THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 29, 2024
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9:34 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), to consider possible amendments to the Rules.
Senator Michèle Audette (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning. Kuei. I’d like to say that I’ll require your help and guidance because it is my first time chairing a meeting. I’m going to try to take things slowly, but with some support. I’d like to acknowledge all those who are following our proceedings. We have other colleagues who will be joining us.
My name is Michèle Audette. I am a senator from Quebec and the new chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. I’d now like to invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, beginning on my right.
Senator Mégie: Good morning. Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Kuei. Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher from Nova Scotia.
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
Senator Black: Kuei. Rob Black, Ontario.
Senator Osler: Tansi. Gigi Osler, Manitoba.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you. Honourable senators, today we will resume our study on the role of non-affiliated senators. We are pleased to welcome, by video conference, from the U.K. House of Lords, Lord Gardiner of Kimble.
[Translation]
The floor is yours.
[English]
John Eric Gardiner, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, House of Lords, as an individual: Good morning. It is a rather grey afternoon in London, but I’m delighted to have this opportunity to pose some opening remarks so that I can look forward to helping, as best I can, with the arising questions.
My role as Senior Deputy Speaker, or SDS, is a non-political office-holder focused on the internal administration of the House of Lords. The post of Senior Deputy Speaker was established in 2016, having previously been known as the Chairman of Committees. The SDS still chairs a number of committees, including the Liaison Committee, which manages the range and resources of the Lords’ investigative select committees; the Procedure and Privileges Committee, which considers changes to the procedures of the house; and the Committee of Selection, which considers nominations for select committee memberships.
The SDS sits on and is a spokesperson in the house for the House of Lords Commission, which sets the strategic and political direction for the House of Lords administration. This means they answer written and oral questions on administration topics. The SDS is a key interlocutor between members and the administration and has regular meetings with the leaders and chief whips of the main parties, as well as senior staff members.
The role requires the post-holder to become a non-affiliated member of the House of Lords for the duration of their time in office. Similarly, the Lord Speaker is also designated as a non‑affiliated peer.
There are currently 43 eligible non-affiliated peers in the House of Lords and a further 7 who are currently on a leave of absence from the house. The Senior Deputy Speaker has an informal pastoral role to non-affiliated members and, indeed, members from smaller parties. These include the Democratic Unionist Party from Northern Ireland, the Ulster Unionist Party, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party.
Non-affiliated peers are invited to meet the SDS at their introduction to the House of Lords or following their change of affiliation where a peer has moved from a political party or the Crossbench to become non-affiliated. The SDS also regularly meets with non-affiliated members to discuss any concerns or matters they would like to raise.
Peers are not required formally to notify me of their decision to become a non-affiliated member, and it is important to emphasize that the non-affiliated peers do not form a group; they are individual members with individual reasons for their decision to be non-affiliated. Members may decide to join the non‑affiliated part of the house for a variety of reasons. This includes members with specific jobs outside of the House of Lords, including public appointments and charitable organizations. Other members may have resigned the whip of their political party or, indeed, had the whip removed.
Though it is uncommon, members may be appointed directly as a non-affiliated peer. It is also of note that a number of non‑affiliated peers will return to their political groups following the conclusion of the public appointment or personal circumstances.
The SDS provides non-affiliated members with information regarding the House of Lords administration, health and safety on the Parliamentary Estate, security arrangements and other important messages regarding the business of the house. The SDS office organizes tickets for state occasions for non-affiliated members. I should mention here the Crossbench office provides a factual outline of any expected divisions, and non-affiliated members are permitted to receive this information.
To answer some of the specific areas of discourse today, perhaps, non-affiliated members have the same rights and privileges as all other members of the House of Lords to vote, table questions and sign up to speak in debates in the usual manner. They are also eligible to submit bills to the private members’ bills ballot and submit proposals for special inquiry committees.
So far as the procedures of the house are concerned, the House of Lords is a self-regulating chamber. All recommendations from the Procedure and Privileges Committee must be agreed on by the house. All reports can be debated and, indeed, on occasion may be divided upon, as perhaps a few years ago on the sitting times of the house, for instance.
With regard to committee places, there is a convention that the two main political parties have four members each on a committee, with the Liberal Democrats and Crossbench each having two members. Non-affiliated peers, alongside the bishops and those from smaller parties, can write directly to me to apply to be considered for a specific committee place. The Committee of Selection will then consider these applications alongside the proposals put forward by the political parties and the Crossbench.
