This may be a topic of excruciating boredom for most people – other than your lorships of course. But given that it is on the Government’s agenda it may be worth a brief re-visit?
The Government has promised a White Paper (essentially a policy paper) by mid-July which is based on what someone described as the ‘murmurings’ of a cross-party Group led by the Minister of Justice, Jack Straw. The premise upon which the Group began its work was the vote in the House of Commons for a partially (80%) or wholly elected House of Lords or Second Chamber. The vote in the Lords was overwhelmingly in favour of an appointed Second Chamber
I have always objected to this for many reasons the most important of which is that you should not base a major constitutional change on the indicative (expressions of views) votes of only one part of Parliament, the House of Commons.
Now you may say about the Lords vote, well they would, wouldn’t they? Why would turkeys vote for Christmas? But there are other, less self-centred reasons why to my mind an elected House would not result in a better job being done.
The House of Lords has two main functions: to scrutinise and revise legislation and to hold the Government of the day to account. In order to do this effectively the members need to be independent, diverse and to have the necessary expertise to really know a given subject. For example when one debates the difficult issues to do with human fertilisation and embryology it is useful, to put it mildly, to have all the scientific pros and cons to hand. When legislation on young offenders comes up, you really do need those who have worked for years in the penal system to know what works and what doesn’t.
Elected members would inevitably be politicised whatever voting system was adopted
Elected members would clash inevitably with the House of Commons who claim primacy by virtue of their elected status
Elections would inevitably reduce the number of women, representatives of ethnic minorities, and established experts. In part this would be due to the fact that the above categories would be less likely to put themselves forward for the hurly burly of electioneering and partly because it is likely that less would actually be voted in. It is equally unlikely that younger people in mid-career would choose to leave their professions for perhaps a decade to serve as a full time member of the Second Chamber.
If it is proposed that elected members serve a single term of, let us say, a decade or so with no prospect of re-election it is difficult to see how they would be more accountable to the public who elected them.
Finally, an elected House of Lords with ‘professional’ and salaried members would increase the cost of the Second Chamber perhaps by as much as £80-£100 million?
There are meanwhile several relatively minor changes that could be undertaken in the immediate future which would not only make the House more efficient but more rational.
Surely this is not a boring, but very important, topic for anyone who’s interested in the Lords. That may not be most people, but it certainly is most people who read this blog!
I would also like to know what the benefit of having an elected House of Lords is? We’ve already got an elected Commons.
Thank you Liam, my thoughts entirely.
Baroness D’Souza,
I wouldn’t lose a great deal of sleep over this. The Government rate of U-turns is increasing exponentially, and now that the ‘credit crunch’ has kicked-off, they will have slightly more pressing things to worry about in the other place than ‘how-many-lordships-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin’ constitutional philosophising. Indeed it is not impossible that your nemesis Jack Straw may soon have a lot more on his plate if the wilder rumours come to pass and the Prime Minister is toppled in a coup at this September’s party conference season.
Indeed, by the time they’ve formulated any kind of proposal, they will probably find they’ve run out of time in this period in office, and it will be passed over to the new administration. Just indulging in some wild speculation that that may be a Tory party, one can see any kind of House of Lords reform falling to the bottom of their in-tray, as they have a brand new manifesto of promises to deliver, and a 100-day plan to impress the voters with.
And even if things aren’t kicked into the ‘long grass’ [where is the long grass by the way ?] you now have lots of supporters who could try to campaign to save the endangered Lords and Ladies – Perhaps WWF could send some of their campaigners on secondment ?
Thankyou Baroness, for a well presented and sensible case for the present system.
It depresses me that many pro-reform arguments seem satisfied with simply espousing ‘democracy’ and thinking that’s the end of the debate. I hope the Lords remains appointed.
I can’t really see the point in having a second, elected chamber. To my mind, any reform of the Lords should concentrate on ways of making it a better system with which to scrutinise and challenge both the Commons and the Government, to me this means actively seeking out individuals who would be useful to have in the Lords, and who have come from deliberately varied backgrounds, be it lollipop ladies or cancer specialists.
I don’t think that reform in and of itself is a bad thing, in fact we should do our best to ensure that we do try and health-check our political system, but I can’t see how switching from appointed to elected has any benefits.
BG my thanks for having the knack of saying what I do not spell out and for treading where I fear to tread!
