I’ve been thinking over a discussion last week about the crossbenchers and their voting record. A senior member of the Government mentioned to Lady D’Souza, our convenor, that crossbenchers didn’t always command respect (or perhaps it was popularity) with political peers because they don’t vote very often. It was particularly suggested that crossbenchers should make a special effort to vote in the various expected divisions in the European (Lisbon) Treaty bill Report stages coming up over the next few parliamentary days, since the votes will after all affect our constitution. I duly took a mental note, primarily to show support for Lady D’Souza but also feeling chastened that I don’t vote regularly on matters I haven’t followed. But as the week has gone on I feel more and more irritated. After all, for politicians to criticise people who only vote when they feel they understand the issues when political peers go through the lobbies without a clue on what they are voting about seems to me an extraordinary attitude to parliamentary business. It is very sad that parliamentary party loyalty is valued far more highly than politically independent thought.
However, being a well behaved sort of lady I sat and listened to the first amendment debate in the report stage of the European Bill and what did I hear? A lot of nitpicking political points about parliamentary oversight when we already have endless of the same about decisions made in Europe. So I voted in that one but resolved to vote in this bill only for the two more important votes (against) next week. Surely it’s better that we independent peers should truly vote with our heads after engaging our brains with the issues rather than vote merely for the sake of impressing the media and persuading political colleagues that we are every bit as good as them.
I vote (according to the They Work for You website) an average number of times for a peer although I speak in debate, table amendments and follow legislation in my own area far more assiduously than the majority of peers. As it happened the European Treaty bill debates have taken place at the same time as the committee stages of the Health and Social Care Bill and broadly from my briefings I feel supportive of the Government on this one. But there are many bits of legislation when I simply cannot see the merits or dismerits of a modest amendment and noone seems able to predict the likely effect of the suggested change. Then I do not vote and don’t intend to in the future. Am I wrong? I would love to know what others think.
I think you’re quiet correct; I value reason and sber second thought to simply voting on things you have no clue on. At least your words as a wise crossbencher should (in theory) give the ‘working’ peers food for thought, and when it is issues on which you have real passion, you will vote and possibly make a real impact. It isn’t right that you spoil the result on something which you have absolutely no idea or concern for.
A friend of mine was having a discussion with a Baroness a while back and the annunciator announced a division in the Lords; a number of peers started heading towards the Chamber but this Baroness stayed put; she declared her ignorance of the issue and felt it would be best to leave it to those who know it better. I have immense respect for people like that.
I appreciate the Lords as a collection of great minds, and the Commons as the expression of the popular will. Party programmes and whips should be enforced in the Commons and it is a strength of the Lords that this has less impact there.
I wholeheartedly agree with Baroness Murphy’s statement. In times such as those we are living in, when the world shows so intricate and Governments have so many different kinds of problems to cope with in so many domains, such a thing as crossbench Peers (i.e. a collection of very specialized and competent people full-timely involved in the law-making process)is a unique and wonderful asset! Our legislative bodies in France do not include such thing as Crossbenchers, and one thing that strikes (and somewhat upsets) me as a scholar and as a citizen is that whenever a sensible issue is mooted in the country, our represenstatives seem to feel as if they had to express as soon as possible a definite opinion they can cling to. As a matter of course, this leads them to solemnly pronounce many ineptitudes, and the argument is turned into a political fight before any thing sensible had time to be said. Baroness Murphy’s point combines expertness with intellectual and political honesty. The vote of those know the issues at stake only may have much wiser outcomes than the vote of a whole House, the half of which have just been whipped into the right lobby by their party’s line. When I discovered the British parliamentary system and the existence of crossbench Peers when I had to take classes of British politics at the university, I found the idea wonderful. From the other bank of the Channel, I say it : Crossbenchers are a marvellous institution.
I think you are right not to vote when you do not have an opinion on something. From what exposure I have had to amendments, I cannot imagine that any crossbench peer could feel particularly moved to vote one way or the other on a great many amendments.
I think however that it is fair enough for peers signed up to a political party to follow their whip: someone else with whom they broadly share the same political outlook will be following amendments and advising accordingly.
