Yesterday, The Sunday Times carried an article by Jack Straw (‘Out with the Lords, in with the Senate’) explaining why he now supports an elected second chamber.
Most of the article is taken up discussing the cross-party group he convened to discuss reform. Only in the last third does he offer arguments for an elected second chamber.
His first assertion is that the arguments for maintaining an appointed second chamber “do not pass muster in a 21st-century democracy”. Er, that’s it. He does not mention any of the arguments for appointment, so does not engage with them. He goes on to say that “it is entirely incongruous that there is no link between the parliamentarians who sit in the Lords and the people who elect the Commons.” This strange construction contains the seeds of its own refutation. There is a link through the Commons, which can ensure that ultimately it gets its way on behalf of the people. That way, we retain the core accountability at the heart of our political system.
The only other assertion he makes is that there is a link between the present crisis over expenses in the Commons and reform of the Lords. How so? Well, as people have found out about what MPs do, they have disapproved, and the more they find out about what the Lords do they will favour change. What?
I am reliably informed that in the evidence submitted to the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, those who knew most about the House were more likely to support its retention. We know from the survey undertaken for the Constitution Unit at University College London that there is popular support for what the House presently does – people have some idea what it is about – and somewhat more think it is doing a good job than those thinking the House of Commons is doing a good job. Jack Straw seems to believe that greater openness will make it difficult to make a case for the present House. No it won’t. The House is open and transparent and working hard at making sure that as many members of the public know about its work. In my experience, the more people know about it, the more they favour retaining it.
Jack Straw ends by saying that there is no reason why an elected second chamber “will not contain outstanding individuals of all parties and of none.” “and of none”? Just like the Commons? And if this new chamber will contain outstanding people, and not those who would really like to be in the Commons, then why did Mr Straw in his White Paper last year suggest that after service in an elected second chamber, members should be barred for a number of years from seeking election to the Commons?
The article is in a section headed ‘Think Tank’. Mr Straw appears to have drowned in it.
Calm down, dear, the Lord High Chancellor (etym. chancer)is but a yearning arriviste. Do we know the views of his friend?
One would take more seriously the government’s commitment to an elected House of Lords if they were not using the Lords as a place for the prime minister’s unelected ministerial colleagues and even passing TV celebrities.
o/t: May I congratulate Baroness Gould of Potternewton for her interesting ability to segue her interests in sexual health and human trafficking during a debate about the 2012 Olympics?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90618-0002.htm#09061859000391
Hat tip: ispystrangers.wordpress.com
Oh no, not again, Ladytizzy! Thanks for that link, there really have been exhaustive studies into whether there is human trafficking associated with major sporting events – carried out by the Swedes of all people – and there is little if any evidence for it but the myths just won’t go away. I shall have to write a blog about it (in the probably mistaken belief it will make an iota of difference!).
Nobody would suggest complacency, but at the same time it is important to be aware that an unintended consequence of counter measures can be to further marginalise groups of already largely marginalised women.
I’m one who favours a fully appointed Lords.
My impression is of the Lords having more members who have come from professions outside of politics, and that the Commons is mostly political hacks. I might be wrong about that, but I can’t find a list of MPs careers.
I don’t know what an elected upper house would achieve though, the Lords main role seems to be that of a gadfly to the government. Which leads me to supporting an appointed Lords; in that it must be stuffed with people who can, and have the knowledge, to shoot down the governments plans.
An excellent retort to the Justice Minister’s straw arguments (though they were not really arguments at all) which, by tying Lords reform to the expenses scandal, were an obvious red herring.
Save for the remaining hereditaries, the principal link between peers and people lies through Cabinet Government and representative democracy; by dismissing it so cavalierly, doubt is given leeway to fall upon the legitimacy of other public service appointments. Is direct democracy the only alternative?
Lord Norton is quite right to suggest that appointed chambers are not the primary focus of public opprobrium: In Canada, an honourable senator has called for a referendum on abolishing the ‘Red Chamber’, assuming it will result instead in popularising the usefulness of the Senate. (I’m highly sceptical, since one can assume any positive marketing ploy will be biased toward the benefits of an elected chamber — not the appointed Westminster model — with opponents demanding abolition and a unicameral Parliament.)
