Lord Tyler makes some interesting points but none that undermines the points advanced against electing the second chamber – though he does at least avoid some of the cliches advanced by proponents of election.
There are two particular points I would make. First, the House is variously characterised as a House of experience and expertise. They are not one and the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive but it is relevant to distinguish them. The advantage of having people with experience and expertise as members – rather than simply as those giving evidence – is that you need people who know the subject to ensure that the right questions are asked and are in a position to evaluate the answers. I have experienced committees elsewhere where members read out prepared questions and have no idea as to the quality of the answers they receive. There is also the advantage in debate in that you can be influenced by those who do understand the subject; and usually there is more than one person who has experience or expertise in the area. Speeches in the House can and do influence opinion.
Second, in terms of public opinion, if you ask people should the members of the second chamber be elected, most will answer yes. It is at this point that Lord Tyler’s assessment stops. However, if you then ask other questions, you discover that this is not a priority and when weighed against other options falls way down the list. I refer to my earlier post in relation to referendums where I took Lords reform as the example. The Constitution Unit at University College London commissioned – as part of its research into the Lords – a survey of public opinion as well as of peers’ opinions. It is worth repeating the findings, presented by Dr Meg Russell, at a briefing last December:
“Asked which factors are most important to determining the legitimacy of the House of Lords, peers prioritise ‘trust in the appointments process’, ‘detailed legislative scrutiny’ and ‘presence of experts’ over other factors (including ‘presence of elected members’).
Asked the same question, the public also choose to prioritise exactly the same factors, plus the House ‘making decisions in accordance with public opinion’.
Asked to choose which are the two most important determinants of legitimacy, the public chose (in order) decisions made in accordance with public opinion, a trustworthy appointments process, and considering legislation carefully and in detail. Inclusion of elected members came fifth out of seven.
Slightly more people think the House of Lords is doing a good job on policy than think the same about the House of Commons. Though far fewer believe ‘the process for choosing members of the House of Lords is a good one’.
Among people claiming to be knoweldgeable about the Westminster Parliament, the Lords ranks even bettrer on policy. It also ranks if anything marginally worse on process of choosing members, but addition of elected members was also ranked if anything lower in importance.”
That, I think, provides a much better and certainly a more nuanced picture of how the public view the Lords. It is not exactly the basis for making grand claims about a public clamour for election.
On accountability, Lord Tyler’s post appears as a counsel of despair in respect of the House of Commons. In between elections, the Government is accountable to the people’s elected representatives. If the House of Commons is not doing its job, that is not an argument for electing the second chamber. It is an argument for reforming the House of Commons. I have never quite seen the logic of the argument ‘The House of Lords is doing a good job, the House of Commons is doing a poor job, reform the House of Lords’.
I’m disappointed with the opening words, given your post of April 23:
“‘The noble Lord makes an interesting point…’ (I have no idea what the answer is)”
You all know my position on this matter, so may I take this opportunity of asking an off-topic question: what leverage do you have in getting BT to carry out the necessary work on my internet/telephone line, work that should have been done over five years ago? Between me and my husband we must have spoken to every BT employee and have personally ensured BT stay in business. They have admitted the problem and…zilch.
Apologies. Needed to sound off.
ladytizzy: we are not in the chamber, so I was not using parliamentary terminology. If I was employing it, I would have opened with ‘With all due respect’.
ladytizzy: on your second point, I may be able to bring you back on-topic. BT is not a subject on which I am an expert. Indeed, it is not one on which I have much experience, in that I live in Hull where BT’s writ does not run. However, being the Lords, we do have people who are experts or have experience of BT and telecommunications. They include Lord Vallance, who is a former chairman of BT.
Lord Norton,
From the Constitution Unit research you cite, the public prioritise the upper chamber ‘making decisions in accordance with public opinion’, but not the ‘presence of elected members’.
While these two categories can be differentiated, there is surely an argument that the election of members is the most likely way to ensure that decisions are made in accordance with public opinion?
Of course the decisions of an elected chamber will not always reflect public opinion (as in the Commons), but they are much more likely to than an appointed chamber which has no requirement to consider public opinion at all.
How do you see an appointed chamber meeting the public’s stated priority of decisions reflecting their opinion? Are you satisfied that the existence of the Parliament Act sufficiently fulfills the demand (if only in the long-run – like on fox hunting)?
Your Leader’s Seminar contribution on this topic linked in your earlier post was stimulating by the way – whilst I probably still favour a mixed chamber, reading it certainly made me consider the debate in a different light.
Annexed: my interpretation is that the Lords is looked to for the purpose of responding to measures passed by the Commons for which there is not a clear case. The public often recognise that there is not a clear case and, indeed, the House may be more likely to pursue its stance if it does resonate with electors. I would not necessarily go along with your claim about the elected House. It could be argued that the Lords may find it easier to take a stance that has public support than the Commons, where the Members may find the demands of the party whips outweigh their reading of the opinion polls.
I feel suitably admonished! Thank you for the info; I hope Lord Vallance is as helpful.