Lord (Paul) Tyler is a colleague and a friend but I disagree with him on Lords reform. When he writes that the Government White Paper on House of Lords Reform is the product of a majority of MP votes and the leaders of the political parties in the Lords – he is, of course, right. But what this omits is the huge number, by far the majority, of Peers who disagree for well-reasoned arguments that I set out in a blog earlier this year. These reasons include the fear of a much more politicised second chamber demanding more power and thereby competing with the House of Commons: the loss of independence and expertise: the huge cost to the tax payer of moving to an elected chamber and the loss of what little gender, ethnic and geographical diversity that we hold on to.
I think it would be helpful for all those who genuinely want to follow this issue, and indeed press for a referendum, to read the debate that followed the publication of the White Paper on 14th July (Columns 987 – 1003 Hansard).
Baroness D’Souza,
It may seem very hypocritical of me, as I was until very recently a staunch defender of the ‘status quo’ against any further tinkering around with the constitutional settlement. But recent events have now crystallised a feeling that the ‘will of the people’, well, the will of this person, to be honest, should be allowed to influence the Lords.
In particular, I think a clause should be allowed that if any of the Lords were to be guilty of :-
* Telling fibs
* Being beastly
* Getting stroppy on Sunday morning television
* Making veiled threats
* Thinking vindictive thoughts
* Mixing with the wrong crowd at the regatta
they should, after a trial by the court of public opinion [i.e. me] be subjected to a vote by their peers as to whether they have to leave the playground for a period of time as yet to be determined.
I trust that you might be able to support this minor amendment.
“These reasons include the fear of a much more politicised second chamber demanding more power and thereby competing with the House of Commons: the loss of independence and expertise: the huge cost to the tax payer of moving to an elected chamber and the loss of what little gender, ethnic and geographical diversity that we hold on to.”
Forgive me but “demanding more power”? Loss of independence went when we joined the EEC in 1973. The pretence of Governing as far as this Country is concerned really will go if “Lisbon” ever comes into action. As the EU instigates 80% of our laws, each separate House should be reduced by that same percentage don’t you think? The people simply cannot afford either House in which the vast majority really want the EU to take precedence over so very many vital and important areas. We no longer have a “sovereign Government” for it can and has been override by the European Court of Justice.
There is no point in the people voting for any British MP any more, why should they when the EU makes the vast majority of our laws. Not one MP, lord or Lady could prevent EU laws from taking precedence here in the UK.
If you do not think I understand what is happening, i place here for you a little of my research, “Mr Gaitskell then reminds the Prime Minister (column 1498) what Macmillan said in 1956 when Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was, Finally, we must recognise that the aim of the main proponents of the Community is political integration. We can see that in Article 138 of the Treaty, which looks towards a common assembly, directly elected. The whole idea of the six, the coal and steel community and Euratom is a movement towards political integration. That is a fine assertion, but we must recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal—to accept as the ultimate goal–political federation in Europe, including ourselves”.
Later on (column1501) Mr Gaitskell says, “There is the question of a common currency, which is mentioned in various quarters as something to which we must look forward. In my opinion, it is idle to speak about a common currency until there is a common government, and the idea of not being in control of our own currency, and having it subject to a supranational or international gathering, would be quite wrong, and I hope that, equally, will be made abundantly plain”.
On 3rd August 1961 (column 1735) Mr Shinwell continues his words after having read out a part of the Treaty of Rome, ending with “reinforcement of the European Parliament through direct elections and widening of its powers and, finally, a European Government. That is the intention”.
I now turn to Sir D.Walker-Smith, snippets from his speech on 16th November 1966 (Column474) “On the constitutional side, the agricultural position shows clearly under the Treaty of Rome we would no longer be masters in our own house and that the powers of decision would pass from Parliament.”
“But the constitutional question is clear. It would not matter if not one Member wanted to change the system. That would be irrelevant because, under the Treaty of Rome, if we join the Community the power of decision passes from this House”.
Sadly, over the years our great British Parliamentarians have willingly and eagerly have signed their own Parliaments death warrant. The people though have had no hand in it what so ever, the people were ignored and their own Common Law Constitution remains in full.
Someone else has probably posted this already, but their comment hasn’t been publish yet. Just in case I’m really first, here’s a link to the debate Baroness D’Souza is referring to:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-07-14a.987.0
The debate mentioned can be found here
Here’s a link to the debate referred to by Baroness D’Souza: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-07-14a.987.0
The House of Lords once used to hold many “Wise People”, Sadly, under “modernisation”, they had to go. Such a botch has already been made once by this Government, it is having to have another go. You forget one thing at your peril. The people have no stomach for any further alterations and further payments to yet another TRY at putting matters to rights.