Yet a 2007 Compass poll demonstrated that Canadians were far more vocally disgruntled with the behaviour, decorum, and effectiveness of their MPs; the Senate was generally appreciated for its ability to revise and scrutinise legislation. Perhaps the question, then, ought to be aimed at abolishing the House of Commons.
Any human institution can profit from needful reform, where abuse and inefficiencies are evident. But proffering House of Lords reform at a time of economic collapse, deficit calamity, and rising unemployment, and when electoral demands for democratic renewal are aimed at the Commons, is a classic case of bait and switch.
Is there any reason, in principle, why you could not have a televised debate on the issue between the main proponents of either model, perhaps American-style? Didn’t they do it for some issues before now? That way we can actually see the arguments be delivered and, if necessary, knocked down.
I swear I saw something of the like a few years ago, but I’ll be damned if I can remember the subject of the debate…
You can bet that if the upper chamber is largely elected, the few who aren’t elected won’t be useful crossbenchers and non-political figures, but that appointments will be used to install the prime minister of the day’s cronies to allow them to take up ministerial posts.
I suppose with the right voting system, you could elect members of no party. But you’d have to say 20% of the seats are for non-party political members, and they are the only candidates who can stand for those seats. I don’t believe such a system would ever be introduced.
To use an American idiom “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”. It seems to me that the Lords as currently constituted does a pretty solid job of reviewing and criticizing legislation. Whilst it may not be perfect (a better spread of professional expertise could be achieved, I feel), it seems to me that any reform plan needs to understand very well why the Lords *works* at the moment, so as not to damage that.
There seem to be at least three significant problems with an entirely elected Lords. The first is that you’d lose nearly all the cross-benchers (look how few independents get elected to the Commons), which would make it a more partisan place. The second is that the Commons could no longer argue that as the more “democratic” house, it should be able to over-rule the Lords. The third is that you’d probably end up with similar party split in the two houses, meaning that the dominant party would probably be able to Whip just about anything through.
I wonder if more could be done to help people who wish to contact a member of the Lords? These days, it’s fairly easy to write to one’s MP and expect an answer on almost any subject, even one not currently in the news. It’s rather less clear how one should go about choosing a peer to write to, whether there’s any point writing about something that isn’t going to be on the agenda in the near future, and so on.
[on a techie note, it seems that the “notify me of follow-up comments via email button only results in the blog-owners’ comments being emailed, not those comments that come from other readers. Is there any chance of that being fixed?]
Flying a kite exercise? I’m sure there is an easy joke about a straw man argument here but I’ll be good. His argument appears as most of what passes for Lords reform discussion in the commons.
It never ceases to amaze me the intellectual tangles the usual suspects get into on this issue. It normally goes something like:
(MPs – usual suspects): the Lords are unelected this is unacceptable. Only those with a mandate should write our laws. Election gives them that right. However an elected Lords might actually use it’s veto more regularly and this can’t be allowed as it would challenge the the supremacy of the commons so the Lords must have its powers reduced so we can overrule it.
Now it seems to me you can have a perfectly reasonable discussion on a point of principle that legislators should be elected; it rapidly descends into farce when the argument becomes they’ll have too much legitimacy that restrictions are needed to stop them implementing their mandate!
As someone who worked on the Unit’s survey and who has worked in the Lords, I do think there is too much indecision in Straw’s stance, and I am sick of waiting for the government to do SOMETHING for the reforms.
However, the appointment argument doesn’t work. Look at how Mandelson and Sugar can just be parachuted in to work for the government without have to go to the trouble of bothering the electorate. It is an abuse of what the second chamber should be about.
Plus, you can’t ignore that appointment for life is shaming. We spend too much money propping up peers who are long past being of use to the chamber but still come down and treat it as their retirement home anyway. Let’s make a clear division between an honour and a Parliamentary job.
