The clue is in the title, it doesn’t mean a grumpy peer but one who has no party affiliation. We prefer now to call ourselves Independent crossbench peers (or ICPs) because the important bit is the independence. Most peers vote according to their Political Party line – or if they are seriously at odds with a given policy, they can and do abstain from voting. However, the ICPs treat each amendment thoughtfully; there are three choices – vote for, against or abstain. Many ICPs decide to abstain if they feel they have insufficient information of a particular policy or amendment (changes to the draft legislation) or neither agree nor agree with it. So voting for an ICP is sometimes a difficult business requiring moral, even ethical, judgments. You could sum up the ICPs as the group who vote according to conscience.
In many ways this makes the task of following legislation a more lengthy job; you have to understand each amendment and its possible consequences, while at the same time not benefiting from a large party machine with lots of background and reseach to help you make your choice. On the other hand you have a degree of freedom which the party political peers don’t always have. There is no whip among the ICPs – only a Convenor whose main job is to provide information on forthcoming parliamentary business and what Political Parties are thinking. So its swings and roundabouts and most ICPs value their independence.
I might add that in the process of being appointed as an Independent Crossbencher,the Appointments Commission takes a great deal of trouble to ascertain that there is genuine independence and to weed out the so-called “Gordon-cronies” and/or “crypto-Tories”. ICPs are expected to maintain their independent status.
My blogs must be boring, no-one responds. So I’m going to add my two pennyworth to Baroness D’Souza’s blog about House of Lords Reform. I’m an independent crossbencher like Lady D’Souza and would not probably have ever put myself forward for election for a party, so if Lords Reform introduces a fully elected House then I shall retire gracefully from parliament.
But I think I now accept that history suggests that we must move towards an elected upper house, it’s the way most democracies have moved over the years and other countries legislate without the presence of independent experts. We have to think about how we would feel if there was a proposal to appoint MPs rather than elect them? There’d be cries of horror from every quarter. I know the job is rather different in the upper house but even so.
I shall vote if there is option to do so for an 80% elected upper chamber, not because I think an appointed house is failing but because of the march of history. But what no-one is talking about is how the machinery of government has to change if all the experts in law, medicine, education, science, engineering, international affairs, security, policing, local government and so on are suddenly removed. That expertise is vital in the careful, line by line amendment of bills as they pass through the Lords. That expertise could be substituted by employed specialists rather like those people appointed to act as advisors to select committees. Form must follow function and we do not talk sufficiently about the function the upper house should have. Nor about who would become members of an elected upper house…I would favour a mix of regional and specialist interest constituencies but this needs a lot more thought and I would like to see some options.
There’s a number of simple changes that would have general support from the parties and many crossbenchers. Let’s get rid of silly titles…it didn’t half confuse the new porter in my block of flats. “So are you Mrs Robb, Dr Murphy, Professor Murphy or Baroness Murphy?” “All of them…” I’d be happy to be plain ‘Senator’ or would that be ‘Senatrix?’
Let’s also have fixed appointment terms, surely 10 years in parliament is enough for anyone. And probably we should have an upper age for appointment with a suggested indicative retirement age. Being a psychogeriatrician by profession I love being surrounded by the older people, makes me feel right at home but we need more young people. I am one of the younger members of the House and I’m retired; that doesn’t seem right.
Finally we must say goodbye to the elected hereditaries. They are such a colourful and delightful lot and work hard for all kinds of causes; they also provide continuity
with the past. But they surely have to go, they are an anomaly in the 21st century.
Hello, my friend and colleague, Lady Murphy. All of the above is clearly sensible, forward thinking and very likely to happen. Reform is inevitable and this necessarily will entail elections of one sort or another.
However,I feel strongly that change should be gradual and incremental. It is dangerous to effect great constitutional change in one leap without at least having a good idea of the consequences.
The 1999 reforms which banished all but 92 hereditary peers and set up the Nominations Committee, through which both Lady Murphy and I arrived at the House of Lords, has made a big difference. It is generally acknowledged that the Lords has become more active and assertive in carrying out its primary functions of scrutiny and revising legislation. Certainly, attendance of the newer appointed peers is well up on previous figures and there is an increasing spread of expertise covering almost all areas of endeavour. The House is working well.
The big problem with elections is that there will be party lists and the arrival of more politicians – who by virtue of their democratic legitimacy will want more power over government business. But governments really don’t want to allow yet more interference in their programme of legislation – so the potential power of the House of Lords will,as more and more elected representatives come in, have to be curtailed.This is worrrying – a second chamber which is elected but effectively powerless seems to me to be pointless. What kind of people will such a chamber attract?
What, I wonder, do the public actually want? Will they have a say? Recent polls carried out by the Constitution Unit and University College London suggest that the last thing they want is more party politicians in a reformed second chamber.
Finally and it is an important question: who is actually pressing for immediate House of Lords Reform? It is inclear where the impetus is coming from – other than the fact that it has been on the go for hundreds of years and appears in political party manifestos from time to time.
Surprisingly, I too want reform – but could it not start with a few changes such as dealing with the last of the hereditary peers, ridding ourselves of our mock aristocratic titles and allowing the Nominations Commission to become a statutory body? We might allow these changes to bed down and then on reflection take further steps?
Your ladyships,
I understand that voting is underway to select a replacement for Lady De Knayth. While I understand campaigning for these seats is taboo, how do you decide whom to vote for? Do you interview the peers who have decided to stand, do you seek references for them, and do you discuss with fellow cross-benchers?
Dear Sir,
I would be gratefull if you could inform me of the where abouts of the book containing our Lordships outside interests/earnings/gifts
and overseas bank accounts.
Thanking you in anticipation of an early repoly.
T F Watkins