Just how long do any that sit on those Red AND GREEN Benches think that the people will continue to fund yet another attempt at ‘getting things right’ when MP’s have destroyed the best system that was already in place but annoyed because the ‘Lords’ did not always agree with them? So many Constitutional ‘cock ups’ already trying to get rid of the Lord Chancellor, etc, yet even that was minor compared to the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon or to put it another way, the self inflicted death sentence of self Government, which was signed on your own behalf and not on behalf of the people of this Country.
Anne: have you conducted a recent poll of the electorate to find out their views on the matter of Lords reform? How do you know the public have no stomach for further reform? Do you know the views of the 62 million people living in the country?
I’d be interested to know if you’ve even read the Treaty of Lisbon, too. I keep finding so many Tories shouting off about the matter, yet i’m staggered by how many have actually read any of the provisions within it.
Paul,
I think the noble Lord Norton posted a while ago that a survey indicated that people, when asked if they preferred an elected house, tended to say yes; but when told about the work of the Lords by virtue of its independence, expertise and so on, they tended to value a second chamber of that ilk than just another Commons carbon copy.
I think Lord Norton would have the details more readily available, however.
I should point out that i don’t favour direct election myself. It is clear, at least in my mind, that there should be significant reform to the appointments process, though.
I can’t see any logical argument for doing nothing about the current situation, as some readers on here seem to suggest.
In my view, it would be much better if the Appointments Commission was given far greater powers to decide who should and who should not sit in the Lords, thus removing the patronage of the Prime Minister.
My previous posts have been trying to get at this issue of the vote which MPs took last year. They made a clear decision and, despite my own views, i think there is a an argument that there decision should be respected.
Paul, You ask if I have even read the Treaty of Lisbon. I will go one better for you, for I may be the only person in the UK that has written to the UN and the European Convention on the law of Treaties. Needless to say, although it was written in February, I have not had a reply. If it is allowed to remain on this blog and is not removed as some of my responses have, you can read it at your lessure. Address has been removed.
20th February 2008.His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon,Secretary General, United Nations,New York,USA.
Dear Mr Secretary-General.
SUBJECT: The Treaty of Lisbon. (Letter to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which I am led to believe is also lodged at the United Nations).
I have followed the EU Treaties over quite a number of years and have taken in the meaning of those Treaties. Particularly clear was the now rejected “Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe”, most of the contents of which have now been brought forward in the Treaty of Lisbon.
What I find so particularly distasteful is that now the people are beginning to be aware that those who want power have, during the “Time of Reflection” brought about such a muddled Treaty to be able to say it is completely different to the rejected “Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe”. The so very obvious excuse being to avoid holding the promised referendum in any State except Ireland whose constitution is such that a referendum has to be held on any constitutional change. The EU and Heads of States in this instance, if this Treaty is allowed to go through in its present state may have brought organisations that many people look up to, into disrepute.
Many of the Articles in the Treaty have been renumbered three times. This has caused much of the confusion and it has obviously prevented many people from having any comprehension as to the full implications that the Treaty holds for their future and for future generations. Yet it will alter the way they are governed for decades to come.
Many have been the comments from those in power as to the real meaning of the Treaty. “That it is the same as the Constitution, only put another way” etc, and others, particularly in this Country, “that it (the then Reform Treaty-now the Treaty of Lisbon) “is nothing like the EU Constitution and therefore there is no need of the (promised) referendum”. So very many are these kind of comments from people ‘of note’, from many countries, from important dignitaries that there is more than enough ‘evidence’ to prove this point.
It is a Treaty that perhaps the Vienna Convention on Treaties would not want to be party to, particularly so in view of its ‘guide lines’ or “laws” on the subject. Perhaps the EU’s methods are distasteful to the United Nations that even the United Nations might in the end shrink away from it too, for it has its high reputation to consider throughout the world. Could or would the United Nations or the Vienna Convention on Treaties accept a European Union to “Speak with its one voice for all” knowing that the EU had deliberately set out to deceive 500 million people with such a Treaty?
The Treaty appears to have been deliberately muddled to confuse the people (and possibly MP’s) so that none can understand the true meaning of its contents. In complete contrast to the relative transparency surrounding the drawing up of the “Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe” the Heads of State and the EU leaders have quite deliberately opted for opacity. This was done in the ‘time of reflection’. The Treaty is, however, so incomprehensible that it is almost impossible to unravel. It is manifestly obvious that ‘that the aim was to confuse’ so that leaders could say that it is nothing like the previous EU Constitutional Treaty so there is no need to have a referendum.
