Many of you will have read of the Tory plan to ship in a large number of peers if they win the 2010 election. The rumour is that up to perhaps 40 will be rapidly ennobled, so that the Tories have a substantial majority (and get their legislation through) and to fill any gaps in expertise on the front bench – hence (Lord) Danatt.
This is rather a lot and will swell the House numbers considerably. Nor does this take into account the so called Dissolution Honours, customary at the end of a parliament. This could mean a further 30 or even more. There is bound to be media discontent about the growing numbers of peers, possibly close to 900, at a time of stringency. Moreover there is seating room in the Chamber for approximately 350 peers and regular blog contributors will know that unless you have a seat you cannot enter into the debate – you cannot speak from the aisles, from below the bar or from the steps. So what is to be done?
Well, on average the daily count of peers attending is about 425 – and not all at once. Individual peers drift in for particular debates and the most crowded time is during the daily 30 minutes of Questions at the beginning of the working day. However there are a significant number of peers who do not attend on a regular basis, or at all! It therefore seems sensible to introduce a retirement option which could reduce our number by as much as 250 peers. At things are at the moment – peers can take leave of absence and during this leave cannot enter the chamber, but few take this option. Proper retirement for those who have not attended in the last year or so (discounting absence due to illness) should become mandatory. I regret to say that there is one peer on the crossbenches who has not shown his face in the House for well over 10 years!
Rescue is at hand! The new bill Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill which the Goverment intends to get through before the election has a section which deals with this and other pressing reform matters. Part 3 of the bill puts forward measures to get rid of hereditary peers by-elections: to suspend or even expel those who seriously breach the Code of Conduct: to allow resignation from the House of Lords and the relinquishing of titles, among other measures.
As one who has always resisted the idea of a fully elected House but who is nevertheless keen on incremental reforms (which can have profound consequences) I am in favour of this ‘rationalisation’ of some of our arcane practices. Any efforts to make the House of Lords a more professional, independent and upright place will get my vote.
More pork – More expenses. Why not increase the size of the club, get your soon to be unemployed mates into some cozy little employment.
Turn up, sign in, have a spot of cheap food paid for by the rest of us, nice bottle of wine, paid for by the rest of us.
After all, its far nicer than turning up at the dole office.
That same dole office is full of people who’ve handed over thousands so the Lords and the MPs can carry on in the life style they think they deserve at the cost of everyone else.
Here’s a far simpler solution. Get rid of the Lords completely. Abolish it. It makes no difference anyway unless you’re one of the elite.
Either the Commons gets it right or it doesn’t.
If you want a control over the commons, lets have a referenda every 6 months. Yes or No, to each bill. That will give the electorate the democratic say over the commons.
The only objection is that if you want to see things put into power against the will of the electorate.
Nick
PS. Getting rid of the Lords has one advantage. No redundancy pay. You’re on expenses, remember.
I have tendered some suggestions in comments on Lord Norton’s posts that are related to this and might seem radical and expensive but actually I believe are neither. However, they are very ambitious. I would propose a modest change here instead.
Suppose one could preserve both the trait of life tenure and degree which are essential to the House while aleviating some problems. I know that your bill mentioned does not include these possibilities but if instead of retirement or reliquishment for some of the causes mentioned a Peer could go into the status of a Lobby Peer. Here one could return to service and sit in a lobby of similar peers where roll would be called and electronic media would allow all activies in the House to be seen and heard. The House would have to change some rules to allow these peers to elect a few representatives to go into the chamber or certain occasions and to have very specific forms of voting at some minimum level. Long term attendance at these events would trigger an automatic nomination to Chamber and regular privileges.
One of my most respected models of many things Charles de Secondat Marquis Montesquieu wrote that aristocrats have the role of resisting radical change and I am sure this would be uncomfortable. However, it might be a way to solve many problems in the short and intermediate term without affecting constitutional principles.
If so many Lords simply don’t turn up, what’s the problem? It is highly unlikely they are all suddenly going to attend on the same day and so run out of seats. And they draw no salary and only receive allowances if they attend. The trouble with introducing compulsory retirement for peers not attending for a year is that they will simply turn up once a year just to be counted!
I don’t see why lords need to attend all of the time. If there’s a debate that happens to be on their area of expertise, they could make a useful contribution. As long as there’s always a quorum, it doesn’t always have to be the same peers. And if you force people to attend more regularly, you will end up with even more of a regional imbalance than at present, as most peers will live in London.
Will Lord Black be welcomed back into the House when he comes back from his holiday in America?
What if they don’t turn up? The problem is they are turning up to sign in and get their cash. DSouza has said that “Well, on average the daily count of peers attending is about 425”
Now, switch on the the TV channel and look next time you see the Lords in the Chamber. Notice the lack of seats? Nope, plenty of seats, hardly any Lords. Out of that 425 you might be lucky to see 30. The rest are living it up in the bars or have buggered off. The evidence is there for you to see.