We have in our house a three-year rotational rule. Perhaps I should also explain that the non-affiliated members are distinct from the Crossbench group, which currently has 184 members, who are a bloc of members who sit as independent peers. The Crossbench members have a convener who represents them on the governance bodies of the House of Lords. Unlike affiliated members, Crossbench members receive a default share of committee places, which the convener manages for them, and they have regular meetings as a group to discuss issues relevant to them.
Perhaps I should conclude by just emphasizing, as previously mentioned, that non-affiliated members are not part of the group in this way, and that is why the arrangements are that I have the pastoral care for each individual member who decides to be non‑affiliated.
Thank you very much, senators, for that opportunity.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much for your opening statement.
We’ll now move on to questions.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: It’s a pleasure to see you, Lord Gardiner of Kimble. You spoke about having a default share in the committees. Could you tell me a bit more about that, for the non-affiliated Lords?
Lord Gardiner: The default is that because we are over 700 members, the two main political parties, as I say, have four each, the Liberal Democrats two, and the Crossbench two. Any non‑affiliated member who wants to sit on a committee — bearing in mind that a lot of non‑affiliated members have become non‑affiliated because they are undertaking a public appointment, possibly in the royal household or charitable organizations, there is not a default for the non‑affiliated peers. The default I mentioned was for the main groups. However, if a non‑affiliated member wished to serve on a specific committee — or a bishop or a member of a minor party — they would contact me, and then I would, as I say, put that forward to the Committee of Selection.
Senator Ataullahjan: Just to clarify, if you are given an appointment on a charity or any other organization, then do you automatically become non-affiliated?
Lord Gardiner: Not necessarily, but it may be, particularly if you are, say, in a political group. For instance, I have a number of non‑affiliated peers who are undertaking a public appointment or perhaps are now members of the royal household, having been in a political group. They would, indeed, now become non‑affiliated. Then it would be up to them, when they had finished their public appointment, as to whether they wished to go back to their political group, remain non‑affiliated or possibly even seek to join the Crossbench group.
It is very much a matter for the individual. But the reason, as I say, quite a number of peers become non-affiliated is perhaps because the charity or the public appointment would suggest that it wasn’t ideal to be part of one of the political groups. It therefore gives that in the same way as both the Lord Speaker and I, having been in political groups for our term of office, become non-affiliated not only to show but to make it very clear that we are there as servants of the whole house.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you.
Senator Black: Lord Gardiner of Kimble, thank you for joining us. How has the number of non-affiliated peers fluctuated throughout the years, and how does it affect the dynamic from your perspective?
Lord Gardiner: It very much fluctuates because if a peer is asked to, as I say, take up a public appointment or whatever, there is an ebb and flow. For instance, we had one peer who was the moderator of the Church of Scotland. For that year, they became non-affiliated and then went back to their political group when they had finished that term.
There are all sorts of individual reasons why the number ebbs and flows and can be more one year and less the next. It is really, as I say, emphasizing that the group that is independent in our house, or the Crossbench, the non-affiliated are not a group but a collection of individual peers who, for a variety of reasons, wish to become non-affiliated or might have decided to no longer sit taking a party whip. Or, indeed, as I said, on occasion, having fallen out with their party, they might wish to become non‑affiliated if the whip was withdrawn.
Senator Black: In a year when there is a high number of non‑affiliated, does that affect the dynamic on a day-to-day basis?
Lord Gardiner: On a day-to-day basis, no, because in the sense that I am there working with a group of individuals, each one has a direct relationship with me if they so wish, and there are some non-affiliated peers I would rarely see because they are operating quite satisfactorily on their own, doing their own thing. There may be others I see more frequently.
In terms of the dynamic, all peers have equal privileges and rights, so they are able to speak. Indeed, you can sit wherever you wish in the House of Lords, in point of fact. You can sit on varying benches if you are non-affiliated.
Senator Batters: Thank you, Lord Gardiner, for being with us today. It is much appreciated. Is that the correct way to refer to you?
Lord Gardiner: Yes.
Senator Batters: I had a bit of a late night last night. We had a very late election in my home province, with a good result, hence my Saskatchewan green today.
How common is it, Lord Gardiner, for members of the House of Lords to switch between groups, between the affiliated party groups, the Crossbenchers and non-affiliated members?
Lord Gardiner: It happens. There is sometimes a situation where someone wishes to leave their party because of an appointment or business commitments or some such where they wouldn’t want to take a party whip, and they may decide that, actually, they would prefer to become part of the independent group, the Crossbench.