Yes, we should bring in the half-measures Steel and Oakeshott suggest, but too many peers would be happy with that being the end of it. An unthreatening compromise that will keep them in the good life.
Too many peers do too much good work for us to allow the possibility of abuse to continue.
Let’s bring in the long-term elections, let’s scrap the Salisbury agreement and so give the Lords more teeth in return for their great legitimacy.
According to the Treaty and Act of Union Article XXII there should be 16 (Hereditary Peers-and there were only Hereditary Peers then and there are indeed STILL Hereditary Peers now to replace them)and there should be at least 45 Scottish MP’s in the House of Commons. How many are there in the House of Commons now?
Get rid of the 16 Hereditary Peers as required in the Treaty and Act of Union which holds Scotland within the United Kingdom and it may be just the signal to Alex Salmond is waiting for to divorce Scotland from the rest of the UK. Wales then might wish to go the same way and of course there is Ireland that wants the North to be part of Ireland as a whole. It is a Treaty and Act of Union and the were only “Hereditary Peers at that time and there are Hereditary Peers now” there are therefore no excuses for not maintaining them. Any alteration to the Treaty and Act of Union will also affect the Act of Settlement and in the doing will also ‘disturb’ the rest of the Commonwealth which might begin to wonder why they are remaining in the Commonwealth and fighting with them in the many battles the British Government seem to (illegally?) get itself into.
Any new alteration by this Government, a new written Constitution, a new Bill of Rights which may and probably will be put before the people-no doubt there will be a referendum on that because in the accepting of the NEW by the people, they will override the OLD. No doubt the other Party to the Treaty of Magna Carta has not been asked or Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II has said “NO”.
It is quite clear that should “LISBON” become active by ratification by all 27 Countries, its Laws take precedence over any Constitution, even a new Bill of Rights and a new written Constitution, made by this Government.
At the moment our Parliament still holds a full compliment of OUR STAFF-we have only just found out that WE pay them-while the people are losing fast their jobs and their lovely homes they have scraped their hard earned money for.
If the EU is instigating 70% of our laws, why have we still got a Full Houses of Parliament as well as the twelve Regions of the European Union?
I would like some reform of the appointments system, so ennoblement isn’t linked to a seat. What would the problems be if all appointments were made on merit by the commission with party recommendition lists. That way all appointments will be merited and if the PM needs someone, it is possible to get them.
Lord Mandelson does have some good experience as a european commissioner, and i like the government to have the experts it needs. It’s an advantage of a presidential system we would do well to have.
Oh, and nowhere near 70 percent of laws come from the EU. The best estimate is about 35 I believe – Tom Harris wrote a blog post about it if you’re interested.
I just knew one of you would come back with 35%. That figure is of course disputed yet you seem to think it fine that 35% of our laws are instigated by foreigners? When there has not been a REDUCTION IN MP’s or in their pay? The people are hurtiing. The people are angry. The people will indeed in the end have their say and I pray it is not in the way that is being played out in Iran at present.
Do you think that the people will accept seeing foreign service men/womon and foreign Police walking down British Streets fully armed when they have had their rights to have guns -Bill of Rights 1688- removed from them?
“Agreement between the Member States of the European Union concerning the status of military and civilian staff seconded to the institutions of the European Union, of the headquarters and forces which may be made available to the European Union in the context of the preparation and execution of tasks referred to in Article 17(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including exercises, and of the military and civilian staff of the Member States put at the disposal of the European Union to act in this context (EU SOFA) Brussels, 17 November 2003”. Which had been presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, March 2009.
See EU Directive in the Official Journal of the EU, C 321/6 dated 31.12.2003. Not just a decision by our own Government, for our Government was simply obeying orders of the EU.
Matthew: I don’t think your 3rd point stands up to scrutiny (‘that you’d probably end up with similar party split in the two houses’) If the Lords were elected counter cyclically with the commons then obvious points when the government has been unpopular and some years away from an inevitable electoral loss would feed into that vote. So in ’95 or 2007 a countercyclical vote would have if not certainly given a majority to the opposition in a second chamber at the very least given them a voice far stronger than the last commons election. As the vote would not remove the government it might also become a powerful punishment vote which might have seen a strong effect at or around say an election close to the war in Iraq or after the Poll Tax.