Well I am greatly cheered by these responses. I shall stick to my resolve to vote only on matters I understand…but I will try harder perhaps to follow some of the bigger questions in depth. That means more sitting listening in the Chamber…or more reading and ministerial meetings. Roll on summer recess…..
Stuart is quite right in saying that political peers should pay attention to their whip; but at the same time they should also have the freedom to kick back and refuse to partake or even defy their whip if they consider the party line to be out of kilter.
I too greatly value independence of thought and therefore the RIGHT to abstain. However perhaps we should also record abstentions since these are also political acts? Needless to say that although I have lobbied for this for some time, it is not a popular idea with the political parties.
On the wider issue of voting and attendance – there is much to say. We are about to have yet another White Paper on HOuse of Lords Reform. I have argued hard, and will continue to do so, for a substantial Independent element but face constant carping from other members of the Reform Group that the Crossbenchers don’t turn up enough and certainly don’t vote enough. The record is not good …… I will post a blog in some more detail on this very soon…
Hmm… I think your approach is a good one, Baroness Murphy. However, I would make the following observations..
1/ On the Lisbon Treaty, as with so many European or EU matters, the whole project, from Day One, appears to have been conceived in obfuscation, complexity and downright deceitfulness as to the end goals and objectives. By opting out of voting [and I include myself in this] we are capitulating to the aims of those who want to conceal in high falutin’ language what the project is all about. On this issue, I think it is incumbent on everyone to do the best they can to understand what is really at stake here.
What we can vote on within EU affairs is very limited, and this Lisbon Constitutional Treaty will make things a lot, lot worse.
2/ Climate change is the single most important issue facing us at the moment. I suspect those in Africa with family dying of hunger, AIDS or malaria have just cause to disagree. But climate change would make their lives very much harder – as it would for many living marginal lives at present.
Clearly it is not always possible to fully understand the science – on which it is difficult to find unanimity, especially on something which involves statistical ‘probabilities’. And without wishing to persuade people into the sort of ‘groupthink’ which characterised received wisdom over the ‘Millennium Bug’, the consensus of opinion is now a lot clearer about the causes and effects of climate change.
So I think on this issue, one has something of a responsibility to understand as much as possible, and follow scientific consensus, such as the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, when voting on the issues which may affect many generations to come.
Especially when the issue of building new nuclear power stations is on the horizon. I believe that these are necessary, and the danger from them is often ‘hyped’ up by those with an axe to grind. But you may have a different view – particularly over the questions relating to fast-tracking of planning consultations and applications.
On issues like this [and, say, Heathrow] I feel it is far more tricky to justify a principled ‘fence-sitting’ approach. There is a danger of posing false dichotomies of the ‘You’re either with us or the terrorists’ tosh when it comes to the environment. But on the other hand the old saw that one is ‘either part of the solution or part of the problem’ in one’s personal behaviour does have some mileage..
Hi Adrian. Yes, absolutely, peers with a party label should be free to take an independent line should they feel strongly about something, and I am sure they do (just as MPs do). I think it is important however also to note that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with whips and ‘the party line’; if someone subscribes to the values and policies of a particular party then, most of the time, obeying the whips and toeing the party line is a sensible course of action.
Baroness D’Souza, it just proves to me more and more that those who clamour for ‘reform’ of the Upper House simply want yet another carbon copy of the Commons with its Whips and no space for individual innovation and principle. Why can’t these people see it?!
Bedd Gelert,
I agree with you about the importance of trying to follow the significant global issues and do try hard to make my mind up about the big stuff like nuclear power (yes, I am for it), Heathrow (but so far I have failed to do so in this case because of the multiple lobbies of interested parties who have scientific consensus, like God on their sides)and the energy bill. It is sometimes easy to decide that one can trust the evidence consensus but in many cases there is none. Take for example the docking of tails of working dogs, an issue that came up last in a bill year. Everyone was agreed that the best legislation would be that which caused the least possible suffering to the dogs. But there was more than enough evidence from multiple vets and scientists that tail docking was both very good and very bad. I honestly could not make up my mind and in the end decided not to vote.
I may well take a considered view and then discover that a similar earlier piece if legislation has had the unintended consequence of exactly the opposite of what was hoped for. Getting the right evidence and opinion is not always easy.