There is what I would call an ebb and a flow, depending on each individual circumstance. Without repeating too much, the emphasis I would have is that each non-affiliated peer has an individual reason why they have decided to become non‑affiliated. The circumstances of each of those dynamics change as they might conclude a public appointment, as I have described. Then they might decide to go back to their political party group or, indeed, seek, as they may do — and it is up to the Crossbench as to whether they might — to join the Crossbench group. There isn’t a set pattern. Each one will have their own story, as I would describe it.
It is Lord Gardiner. To explain, the “of Kimble” is because there is already a previous Gardiner peerage. It’s all very confusing. Lord Gardiner is correct, although, formally, I am Lord Gardiner of Kimble. Thank you very much.
Senator Batters: Thank you. Where do most of the non‑affiliated members of the House of Lords come from? Is it typically because they have left other groups? Is there ever a case where they start out as non-affiliated? What is the usual occurrence there?
Lord Gardiner: Generally speaking, peers are appointed either to a political group or the Crossbench, but I currently have two non-affiliated peers who came to the house as non-affiliated peers. So there is that example of the decision they took. They were granted a peerage, and it was sensible for them. One is a journalist in the newspaper world, and the other had been at No. 10 as a civil servant. Their decisions were that that was the better place for them to be to enable them to have some independence.
Again, it very much depends on each individual peer as to what actually suits best for them to make a contribution in the House of Lords.
Senator Batters: Thank you. I think you were just referencing with my colleague that there are not different speaking times, that each member of the House of Lords is entitled to, I believe you were saying, the same types of speaking times and not differentiated whether they’re non-affiliated as compared to someone who is in an affiliated party group. Correct me if I am wrong.
What I also noticed in the briefing note that we received is for oral or topical questions, it was saying that:
Through the ballots process, members submit their questions in advance, and a random selection . . . is held to determine which ones will be asked . . . .
Who receives those questions in advance? If it were here, I think Senator Gold would like it if I gave him my questions beforehand, but I don’t think I would like that very much. So how does that work?
Lord Gardiner: We have ballots. We have four oral questions a day at Question Time. It is about to start shortly, at 2:30 today. They are on a rolling sort of months before for the first three, and then — too much detail perhaps — the fourth is a topical question and therefore is submitted not many days before because it is topical. That goes to what we call the Table Office, and it will go into a ballot. Peers don’t decide it. It is randomly done on a ballot coming out sort of randomly, so it is absolutely fair.
Obviously, we get the business papers, so the question is known a month in advance so that, obviously, the ministry is prepared for the answer. Then we have 10 minutes of supplementary questions, bringing back the non-affiliated peers. Because we’re self-regulating, people will get up. Sometimes, if it is a very popular question, not everyone who wants to ask a question gets in in the 10 minutes. The time stops at 10 minutes other than for the minister to reply.
As I say, to emphasize, everyone is on a level playing field entirely, whichever group or no group they are in, in terms of their ability to speak, to table questions, to participate in debates.
Senator Batters: Thank you. I see that you were appointed to the House of Lords in 2010, and then you were appointed Senior Deputy Speaker in 2021, and since that time, you have been non-affiliated. Which group were you in initially?
Lord Gardiner: I was appointed as a Conservative peer and went on the front bench and was the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Lords Minister from 2015 to 2021. The house appoints me every year. The first thing after the state opening of Parliament is the appointment of the Senior Deputy Speaker because that means that I have the responsibility of getting all the committees up and running. We have 26 House of Lords investigative select committees alone, so there is all of that, and after this election, we were getting going immediately. As I say, my appointment is the first thing on the Order Paper after the King’s Speech.
Senator Batters: Were you saying you have Lords Ministers? Is that right? How does that work?
Lord Gardiner: Yes. There are sometimes two but usually one minister or spokesperson for each department. Therefore, the government of the day and their ministers have to come before, in this case, the House of Lords, and the minister answers questions, opens debates, replies to debates. The minister has responsibilities, as I did, for taking the agriculture bill and the fisheries bill through. I was minister for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, or DEFRA. The Lords Ministers are very much part of getting the government business through, as you can imagine.
For instance, in my experience, the fisheries bill was a Lords starter, so we started the bill here and went through all the stages, and it went to the House of Commons. No sooner had that gone to the House of Commons than I got the agriculture bill coming up from the House of Commons to deal with through all the stages that it required.
The two houses obviously have, as you know, this very strong interconnection, and when there are disagreements at the end of a bill, we have this thing called Ping-Pong when it goes back and forth. Obviously, the tradition is that the House of Lords will always acknowledge the elected house’s supremacy.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, for being with us and assisting us in our deliberations on these topics. Before I ask you a few questions, I will ask you to please pass on my warmest regards to Baroness Hayman, whom I have gotten to know from her work on Peers for the Planet.