The tendency towards a divergent vote would be stronger were the constituency different – say by county as per the US senate is by state – or an alternative voting system.
Yes, I think I should conceed that point iff elections for the two houses were held at different times. I stand by the rest of my comments, though 🙂
I’m not even sure they should have abolished the hereditary peers’ rights to sit in the House. These are people who had taken their jobs very seriously, having been raised from birth with the expectation that they would one day sit in the Lords, which meant an awful lot to them. To take this away, throw away centuries of tradition, was a fatal mistake, though perhaps necessary because such peerages (as far as I am aware) could only be carried by men.
If we elect the Lords, we’ll be losing all those skilled people there who just simply wouldn’t want to stand for election and do all the pandering and posturing that such an event entails. The elected chamber would consist entirely of political parties, largely in the same proportions that the Commons would, or at least not in the same sort of proportion as the Lords does now.
I cannot believe the cheek of Jack Straw. This expenses fiasco is the result of career politicians doing what they believe they were elected to do: make as much money out of politics as possible. This is not so in the Lords. Such a scandal is unthinkable in the upper house, where people feel they need to demonstrate their legitimacy, rather than in the Lower House where it is taken for granted by a great many who ought not to have it.
Lord Norton,
As you may know from previous comments I am by no means a fan of Lords Reform, and generally think the House of Lords does a good job. But you have failed to understand just how seismic recent changes in the House of Commons are, and what effect they will have on you.
You might think that is a bit rich coming from me, since you work there, and I don’t. But the point is that the expenses scandal, the ‘cash for amendments’, Gordon Brown’s ‘YouTube’ film and views on a ‘daily allowance’, and the appointment of people like Glenys Kinnock as members of the cabinet, serving in the Lords, have changed the terms of engagement.
If I didn’t like Peter Mandelson’s views on the euro I could, if I lived in Hartlepool, have helped to vote him out of the office of MP. Now that he is un-elected, and I would argue doesn’t really belong in the Lords anyway, if he starts pushing Gordon Brown to drop his ‘five tests’ there is NOTHING and I mean NOTHING that I as a mere voter can do about it.
Now a couple of Lords have recently been sent to the ‘sin-bin’ for their misdemeanours over ‘cash for amendments’. But say they had not ? Or that my view was that they should be booted out permanently ? There is absolutely nothing I can do about it.
As the recent council and European elections have shown, voters want to be able to punish the miscreants and teach them a lesson possibly at the expense of their careers. Up until now this has been largely unnecessary because the Lords have been men and women of honour, whose ‘word was their bond’.
NO LONGER. People are simply no longer willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and a sudden, irreversible sea-change in attitudes of deference and respect has taken place and we will never be back at the situation pre-Trousergate. It is like the Garden of Eden – once the fruit has been eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil the information cannot be unlearnt or our memories of the ‘duck houses’ redacted as easily as it has been done on the ‘official’ records of MPs expenses.
It may strike you as unfair to be caught in the cross-fire as ‘collateral damage’ but life is not fair, and gaining the ‘benefit of the doubt’ relies on the Lords having maintained a ‘whiter than white’ image which was above reproach.
I detest Jack Straw as much as the next man, and I hold no brief for his ill-considered proposals – but you seem to be labouring under the delusion that this is a ‘little local difficulty’ which will pass and everything will soon go ‘back to normal’ after everyone has had a relaxing summer break. I suspect that it will not, and that we will never be able to turn the clock back to before that disk of information landed in the lap of the Daily Telegraph.
If you don’t accept that, maybe the best suggestion is to spend the summer exploring the pubs and hostelries of parts of the country well away from the Westminster Village and take the temperature of the public at large. You may get a shock.
I’ve not noticed any great “we must ditch the Lords” groundswell here in Sunny Coventry. The plural of anecdote isn’t data, but I think your case that everyone wants to chuck the Lords baby out with the Commons bathwater is weak as stated.
