, Viscount Thurso, after his father’s death in 1995, served in the House of Lords until 1999, when most hereditary peers were expelled. He then transitioned to the House of Commons in 2001. After 16 years, he was elected back to the House of Lords in 2016, demonstrating that while peerages remain with a person, they preclude Commons membership.
Minimal Exception for Hereditary Peers
Before 1999, hereditary peers could disclaim their titles and seek election to the House of Commons, as demonstrated by John Thurso, better known as Viscount Thurso. The Peerage Act 1963 allowed hereditary peers to disclaim their membership in the House of Lords, albeit at the cost of losing their titles. However, the House of Lords Act 1999 fundamentally changed the landscape for hereditary peers, who now only have 92 life tenures in the House of Lords.
Requirements and Resignations
For life peers, particularly those with no parliamentary aspirations for the House of Commons, the peerage holds significant advantages. The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 introduced changes allowing life peers to resign from the House of Lords while retaining their titles. Yet, despite these provisions, no life peers have chosen to stand as MPs, indicating the high value and security of serving in the Lords.
Peerage as a Rank Above the Commons
Peerage is considered a higher rank within the legislative system. As a result, individuals with peerages must resign from the House of Lords if they wish to contest an election to the House of Commons. The decision to resign is influenced by various factors, including the prestige and influence associated with maintaining a peerage.
Conclusion and Implications
In summary, British parliamentary law stipulates that a person holding a peerage can either be a member of the House of Lords or the House of Commons, but not both. The traditional structure of the legislative framework ensures that those seeking a seat in the Commons must relinquish their position in the Lords.
While the number of hereditary and life peers has significantly reduced since the mid-1990s, the principles remain the same. Understanding and navigating these constraints is crucial for politicians and individuals aspiring to serve in the British Parliament.
Key Points Recap:
No Lords Temporal can hold seats in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. A person with a peerage can only serve in the House of Lords or the House of Commons, not both. Hereditary peers can currently only serve in the House of Lords, while life peers have the option to resign and seek Commons membership. Most life peers opt to remain in the House of Lords because of the advantages and security it provides.