Lord Gardiner: Very good.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you. I want to ensure that I have, in my own mind, clarity on the issue of how people choose to be non-affiliated. There seem to be many reasons why a person can choose to become non-affiliated, but the bottom line is that it is always their own choice. They are not forced to be non‑affiliated. I want to be sure I have that correct. Is that correct?
Lord Gardiner: How I would describe it, on most occasions, is it is entirely a matter for the peer. If there had been a disagreement with their party, then there are certain occasions when the whip is withdrawn, and, therefore, they would be deemed to be non-affiliated because they had lost the whip of their party, but, obviously, that relates to the three party groups.
It very rarely happens, I should say, but that would be an instance where your general description, which is it’s a matter for each peer to decide whether they either start non-affiliated or may, for some of the reasons I have articulated, become non‑affiliated — I use that caveat that it is possible that if someone loses the party whip, they would become non-affiliated to a group.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you so much. That’s a really important nuance, and I am glad that you have clarified that for me.
The second part that I want to make sure that I understand properly is this: If a lord is non-affiliated, can they apply to join any group? Are there any limitations concerning to which group they can apply to join? Then the second part of it: If they do apply to join a group, do they automatically become part of that group, or does that group have to decide whether they want them as a member?
Lord Gardiner: Well, as I say, I have sought to emphasize the non-affiliated peers are not a group, but they can and they do have the ability — for instance, if they decided that they wanted to join a political group, one of the three, or they wanted to become a member of a minor party, or if they wanted to join the Crossbench, my view is that, firstly, on the Crossbench, there would need to be a discussion with the Convener of the Crossbench as to whether it was absolutely clear that this particular application was from someone who wasn’t connected in any way or a big donor to a political party or something like that, ensuring the integrity of the Crossbench and that independent group.
If someone who was non-affiliated and had started non‑affiliated and then had decided, “Actually, I would like to join one of the three political groups,” then my guess is that would be a discussion between the peer and whoever was the respective chief whip of that particular group for a discussion. So it wouldn’t be automatic that I would say, “I’m going to join one of the three political groups.” There would be a discussion, in my view, with the party concerned.
In point of fact, the much more likely route is someone returning to their group, having served in some particular position.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you. Those nuances are so important for us to understand, and thank you for sharing those.
The last part of the question — I always have three-part questions — has nothing to do with the first two parts. Within that non-affiliated group — not group, but collection of individuals — have they come to you or to other people who have administrative roles with any specific concerns or complaints about their roles as non-affiliated lords, and, if so, what kind of concerns or complaints have they raised in the last couple of years?
Lord Gardiner: Generally, the sorts of areas that I would get non-affiliated peers coming to see me, particularly when they newly arrive, is to make sure that they are receiving all the information, that they know where everything is. So the political parties and the Crossbench group, when someone arrives, have a mentor so that every peer will have a mentor so that you have that ability to know how things are done and the procedures and so forth. I would act in that role, along with other peers who are a part of these groups that a new peer would go and see, like Black Rod, the Clerk of the Parliaments, to receive advice on issues.
One of the areas where I would probably see a number of non‑affiliated peers is really, particularly early on, about procedure, about, indeed, right down to appellations — about strongly advising people to use the correct appellations so you avoid getting into a personal exchange, sometimes heated, in the chamber. That’s why the appellations we use of “the noble Lord” and “my noble friend” and all those things may seem to some rather strange, but they are designed to stop the discourse from becoming overtly personal and sometimes in the hostile sense.
So those are the sorts of areas, particularly when someone arrives in the House of Lords afresh, as I say — because a lot of the peers that are non-affiliated have been here for quite a long time and have become non-affiliated either temporarily, while they are undertaking an appointment, or it suits them better because they don’t want to take political whip. I rarely have had people in my time who have come from the Crossbench who became non-affiliated. What you may have is members of political parties who come to the non-affiliated group and then decide after a while, in discussion with the convener, that, actually, they would prefer to become a Crossbench member of the House of Lords.
So, as I say, there is varying traffic depending on each individual peer. It is difficult to categorize, but my job, as I see it, is I have the pastoral role for non-affiliated peers.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for those clarifications. Very appreciated.
Lord Gardiner: Not at all. And I’ll send your best to Lady Hayman.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you very much for being with us, Lord Gardiner. I have a few questions that are intriguing and, I believe, need to be clarified for myself and my colleagues. The House of Lords has an Appointments Commission that was established in the year 2000. That was 24 years ago. Is that commission a status in the U.K.?