I always note that when a Lord-reformist posts on here, Lord Norton is never fsr behind with a devasting retort which reveal the hollowness of the reformists’ arguments; but when Lord Norton posts, reformists clamp up.
Essentially, Mr. Straw’s argument is elected chamber = warm democratic fuzzies.
Where’s Lord Taylor?
Bedd Gelert, you have spelt out the problem far better than I could ever possibly do. We have been told time and time again that all we have to do to get out of the EU is to repeal the European Communities Act 1972/3, not only do the three major Parties do not want to, although they have had thirty plus years to make it more ‘friendly’, they have failed to see the true agenda I also believe it would be very difficult to leave after Lisbon. (Yes I know there is a Get out of Jail card which really belongs still in the Monopoly Game.) but I doubt very much that that will be possible after Lisbon, if it becomes active. I say this because in obeying EU orders we have left our Country (very) vulnerable, worse than in 1937-1939 something that I never thought anyone in this Country would ever do again.
Not only that, because of the EU and the UK’s Protection of Critical Infrastructure and all the different Nation States Security Strategy Programmes, the EU knows our strengths and weakness’, and there are certainly many weaknesses where there should have been strengths. Our troops have been altered to fit in with the EU Battlegroups as have the weapons etc. Had this information been given away in war time, it may well have been a hanging offence, that is of course, if the people had not got to the offender first as they did once during that war.
The Government would be wise if they left everything as it is at the moment because the people do not trust them to do ANYTHING for this their Country at all. ALL for themselves forst and eU second. Sadly, what is happening even now in the Commons has spilt over into the ‘upper’ House. You do not need me to spell out what the people are saying, just read the blogs. With or without the people of Ireland voting “NO”, the people of this Country will never be governed by the EU.
Now tell me if you can, has our remaining territorial Seas been transferred to the EU yet for the EU’s “Motorway in the sea”?
The Lord Chancellor is given to nervous giggling when challenged by a committee of his peers. He has a mischievous sense of humour. As a barrister even his name falls into this category as ‘a man of straw’. On these terms his article is entirely to be expected but not to be taken too seriously.
He is given to populism, and is close to the Prime Minister who values his council. What may have escaped you all and in the same spirit of mischievous humour is that he is in this instance a scarecrow stuffed with straw.
In the children’s novel written by Frank L Baum, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Baum himself in the introduction makes an assertion about his book:
“It aspires to being a modernized fairy tale”
This is New Labour and its transformation by Lord Mandelson [et al] from Socialism to Populism. The scarecrow (Oz) link author goes on to say:
“In his first appearance, the Scarecrow reveals that he lacks a brain and desires above all else to have one. In reality, he is only two days old and merely ignorant. Throughout the course of the novel, he demonstrates that he already has the brains he seeks and is later recognized as “the wisest man in all of Oz,” although he continues to credit the Wizard for them.”
Should Jack Straw be Prime Minister?
Interestingly, ‘The Gold Standard Representation of the Story’ link says:
“The scarecrow represents the farmers of the Populist party, who managed to get out of debt by making more silver coinage. The return to bimetallism would increase inflation thus lowering the real value of their debts.”
Could this be regarded as ‘quantitative easing’? Who is the Wizard?
Lord Tyler’s principal argument for an elected second house is that the Commons will only acknowledge its voice if it is elected. In other words the House of Lords is irrelevant to the Commons because of populism.
The public must see through this charade and be prepared to do the right thing when the right prospectus is placed before them. That prospectus may not come from the Commons.
Ref: The Gold Standard Representation of the Story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz
Populism: Academic Definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
Scarecrow (Oz)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarecrow_(Oz)
Adrian Kidney: absolutely right! Jack Straw should be honoured though, I can’t think of an intellect I’d rather have my ideas smashed by.
By the way Lord Norton, your writing style is very different in this post. Rather cutting, very sarcastic, but quite witty in places. My only criticism is that you forgot to mention your previous, more comprehensive, post on the subject (although the seminar link seems to be dead). Also the link to that Times article is dead — do they only leave them up for a certain amount of time, or has Jack Straw had it retracted in shame at ‘Lord North’s’ scathing attack?