Adrian Kidney – yes, the fundamental error I think is in believing that the only viable form of democracy is election. It certainly is a vital ingredient but there are other ways of exercising democracy?
athena25 – I completely agree that a regular health check of our political system is necessary and maybe the debate that will undoubtedly surround any publication of a White Paper on House of Lords Reform will provoke a fruitful debate?
As I said I think there are many immediate reforms which could be undertaken with an improvement of the Lords main functions without the massive upheaval that a fully elected Second Chamber would entail.
“The House of Lords has two main functions: to scrutinise and revise legislation and to hold the Government of the day to account. In order to do this effectively the members need to be independent, diverse and to have the necessary expertise to really know a given subject. […]
Elected members would inevitably be politicised whatever voting system was adopted”
That’s all that needs said on the subject really. That, and to look at the state of affairs in the USA. So much earnesty in the Senate these days, wouldn’t you agree?
The Lords is the only barrier the disillusioned… no, anyone who cares about such things as liberty and societal progression, have against the self-preserving populists in the Commons. The voting record, especially of late, can only lead to that conclusion.
For the sake of all that’s worth holding dear, don’t let’s loose it.
Baronness D’Souza,
Thank you for your ‘re-visiting’ of this topic – I agree with nearly everything you say. There has been much talk (with more to come in a few weeks no doubt) of election v. appointment and, given the undoubted and unique benefits of appointment, the debate as to the proportions of any hybrid House. This may however be a false dichotomy?
You say that “Elected members would inevitably be politicised whatever voting system was adopted” but that is presumably not the case with the elected cross-bench hereditaries?
If reform must happen, a slight evolution is much more in keeping with our tradition than revolutionary change. I should be interested in your views, not least given your role as Convenor, on the possibility of extending (and slightly amending) the ‘Weatherill’ principle to those with life peerages. This would combine some of the benefits and deemed greater legitimacy of election with the advantages of appointment and avoid the creation of a two-tier house.
The cross bench could have a set number of peers as they do now and the parties numbers could be determined by, e.g., the last general or some other election(s). There could be provision to allow for some working peers to be appointed for the duration of term before facing re-election by their peers (and thereby continue to allow ministers to be appointed as with Lady Chalker and Lord Malloch-Brown).
This would appear to meet the 7 principles underpinning Lords reform as stated in the 2007 White Paper:
Primacy of the House of Commons; Complementarity of the House of Lords; A More Legitimate House of Lords; No Overall Majority for Any Party; Non Party-Political Element; A More Representative House of Lords; Continuity of Membership.
Voter fatigue should not be an issue, the cost would be minimal, the transition could be short, and your concern re reduction in expertise and women/ethnic minorities should not arise. Indirect election and lists have their drawbacks, but the requirement to have a peerage would lessen the power of the parties. I hope I haven’t gone on too long but I should be interested in your views – and also on the “relatively minor changes” that you mention.
A late comment but I have only just seen this article…
I used to be strongly in favour of an elected second chamber, mainly because of my concern that appointment would allow a future government to make the chamber useless. I will admit that reading this blog for the last few months has changed my views, at least partly! I see the arguments in favour of appointment, particularly with the current diversity.
What safeguards are in place to make sure the current useful role of the Lords is preserved, and how well fortified are they against attack from a future government (assuming control of the Commons)? Surely an elected Lords, with an equal status to the Commons (no primacy of the Commons), has a better chance of protecting our freedoms in the future?
Goodness – what an educated lot you are. I feel bad about not having replied to so many of your thoughtful and useful points but I have been BUSY (more on blog later).
I am struck almost dumb by Graham Cobb’s change of view due to this BLOG. How amazing and how interesting. The point about an elected House being better able to protect itself and not be at the mercy of future legislation is an extremely good one. However, in the process I think one might lose something valuable – the relatively disinterested way in which draft legislation is dealt with.
I salute what Matthew writes and acknowledge Handj’s point about the elected hereditaries – but defend them by saying that on the crossbenches at least they are voted in by non-party political peers?
I think that your suggestions merit much more serious consideration and might even try and weave them into a debate on the White Paper on Lords Reform which will come up in October or November.
Many thanks for your response to all the comments.
With regard to the elected hereditaries, indeed they are – as would an extension of the system to life peers (something which hopefully could provide a greater cross-bench presence than the 80/20 two-tier system could provide, as well as arguably satisying most of the points raised by such disparate figures as Lord Norton and Jack Straw!)