Lord Gardiner: Sorry, I didn’t quite understand.
Senator Ringuette: Was it constituted in a piece of legislation?
Lord Gardiner: Well, I have to tell you that is before my time, but I don’t think — this is an area where, obviously, there is quite a lot of discussion going on about appointments to the House of Lords. It may be the subject of some of the incoming government’s form because there is talk of some of these matters being put onto a statutory basis and the ability for the recommendations of the committee having some force in power, because, of course, currently, there have been moments when perhaps the appointments or the issues have not been necessarily — the prime minister has taken regard to views expressed. I think, being non-affiliated, as I say, expressing views about whether there are ways in which we could be better appointed, I suspect that’s not quite for me.
Senator Ringuette: Am I to understand that in the last 24 years, you have had different political parties ruling your country, but they have maintained that commission?
Lord Gardiner: Yes. We have that, yes. We have that in place.
Senator Ringuette: I notice that in regard to the Crossbenchers’ proportion in the House of Lords, right now, it is roughly 18%. Is there an official or an unofficial agreement to keep the Crossbenchers at 18%, or is there another percentage? How do you make sure that there is a certain number of Crossbenchers in order to agree or disagree with the government legislation?
Lord Gardiner: There is no set percentage on this, as far as I am aware. In fact, at the moment, the Crossbench group had a period of time when it was the second-largest group. It ebbs and flows, I’m afraid, with retirements and so forth, but there is no set, designated 18% or whatever. As I say, there are 184 members, and the Crossbenchers are a very active group. But nowhere is it written down that it must be 18%.
Senator Ringuette: Okay. Again, just to make sure I understood, the commission has been in place through different governments for 24 years, and now there are discussions to have it ingrained in legislation on a permanent basis, yes?
Lord Gardiner: These are all in the melting pot of changes to the House of Lords, yes.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you.
Senator Woo: Thank you, Lord Gardiner. I’d like to ask about the process of appointing peers to select committees. My first question is whether your select committees have a fixed number of seats.
Lord Gardiner: Yes, we usually have 12. As I say, the Committee of Selection can agree to more, but the allocation is that the two main political parties have four; Liberal Democrats, two; and Crossbench, two. But for the Committee of Selection, I would take it forward if there were an application. That would go to the Committee of Selection for consideration.
Senator Woo: Right. There are quotas for the three main parties — 4 and 4 and 2 — which adds up to 10, of course. That leaves two seats spare. In the absence of non-affiliated peers applying to be members of those select committees, who fills the two remaining seats?
Lord Gardiner: The Crossbench group has the two allocations. So it’s four, four, two and two. The Crossbench has the two in the general scheme of things. As I say, it is not out of the norm for an application to come forward, particularly if someone brought a particular specialization. Obviously, the intention is that we try and get the membership of the select committees to be people who will offer the experience and expertise to the particular committees, which so often is the case with members of the House of Lords.
If a candidate came forward, then the Committee of Selection would give it active consideration, particularly if there were a skills base which we thought would be immensely valuable to the committee’s work.
Senator Woo: Yes, that makes sense. For a non-affiliated peer to obtain a seat on a select committee, it would mean displacing one of the allocated seats to the four principal groups; is that correct?
Lord Gardiner: No. As I said, it would be in addition to. There are certain committees where there are more than 12 members if the Committee of Selection takes the view, which it does and has done, that a particular skill being put forward by someone would be immensely valuable.
Senator Woo: So the ability to increase the number of seats on a select committee is with the Committee of Selection? Does it have total discretion on increasing the number of seats as it sees fit?
Lord Gardiner: It has that discretion, with the rider that everything has to go to the House of Lords for agreement. With all our arrangements for the committees that I chair, if there is a report to it, it goes to the floor of the house, and I will put forward a motion for agreement. Any peer can get up and make some comment at the time.
Senator Woo: Thank you. What is the frequency of a non‑affiliated peer requesting a seat on a select committee and getting it?
Lord Gardiner: I would say it is not very regular or frequent to receive applications, in particular and very often for the reasons the members are non-affiliated. They are undertaking quite demanding roles, and that is why they have become non‑affiliated. As I say, the Committee of Selection has received applications on occasion. Some were accepted, and for some the feeling was that there was sufficient strength on the committee already.
Senator Woo: Thank you. Let me ask you now about members of committees who choose to leave the committee for whatever reason. Perhaps they have left the caucus or group to which had been allocated a certain number of seats on that committee. Does that peer get to stay on the committee in his or her different affiliation? Or is the seat returned, so to speak, to the group for which the allocation was meant in the first place?