Bedd Gelert: generally I agree with your points, the Lords should not be appointed by the PM, however Lord Norton would probably agree with that. So I don’t believe he’s as out of touch as you think. 🙂
Further, remember core accountability. Lord Mandelson can advise Gordon Brown to do anything he likes, true. However, if Gordon Brown follows through on that advice, it is he who is accountable. That means you can help vote him out in the next general election, for following Mandelson’s advice.
That said, I agree with the idea that the current system of patronage is a bad thing and should be replaced entirely with the Lords Appointments Commission (for what little that opinion is worth!)
Thanks for all the comments which are much appreciated.
Ladytizzy: In many respects, your question is answered by the comments of Ruth Deech. The PM speaks in favour of an elected House but does seem to make significant use of his power to appoint members to an appointed one. There is merit in using such a power – it opens up a significant wider pool on which to draw for ministers – but one has to recognise that obviously it would disappear in a wholly elected House. Even in a predominantly elected House, there would be the issue of whether the non-elected (20%?) places were to be filled wholly by cross-benchers or whether there would be scope for prime ministerial appointments.
I’ll skip over, if I may, the exchange between ladytizzy and stephenpaterson on human trafficking, though ladytizzy’s point does draw attention to the scope for raising diverse issues in the House.
Troika21: There is indeed evidence for the point you are making. Studies by Professor Anthony King and Peter Riddell have drawn attention to the rise of the career politician in the Commons – people who (in Max Weber’s term) ‘live for politics’. We have always had them in British politics but they are now more pronounced in number in the House of Commons; Peter Riddell charts this in his book ‘Honest Opportunism’. This increase is arguably a consequence of wider changes in our political life, but it does emphasise the complementary nature of the Lords, drawing, as you indicate, on people with a range of experience and expertise, able to look at issues from a different perspective to that of members of the Commons. That, I think, is wholly healthy. I am not sure there would not be much value added by creating a second body of career politicians.
Stephen Maclean: Thanks for your observations drawn from Canadian experience. The point you make about popular perceptions of the two chambers is very revealing and somewhat mirrors the situation in the UK, as reflected in the poll undertaken for the Constitution Unit. As you say, any human institution can from profit from needful reform. I am very much in favour of changes designed to strengthen the Lords in fulfilling its functions. I think we do a good job, but with some modifications I think we could do an even better job. But these are reforms designed to strengthen and not to destroy. There is a case for arguing, in both the UK and Canada, that most reform is needed in respect of the elected chamber. I write as one who gave evidence to the McGrath Committee in the 1980s.
Len: There is no reason at all why we should not have such a debate; or rather some of us would be very happy to participate in one. I have variously been involved in short TV debates with politicians who favour an elected House, but these have been as part of news programmes. Persuading a TV company that it merits a more extensive debate is the challenge.
Jonathan: As you will see from my opening response above to ladytizzy, I take very much the point you make regarding appointments. If one were to reserve seats to elect non-party members, it is not clear how you could police this. It used to be the case in local government that ‘independent’ candidates were elected, but many were simply party supporters parading under an independent label.
Matthew: I agree, not least on your point that, while we do a good job, we could do with a broader spread of professional expertise. I am all in favour of having a statutory independent appointments commission which is proactive in identifying any gaps in the knowledge of the House and then identifying able people who can fill those gaps; it could ensure that we are a more diverse House than is presently the case. One advantage of the appointments process is that you can move quickly to ensure a more diverse membership. Your query about enabling people to know how and who to contact in the Lords is one that we are addressing at the moment; it is something that is being considered by the Lords Information Committee in its current inquiry into the relationship betweeen Parliament and the public. We need to make easily available to the public lists of peers’ interests and information on how to contact them.
Croft: You encapsulate the point splendidly. This is precisely the sort of tangle that proponents of election get themselves into. If you favour election, you have to recognise that then arguing that the second chamber should have its powers reduced (as some have) is not really a tenable argument.