Having looked at the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, I took particular note of Article 31, and in particular section 1, General rule of interpretation, Article32, Supplementary means of interpretation, Article 40 Amending Treaties, Article 49, Fraud and others up to Article 62. These articles are in this Treaty for a purpose. Long lasting Treaties should be honestly written and clear so that all involved can understand the true meaning of them for these are meant to be long lasting and binding, therefore great trouble should be taken in the drawing up of the Treaties-the previous now abandoned EU Constitution took longer than two years. All should understand fully in complete truthfulness and in complete understanding so that in the ratification and the people that they apply to can understand them fully.
Where there are deliberate attempts by authors of Treaties to confuse the people, this brings only shame and once again, more lack of trust in politicians. This may well lead to unrest amongst the people – particularly in the United Kingdom where it conflicts with a thousand years of constitutional statute law still in force – -if they feel they have been either ignored or tricked. This is a Treaty that will alter the way of life of all the people in each Nation State seemingly forever; the people at this particular time deserve the true meaning of the European Union and its aims for the future.
I ask that you please look at this Treaty and see if it comes up to the standards you would expect of a long lasting and binding Treaty? If there is any doubt on your part Sir, I would request, as a matter of the utmost urgency, that it be re-written and presented once more to the people in the 27 Nation States concerned.
I thank you for your time, Yours faithfully, Anne Palmer (Mrs)
A very ordinary citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
A copy to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
I agree with everything you just said Paul!
The present chamber definitely has faults. However election would be like taking a cruise missile to a walnut. It would crack the nut but also ruin the surrounding neighbourhood.
Constitutional reform is a worthy aim, but the government is intent on focusing all its energies on reforming those parts of the system which do not impinge on its freedom of action, while leaving those broken bits which so desperately need fixing to fester. Hence, they reform the Lords (a visible and tangible reform, but compromises the checks and balances of the constitution) while ignoring the Commons (precisely because its elected nature makes it weak before the government).
A government which brought real change to the Commons and make it a true debating chamber again would get my respect. But one which only tampers with the Lords (and so extending its power and influencing) will get my undying scorn.
Should the remaining Scots Hereditary Peers be “got rid of” along with all the rest, that just may be what Alex Salmond might be waiting for, for his independent Country of Scotland. (See Article XX11 of the Treaty between England (and Wales) and Scotland, that 16 Hereditary Peers and 45 elected Scottish MP’s should take their places in the House of Parliament. The title should be the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Without that particular Article there might never have been a ‘union’ between the Countries
Bedd Gelert
Would that we could implement your splendid rules for voters too…
Paul, I’m with you on an early step that ould be taken straight away.
All really interesting. There are many ways in which House of Lords Reform could happen, incrementally. For example, what about agreeing on a retiring age for members? With very wonderful exceptions, I’m not sure that a legislative chamber that helps to make decisions that affect peoples’ lives should have an average age of nearly 70?
And what about the herditary peers? The fact that 90 (plus two Royal Office Holders) remain is the result of the fudge that occurred in the last great reform effort in 1999. So the hereditary principle still holds and this may not be in tune with modernising the House.
Most of the Hereditary Peers who attend are excellent value and contribute markedly to the work of the House but they could so easily be transformed into Life Peers. This would mean that when one of the 90 dies,there would be no automatic replacement with a hereditary peer on the waiting list. Wihtin a decade or two there would no longer be any hereditary peers in the House and the Principle would be well and truly buried.
Finally why cannot the House of Lords allow peers to resign from membership of the Upper Chamber? At present anyone can take leave of absence which means that for an agreed period that member cannot attend the House (except he or she can sit on the steps of the Throne) and thus cannot vote or contribute in any way. However, one of our colleagues, Lord Phillips of Sudbury wanted to become plain Mr Phillips but there is no law that allows this. So while he is more or less on permanent leave of absence, he is still a Lord!
“However, one of our colleagues, Lord Phillips of Sudbury wanted to become plain Mr Phillips but there is no law that allows this. So while he is more or less on permanent leave of absence, he is still a Lord!”
I thought Tony Benn had fixed this a long time back ?
Bedd Gelert, yes hereditary peers can rid themselves of their titles by Statute but life peers can’t – so remain lifers.