Lord Gardiner: Well, that’s interesting. I’m trying to think whether I’ve ever had such an occasion, and I don’t think I have, currently, in the three years I’ve been undertaking this. If someone wanted to retire or stand down in the middle of a year, then they would be replaced. That would cause a vacancy if they stood down because they are, obviously, taking a place of one of the groups, theoretically. As I say, I can’t recall that this has ever happened.
What would usually happen is that if someone for whatever reason wanted to stop being a member of the committee before the end of their three-year term on the committee, we would then rotate in January. The usual procedure would be that someone would decide not to continue, and they would let their party whip or their chief whip know that, “No, I don’t want to continue serving on this committee,” or that they are leaving the Conservative or Labour or Lib Dem group or whatever, and then that place would be filled.
Senator Woo: Right. The scenario you describe is very sensible. I’m thinking of a slightly different scenario where a peer is not retiring, not leaving the upper house but, in fact, changing affiliation, for example, from Crossbench to non‑affiliated. I think that would be a plausible scenario. Would that peer be allowed to keep the seat on that committee, having changed affiliation from one group to, well, a non-group?
Lord Gardiner: Yes. Because it has never happened in my time, I would be surprised if the said peer expected to continue, given the fact the allocation was on the basis of the conventional makeup of the committee. But as I say, it has never happened in my time. I think there would be a strong feeling, an expectation that if you wish to leave your party, you couldn’t then expect to continue on the committee. Otherwise, you might get to some absurd — potentially, if everyone started to leave whatever group, you would get an unbalanced position. Most of our committees are very consensual, so although we have this allocation, the essence of House of Lords committees is to try to work on a collegial and consensual basis. That’s how the numbers were derived, with the two main parties having four and the other two groups having the other four.
But I would say that we have this body called “usual channels,” which is where the leaders, the chief whips of the groups and the convener will have discussions, and, obviously, one of their discussions is about how to get the right blend of people onto committees and who the most appropriate members are who can add such experience to the consideration of the committee.
Senator Woo: Thank you, Lord Gardiner. You have been very helpful.
Senator Mégie: Thank you, Lord Gardiner, for being with us. I will ask my question in French.
[Translation]
You spoke about independent peers, who are all on a level playing field. If I understood correctly, they have to communicate with you to be a part of a select committee. How can they influence discussions during committee business? Could this be through their opinions or personal expertise? Do they have voting rights on select committees?
[English]
Lord Gardiner: The investigative committees rarely vote. It is not, as I say, the committee work. I’m not talking about legislation. I’m talking about the sessional committees; we have 26 of them. It is very, very rare, indeed, to vote. Obviously, there is the membership. If a committee asks a peer of any affiliation or non-affiliation to come before it, there is nothing to stop peers who wish to attend being in attendance. They are all, or most of them are, in public sessions. Obviously, there are private sessions, but mainly public sessions with witnesses. There is nothing to stop a non-affiliated peer attending in that way.
So if we’re talking about committee work, it is very rare, I have to say. It is not commonplace at all for the reasons I have expressed because of the raison d’être for being non-affiliated. Obviously, they would apply to me, and I would take that forward.
In terms of the main work of the House of Lords, a non‑affiliated peer in the chamber or in our secondary debating chamber can put down amendments, intervene in legislation and do everything that any other peer can do. There is absolutely no fettering of the activities of non-affiliated peers because they are single. Quite often, if you have an amendment to a bill, you will see a non-affiliated peer putting their name to the amendment with other peers who are affiliated. That dynamic of non‑affiliated peers working with other peers on things like amendments at committee stage or report stage to pieces of legislation is perfectly normal and would be expected.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you for being here today, Lord Gardiner. You mentioned the usual channels, which is how business in the House of Lords is planned by agreement of the leaders and whips of the three main political parties. Do non‑affiliated peers have access to or input into the usual channels?
Lord Gardiner: Just to say that it is also with the Convener of the Crossbench; that is what is deemed usual channels. I think if there was anything particular — if a non-affiliated peer wished to raise something — they would come and see me about it, and I would obviously take it up. But I have to say that hasn’t happened because the usual channels is about trying to get the sense of the house, as it were and, obviously, laying on business and so forth. No, a non-affiliated peer isn’t part of usual channels.
Senator Osler: Thank you. I think you mentioned it, but is there a formal feedback or regular communication process between non-affiliated peers and the Senior Deputy Speaker, and are you able to say if the non-affiliated peers right now are generally satisfied with the current arrangements, or have they voiced concerns about inequities?