Harp: I disagree in respect of bringing people into the Lords to hold ministerial posts. I think there is a case for this (see my comments above). I do accept, though, there is a case for senior ministers in the Lords to be able to be questioned by MPs. They already can and do appear before Commons committees. There may be a case for allowing them to appear in the chamber of the Commons; another proposal, which I find attractive, is to allow them to take part in debates in Westminster Hall. I am in favour of enabling peers who wish to do so to take permanent leave of absence (in effect, retire); otherwise, I have no problem with the existing arrangements. Some of the best members of the House have been the oldest. Some have particular knowledge that is invaluable.
Anne Palmer and Len: I think the 70% figure is just as disputed as the 35%. Whichever, there is still a lot left for Parliament to do in terms of domestic legislation; and an awful lot of EU legislation to be scrutinised. Anne Palmer: membership of the EU is indeed in perpetuity under existing treaties. Does not the Lisbon treaty introduce a power to secede?
Croft: I agree with you as the likely consequences of election if the elections were to be counter cyclical. There is a problem whether the elections are concurrent with those of elections to the Commons or held mid-term.
Kyle Mulholland: You are correct in that many, indeed most, hereditary peerages devolve through the male line. The issue with the hereditary House was not just one of inheritance but also the effects on the political balance within the House. I agree with you about election and your concluding observations are relevant to my response to Bedd Gelert below.
Bedd Gelert: I’m sorry but I think your argument is on a par with Jack Straw’s. I refer you to my earlier post on constitutional change not being the answer. What we are witnessing is a crisis of confidence in the political class, not in our political structures. There is no increased clamour to elect the second chamber. I don’t need to visit pubs and clubs to find that out. That was clear from the unpublished data in the poll carried out for ‘The Times’. The changes people most want to see relate to the Commons and MPs. There is no obvious logic to the argument that the people’s elected representatives are mis-using a system of expenses, so let’s have another body of elected representatives. If peers break the law, they can and do go to gaol. In future, if they engage in gross misconduct, we may gain the power to expel them. In the context of your argument, it is worth noting that, though the Commons has the power to expel members, that power has not been used since 1954 when Captain Peter Baker was expelled. In short, I don’t accept your argument at all.
Adrian Kidney: Many thanks. Your comments are appreciated. As I make clear in response to Len, I’m happy to engage in debate if any reformers wish to.
Senex: I agree that there is an element of populism in this. I think the issue has to be addressd on its merits. Playing to the gallery can be counter-productive, especially if those in gallery would rather be watching a different play.
Liam: Well spotted. Mind you, had I penned my comments immediately after I read Jack Straw’s article you may have found some of the features you mention even more to the fore! As you will have seen, it is a subject on which I have done a number of posts, but I wasn’t aware that the earlier link to ‘The Times’ was no longer working. On appointment, I have argued the case for a statutory independent appointments commission, one that – as I mention above – I would like to see take on a proactive, rather than simply (as now) a reactive, role. Your opinion on this is as valid as anyone else’s and something I will certainly be happy to use in making the case for such a commission.
Thanks again to everyone for the comments. I’m sure there will be more….
Matthew: Thanks for your further comments, which came through after I had finished the above. I am grateful especially for your observation from Coventry.
“In future, if they engage in gross misconduct, we may gain the power to expel them.”
Gee, thanks !!
“In the context of your argument, it is worth noting that, though the Commons has the power to expel members, that power has not been used since 1954 when Captain Peter Baker was expelled. In short, I don’t accept your argument at all.”
This makes the point better than I ever could – If people don’t like the way MPs behave they can get rid of them. Nobody can get rid of Lord Ashcroft, Lord Archer or Lord Mandelson, no matter how much they may detest them. ‘The Times’ poll numbers ? Well, they are a changin..
Bedd Gelert: Not quite correct. Over 600 peers were got rid of in 1999. And how does my point about Peter Baker relate to the capacity of electors, as opposed to members, to get rid of a parliamentarian?
Kyle Mulholland: Adding slightly to Lord Norton’s comment something like 1/3 of scottish peerages can (ultimately) descend to women and a much smaller number of English/British titles mostly baronies by writ but also a handful of higher titles including a few earldoms and at least one dukedom.
