Former Chancellor Kenneth Clarke has been appointed Shadow Business Secretary. He will be the opposite number to Lord Mandelson. However, he will not be facing Lord Mandelson as they sit in different chambers. Lord Mandelson answers directly to peers and can be called to appear by committees in the Commons. Conversely, ministers in the Commons answer directly to MPs and can appear before select committees in the Lords.
However, the fact that MPs cannot question Cabinet ministers who sit in the Lords in the same way as they do minister in the Commons has led to calls for ministers who sit in one chamber to be permitted to answer questions in the other. There are various procedural problems to be overcome, but the principle may well commend itself to many parliamentarians. Indeed, it is possible it may prove especially attractive to peers. Most Cabinet ministers sit in the Commons; most ministers in the Lords are junior ministers. Enabling Cabinet ministers who sit in the Commons to appear before the Lords would enable peers who have knowledge and expertise in the area to pursue informed questioning. It would certainly be a testing arena for ministers who are used to partisanship and to having a parliamentary majority on their side.
Of course at present a set number of (paid) ministers have to be peers. I could see the change to ministers being able to appear in both houses as a means for almost all ministers to be MPs (subject to a law change) which is not necessarily good for the credibility for the Lords. The minimum number of junior ministers as lords members, there just for admin purposes might be the result.
Being cynical, yes it’s a flaw but we all have them; I’m tempted to suggest that if the change happened then the incentive for the whips to pack committees with loyalists would increase and the greatest strength of the Lords committees, their lack of partisanship, might be lost. I’ve noticed that even the calling of peers to speak – when two stand at the same time – has become increasingly partisan with, as it seems to me, a particular section of ex-labour MPs shouting against some in rival parties.
If accountability is the issue at stake, wouldn’t a more American model of select committee be preferable where the powers to summon, investigate and indeed legal remedies for non compliance create more benefit to parliament and the public.
Off-topic, Lord Norton, [just for a change, I hear you say..] but maybe ‘turkeys do vote for Christmas’..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7838597.stm
Although I suspect that this change is likely to be more presentation than substance.
Its ironic that the House of Lords once dismissed by the Commons as irrelevant, indeed some still think it so, has now found need of its extensive expertise in government.
What concerns me more than anything is the House’s reputation?
Its a seemingly impossible situation at the moment. Take Lord Mandleson for instance, he has to be in the house at the same time as the house wants him to be accountable. Unless he develops some form of ESP then the two requirements would seem to be mutually exclusive.
The other chestnut is Lord Jones and his observations as a junior minister.
At the centre of the Civil Service is a ‘spare parts’ facility that catches people and retains them on full pay when the walls shift position as they frequently do these days.
When new resources are required then selected people come off standby into new posts. The gotcha is that these people must move to wherever they are required, even to Timbuktu if needed.
The result is that nobody effectively leaves the Civil Service and its age profile becomes a matter of concern for its Human Resources Executive. Interestingly, organisations that were once in public ownership like BT for instance still maintain a similar ‘spare parts’ facility for their staff.
I suppose rather than be on standby and doing nothing they are put into post and this gives the impression of too many people. The ‘spares’ list is an easy target for government efficiency savings so its understandable that ‘spares’ are kept to a minimum in practice.
What is important is that peers that serve in government are more likely to be honest in their reporting of experiences to the house than a Commons minister who needs the salaried job and does not want to damage their career prospects. This is especially so with career politicians that often ‘alight from a university bus’ and straight into Parliament.
That sounds like a very desirable reform, Lord Norton; though I can imagine that as soon as this kind of change were brought about, the Commons ministers would remove the learned Lords from their position and make the second chamber elected to undo the harm.
Croft, Bedd Gelert, Senex and Adrian Kidney: Thanks for the responses. I should make clear that I was not necessarily advocating the change. I can see the problems associated with it, not least of the sort you variously mention. My purpose was to show that any change should not be solely in one direction. If Lords ministers were to be permitted to speak in the Commons, then I think there must be provision for Commons ministers to speak in the Lords. I am not averse to retaining the present arrangements.
Lord Norton, I believe your last comment hits the crux of the matter, while (parts of) the Commons was indignant about the idea of a Secretary of State, or perhaps just Peter Mandleson, administering a Department without scrutiny by the elected chamber, I do not believe that sentiment will attach itself to the Lords scrutinising Secretaries of State and Ministers who sit in the Commons.
Not least of all because the depth of expertise available in the Lords far outweighs that available in the Commons. Unfortunately good scrutiny is too often construed as negative pressure on the Government.
In my mind a potentially good idea, certainly the Chancellor facing questions over the pre-budget report, questioned by the numerous experts and former chancellors currently on the red benches would be proper scrutiny and perhaps enable less overly ya-boo party politics to inform the debate about whether mortgaging the next two generations of young people is a method to confront the recession…
It seem the White House has become sentient?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/
Its only one way at the moment though?
The site also has a feature on past Presidents:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/slideshows/presidents/
Do any of them look like somebody you know?
How about number 3 one Thomas Jefferson 1801-1809
Lord Mandleson?
Noodles: Thanks for your comment. Ministers in the Commons can and do appear before committees in the Lords, and peers who are not members of a committee may nonetheless attend and participate in evidence-taking sessions, so there may be scope for drawing more extensively than at present on the expertise of the House in questioning Commons ministers.