Lord Gardiner: I haven’t heard of any concern because almost all non-affiliated peers have decided for themselves to become non-affiliated for the reasons I have described. They may be non-affiliated for a year, two years, three years, go back to their group or whatever, or it suits their own circumstances to be non-affiliated. I have not had what I would call that application from individual non-affiliated peers saying, “I am feeling hard done by” or that sort of ethos. Obviously, there may be times when a non-affiliated peer might, theoretically, want to join a committee, and the feeling is that the skill sets are already covered. There may be individual occasions like that.
In terms of a general sense I get when I see non-affiliated peers, they are all very busy, overwhelmingly, speaking in debates, dealing with legislation, any number of them. If you are asking me from the other side whether I am worried that non‑affiliated peers are not able to undertake their duties, I’m not, and, obviously, if I felt that that was the case, I would seek to rectify that. I think everyone in the House of Lords has an equal voice in terms of speaking in the chamber and having their opportunities.
Senator Osler: Thank you, Lord Gardiner.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you, Lord Gardiner, for being with us this morning. There are a couple of questions that I am curious about that we haven’t touched upon.
What is the minimum number of lords needed to be recognized as a group? There must be some sort of a minimum. Outside of belonging to an organized group, Crossbenchers and non‑affiliated peers appear to be quite similar to me, except they are not part of an organized group. Is that a simplistic analysis, or can you expand on that?
Lord Gardiner: Yes. I think I’ll go back to my principle that if you wish to be an independent peer in the way that 184 members of the House of Lords do, the Crossbench is the group that has the structure, with a convener and part of the governance body of the house. In terms of the distinction and why I sought in my opening remarks to provide, I hope, the distinction of a non‑affiliated individual peer and a member of the Crossbench group, it is very much a case of each individual non‑affiliated peer coming to a decision. There have been many non‑affiliated peers who have come to see me and say, “It suits me and the way I work or my commitments to be non‑affiliated rather than a member of a group.” My own feeling is that it is the personal decision as to whether members wish to be an individual or in a group.
As to the question about the minimum number, for instance, we have two Green members of the House of Lords who would call themselves a group. I see them, and I have seen them to talk to them and the other minor parties — and I say “minor” in the sense of number. They may style themselves a group. They are not part of the usual channels, but they are part of and respected as part of the house where if they wished to make observations, I would be the place they would do so. I would take that up with whichever was the committee — whether it was usual channels — if there were an issue.
But as I say, I don’t think in the three years I have been undertaking this task that I have had many applications of concern by individual peers who are non-affiliated. For instance, I’ve not had anyone say that they wish to form a non-affiliated group, as an example.
Senator MacDonald: I am interested in the relationship between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Do the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers caucus with their House of Commons counterparts? Is there anything like there is in the U.S. where, for example, an independent senator like Angus King will sit as an independent but caucus with a group? Can somebody who is not a particular member of a party caucus with the elected house in any way?
Lord Gardiner: Well, to answer the first part, there are obviously connections and working relationships. In a sense, I described that there are ministers in the House of Lords who are members of His Majesty’s government, so there is interconnection between members of the two houses as part of the executive but also the backbench groups. For instance, I was a Conservative, and we had something called the Association of Conservative Peers. They would regularly have a cabinet minister or someone come and speak at their weekly group. The Crossbench group has a weekly meeting, as does the Labour group, the backbench group and the Liberal Democrats, in which they would very likely often be members of the House of Commons. In fact, from my own experience, there would be moments when there were party meetings of members in the House of Commons when we, as Conservative peers, would go to those meetings as well.
There is a working dynamic. Obviously, the current government is seeking to get legislation, as previous, through both houses. In this house, the government of the day — both this one and the previous one — did not have a majority, so there is that area.
As to someone sitting in caucuses, you are either in a group or you are not. That doesn’t mean to say that there may be good and strong relationships between a non-affiliated peer and a particular group, but that would be a matter for them, and I have no knowledge of that. If you were to ask me if I know if any of the non-affiliated peers have any particular allegiances, I would say I simply don’t know. In fact, one of the merits, if I might say, of being non-affiliated is you are not subject to a whip. And, of course, if you take the whip, you are expected to turn up and vote at all times of the day and night. So it would be unlikely, I think. Obviously, there may be understandings or discussions across the piece, but that’s for each individual peer.
What I would like to say, from the discussion of today, which I have found fascinating, if I may say, from my point of view, is that I’m looking after a collection of individual peers who have so many different reasons why they are non-affiliated.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you, Lord Gardiner.