Lord Norton: I know in the past peers were invited to the bar of the house and given seats so they could address the house of commons (usually after receiving thanks) the last I’m aware of was the Duke of Wellington but there may be others? The commons used I remember to seem to enjoy dragging newspaper editors to the bar to vent their anger but this seems to have fallen out of fashion. I’m not clear why Lords’ ministers couldn’t appear at the bar which removes any issues of entering the house. I understand all ministers, not just those in the commons, are susceptible to a motion to dock their pay so there are some teeth if needed. I’m not aware of it having been attempted for a peer in the modern era?
The house of commons seems to be buzzing with the word reform. I notice it does not mean a massive change in the commons. In my opinion if they wish to get rid of the house of lords or reform it to such an extend that it is a senate that we need to completely re work the entire system. After all its the MP’S who caused this ruckus! If they dont want what we have which is the envy of the world then we should just carbon copy the American system. At least its a system most people understand. In my opinion however i believe our government should simply stick with what we have. After all it works!
Lord Norton: I thought it was still the government’s position and eventual intention to put the Salisbury Convention on statue and bring in some form of Lords’ bill timetabling. Rather than just ‘some’ the majority position in the commons seems therefore to be between the status quo and reduced powers. Assuming the Lords were wholly elected I can’t see how the argument cannot start at equal powers and have to be argued from their. After all there is no reason it has to present gridlock – both houses could have primacy in different areas leading to equal power but not on each issue. Finance primacy for the commons and perhaps treaties or matters pressing on judicial independence or similar to the Lords would be an obvious example of a division of labour.
Lord Norton,
Margaret Moran feared the electors so much that she is not even defending her seat at the next election. Since WE the voters are the masters.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/25/lady-camberlege-sleaze-lords
Of course, in the Lords, they don’t need to fear the voters and can get away scot free. I would support the Lords if they actually signed up to the ‘personal honour’ thing – but I think you will soon find no one is willing to make that assumption and give the ‘benefit of the doubt’.
Lord Norton – you always make a powerful case where reform of this nature is concerned. Sadly, it seems that the Government are determined to press ahead with reform. Quite what they are intending to do, however, is somewhat of a mystery.
The Prime Minister has annouced today that “a draft Bill will be brought forward for a smaller, democratically-constituted second chamber.” What he means by that is anyone’s guess!
Croft: I agree that hauling people before the bar of the House of Commons appears to have fallen out of fashion, though I suspect there are some contemporary newspaper editors that MPs would quite like to call before the bar to apologise to the House. Having a minister from the Lords appear at the bar of the House to answer questions may be a little unweildy; I prefer the option of using Westminster Hall. Though there have been cases of motions being moved to dock the pay of a minister (on one occasion, I recall, being carried!), I am not aware of one to reduce the pay of a minister in the Lords, though the motion could indeed cover any minister. The lack of such a motion may reflect the fact that relatively few ministers of Cabinet rank have sat in the Lords.
James Clarke: I agree that there is a need to address Parliament as a whole and not simply the House of Lords. One cannot change substantially the second chamber without having a clear view of the role of Parliament and the relationship between the two chambers. I have made the point before that I do not see the logic in the argument: ‘The House of Lords is working well, the House of Commons is not working well, reform the House of Lords.’
Croft: On the Salisbury convention and a limit on the time that Bills can spend in the Lords, these were in the Government’s election manifesto but I believe that, as a result of the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions, ministers realised that they were not practical. I agree that one could make a respectable case for the proposition that there should be equal powers in the event of two elected chambers, with each having precedence in certain areas.
Bedd Gelert: I am not sure how much difference there is between an MP deciding not to contest the next election and a peer heeding peer pressure and absenting themselves from the House. There is a review already underway to review our code of conduct and a provision is expected to be included in the Constitutional Renewal Bill to empower the House to expel members.
Blue: Thanks for your comments. I agree that we need to find out precisely what is meant by the Prime Minister’s statement. The wording is ambiguous.