In the last week I have discussed the role of the House of Lords with two groups of students (40+ at a Sixth Form College in Taunton and later 40+ from Hull University), as well as some 30 middle-ranking civil servants and a couple of exceptionally erudite Canadian commentators.
Two impressions are left from all these encounters: first, that however hazy the general overall perception of what we do, most people think we do it rather well; and second, there is a very curious confusion about the role of “expertise” and “experience” in representative democracy. Some think that Peers have the edge on MPs because we tend to be older and with more experience of the real world beyond politics. Given the average age of Peers in excess of 68, that is bound to have some validity. Older but not necessarily wiser, you may say. But others realise that by the time they get to the Lords they may well be ex-experts, and within a few years they could be wildly out of date. A retired General, Police Commissioner or Judge – especially after 10 or 15 years in the Lords – may not be the best witness to modern problems. And that may give a clue to the central dilemma. Do we want legislators to have good judgement, and the experts from all walks of life to give them accurate evidence on which to use that judgement, or do Parliamentarians have to be experts themselves? Discuss!
I think this is an entirely valid comment – one does lose expertise rather rapidly, especially in the science fields.
However, I wonder if it isn’t that what we seek (and more often than not get) in the House of Lords is judgement? The ability to weigh up arguments – to concede minor points in order to get more major amendments throught, and/or the general experience gained from a life time of work of how to co-operate with others for mutual gains?
I am rather shocked to hear the rumour that the age limit for a parliamentary candidate may in future be lowered to perhaps 18 years? I love the young and believe them to be wise in ways we were not at their age. Nevertheless I also want those who will make decisions on my behalf to have perhaps a decade of working experience and knowledge of how the world works.
I think Lord Tyler raises an interesting problem here. There are undoubtedly out-of-date peers who espouse misguided causes in their previous fields that everyone now in the field has now dropped. Amendments are tabled which merely expose the old affiliations of an obsolete ‘has-been’. I think most of us are desperately keen to keep in touch with our colleagues outside the House to protect ourselves from this falling into this trap. This is where our links to other organisations are so vital.
But yes, Baroness D’Souza is right, it is mostly our sound judgement that we hope is useful, a judgement that arises out of a specific field of expertise but which can be applied to a whole range of problems.
As a foreigner who greatly admires the work of the House of Lords, I feel that one of the great strengths of the Lords is the vast array of expertise gathered on the red benches.
I also think that one of the key-effects of the 1958 Life Peerages Act (2008 marks the 50th anniversary of the Act) has been the fact that members are drawn from a broad spectrum of professional expertise and experience.
I am convinced that this has better enabled the Lords to fulfil its constitutional functions, i.e. to scrutinise legislation, to hold the government to account and to have well-informed debates about controversial issues.
Of course, I share Lord Tyler’s concerns that – in a fast-moving knowledge society in which we live today and in which life-long learning is essential – knowledge and expertise tend to be outdated rather quickly. Nonetheless, I shall like to say that it is vital to have people in Parliament who have spent a great deal of their time and professional life outside politics and who can use this basis to make a significant contribution to the political process. In an age when the career politician in the Commons appears to have become the norm, it is reassuring to know that most Lords have pursued a career outside politics before and that certainly give Lords the ability of sound judgement to which Baroness D’Souza refers to.
Exspurt – Has been under pressure!
Experience in an affiliated field is often valued in the commercial world, as an ex mariner I know I had a lot to offer the Marine Insurance Association I spent my last 20 years at work with. An over emphasis of my value? Maybe, but I certainly experienced situations where lawyers and indeed judges did not understand the evidence before them where I, as a mariner, did. This is why in Admiralty the judge sits with advisors.
Most often the situation faced can be characterised not by the story the evidence tells but by what is missing, here only experience can detect the way to truth. Was I out of date? As time went by law and the practice of good seamen did of course change with technical advances. Basic good seamanship however remains little altered, most maritime claims can be reduced to causes the Nelson would recognise.
Is experience in legislators desirable? The answer is certainly YES.
Show me an 18 year old who has been at sea for 2 years, visited Antwerp, Rotterdam, Hamburg, Bremen, Le Havre, Las Palmas, Cape Verde, Rio de Janeiro, Santos, Montevideo, Buenos Aires, Rosario, Santa Fe, Bahia and Ilehus. Worked 72 hours without break, steered a ship, stood a watch and seen people injured fatally – I would not suggest I was fit to enter parliament at 18 – I suspect few 18 year olds to-day have enough experience.
We need parliamentary reform; no one should be eligible for a seat unless they have worked in the real world for at least 10 years, no one should be allowed to be an officer of state unless they had worked in the real world for at least 15 years. The real failure of politics to day is the arrival of the “Elite” who have made a career of politics.