Senator Woo: We have found this discussion fascinating as well. Thank you, Lord Gardiner.
I was struck by your observation that there has not been an instance where a subset of non-affiliated peers has sought to form a group within the House of Lords. Is such a thing even possible? Could a group of X number of non-affiliated lords come together, organize themselves and seek to be recognized as a formal group using whatever name or whatever raison d’être they would choose to have? What would be the minimum requirement for such a thing to happen?
Lord Gardiner: As I say, I’m not aware, picking up an answer to an earlier question, about a number below which or above which, but in terms of those peers who are independent and are not, therefore, part of the three other political groups, the Crossbench is where the overwhelming majority of people who do not wish or have never been a member of a political party or had affiliation are. As I say, the whole character of the Crossbench is to be independent. In fact, there is no whip and so forth. Historically, that has been where the group of independent-minded people has coalesced. We’ve had the geography of the upper house, the way it’s set up, where the Crossbench was, for that purpose.
If I were to run through the list of non-affiliated peers, everyone has a story as to why they are, at that particular point, a non-affiliated peer. I have never yet had anyone come and see me and say, “Why don’t we all get together as a group,” because there is no sort of sense of a coalescing around that description. The very essence of the decision to be non-affiliated is, as I say, for a purpose.
Let me put it another way. If one thinks about all those who are currently non-affiliated who are undertaking public jobs and who are actually becoming non-affiliated but then intend to go back to their political parties, it rather somewhat rides the coach and horses through the idea that this is then an independent group, which you could say that the Crossbench is.
As I say, I haven’t looked at the statistics, but there is an ebb and flow. As people are asked to do a job, they become non‑affiliated because it suits whomever they are undertaking duties for that at the time of their serving in that office they are non-affiliated rather than politically partisan. Then at the end of that role, it is up to them, not up to me or their former political party, as to whether they go back to that or not. It is a matter for each individual to make a decision.
Senator Woo: Your explanation is very helpful. You will be interested to know, though, that in the Canadian Senate, we have three varieties of Crossbenchers, so to speak, all independents, not non-affiliated. We also have non-affiliated senators, a very small number.
Insofar as the independent senators are concerned, we have chosen to organize ourselves along the lines of three different types of what you might call Crossbench-type groups, which is why I asked the question as to whether that might be a possibility in the House of Lords, even if it hasn’t happened as yet.
Lord Gardiner: Well, I suppose anything is possible, but I don’t think we’ve had any — I’m trying to think now. The traffic is usually from a political affiliation to non-affiliated, to remain there or possibly Crossbench. I’m not aware, for instance, within the Crossbench, which is the independent group, of that group wishing to, shall we say, disaggregate itself. It is part of the governance structure. There is the Crossbench Convener, who has the task of being on the House of Lords Commission and on the House of Lords committees, which are so intrinsic to the administration of the house.
Turning it back, I would say that I’m not aware of any movement in the Crossbench where they would feel that the group is rather too large and there might be some more cohesive groups within it.
I have to go back to my mantra that because of the 43 currently non-affiliated peers, each of them is individual, and, therefore, there would be nothing to stop them from talking to each other and saying, “I want to call ourselves the X or Y Group.” As to whether they would be recognized or not, I simply couldn’t say. But that hasn’t happened, and, I suppose, that’s a theoretical that is more likely if there was an issue on the Crossbench. As I say, quite a lot of non-affiliated peers do join the Crossbench at some point, usually after a little period of time in the non-affiliated category before going to Crossbench.
Senator Woo: If the hypothetical scenario becomes more likely, you may want to invite some of us to testify at your hearings.
Lord Gardiner: Certainly, if that was to be the case, I would be onto you very quickly, of course. I was fascinated, actually. With the opportunity of us all as part of our mutual understanding and learning from each other, I was fascinated as to the composition of the upper house in Canada and the change that has been in a way that we here are still very much — there are ministers in the House of Lords through whom His Majesty’s government has to get its business through both houses, and the people at the government despatch box are currently all Labour Party politicians. It is a very interesting dynamic. Perhaps another time I could pose the questions to you, but that’s not the purpose of today.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have no other senators on the list.
I’d like to thank you very much, Lord Gardiner. Your remarks and your discussions with the senators were very informative. Your expertise and knowledge — and, of course, the wisdom of my colleagues — will contribute to our study. Thank you.
Thank you, colleagues. You have been very kind to me for my first experience as chair. I’d also like to thank all those who support us, especially the team responsible for making sure that Canadians can follow our proceedings and hear our message across the country.
We’re at the end of our agenda, so that concludes our meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)