I think you’re looking at the wrong debates, then. The Commons is known to be as deserted (if not more so) at times.
It depends on the context of the debate, too.
And Nick, I would also question whether the count is simply of the chamber, or whether it is the entire place which would involve the many committees as well. And bear in mind that some peers would not attend all debates and would simply go to the ones that they felt best placed to debate and vote by way of interest, knowledge or experience. Not all peers would be in all debates all day. They also research topics for other debates, they meet and discuss issues with other peers and ministers in person.
It’s not really accurate to assume that the only work the House of Lords does is in its chamber.
I have a serious question that will not sound serious.
I agree with Jonathan, in his ocncerns, but just to add to that…
What if we dont reform the House of Lords any further and let it continue as is. What woudl be the harm?
I dont see it as sometign that has irreversably damaged society, and certainly it hasn’t been that bad.
Making peers like Lord Ashcroft who are a bit, er, cagey about their tax affairs be a lot more transparent about their residency status would keep a lot of the carpet-baggers at bay I’m sure.
Or you could adopt ‘hot-desking’ [hot-benching?] thus forcing people to turn up to work early to ‘bag a bench’ [no towels allowed !] on a first come, first served basis.
Nick, the Chamber is only one place where work goes on in the Lords, much of the work goes on in committee, in informal meetings and in research. It seems sensible to me that the people who are especially interested in a bill or a debate should be those that participate on the floor of the house. Nothing wrong with that.
I’d like to echo Lady D’Souza’s support for the constitutional reforms being introduced soon, especially the introduction of a mechanism for retirement. While Jonathan is right that if people don’t turn up they don’t cost anything, there are too many people who turn up rarely and sort of drift through the proceedings without making a substantive contribution. And there are some who are simply past it; as a geriatric psychiatrist I am particularly careful not to think about the problems in an ageist way…but there are age-related problems. There are plenty of peers in their late 80s who make a telling contribution which we wouldn’t want to lose; but there are others, some considerably younger, whose physical and mental vigour has declined to the point where they should be encouraged to retire. But we must be honest about this, people won’t go unless there is an inducement retirement ‘package’. There are many peers, probably far more than is generally realised, for whom the modest allowance is an important contribution to their annual income and yet who might be tempted to retire by a modest inducement lump sum. Until we have a legislative change to formalise retirement there is no mechanism to provide for this. The Senior Salaries Review Body which is currently examining the House of Lords Allowances system is due to report this Autumn, I hope they will have considered the possibilities of the proposed legislation.
So lets look at the arguments.
1. The Commons is empty too.
This is the Jack the Ripper defence. It’s the same as Shipman claiming he can’t be prosecuted for Murder because Jack the Ripper got away with it.
Just because the Commons is empty doesn’t excuse the turn up, sign in and collect the cheque.
We have Lord Paul as the latest in Today’s papers. The latest being caught that is. Out and out fraud if you ask me. Nominating a property as his main residence, occupied full time by one of his employees, so that he can claim expenses even though he never spent a night there.
We have a rough idea of the percentage of MPs who have been fiddling expenses. 50%.
So on the question of committees, some how I doubt it. So far not one Lord has come along and given any hard evidence as to what 400 plus Lords are actually doing there. We have hard evidence they aren’t in the Chamber. We’ve had the claim they can’t speak because the Chamber is so full is blatently false. Why make a claim that they can’t get a word in because they can’t find a seat when all and sundry can look at channel 81 on freeview, and see just how many empty seats there are?
Nick
What if we dont reform the House of Lords any further and let it continue as is. What would be the harm?
The better question, if we abolished it would the man or woman in the street notice?
No they wouldn’t. They are a complete irrelevance. The percentage of legistalation changed is miniscule. The number of stupid laws on the books is high. ie. They revise bugger all, they haven’t prevented much either.
ie. We can get rid of them and save lots of money and start paying off the trillions in debts. If you’re a worker, you have 300K plus interest to pay off. Not prevented by the Lords, made worse by having to pay them.
If you want real control and overview of the commons, you need to give the electorate control over politicians. Make them the servants they should be. That means giving the electorate the final decision.
Nick
Frank Summers, your scheme does sound a bit too complicated and I am not certain of the overriding benefits?
The question as to whether or not we should maintain the status quo is an interesting one. On balance I think that some reform must take place – the House of Lords is already far bigger than any comparable second chamber and it seems needless to perpetuate the system of ensuring that all those elevated to the peerage should necessarily become a member of the Lords. The two could easily, and I think fairly, be de-coupled.
Of course it is true that the wide range of existing expertise must be safeguarded. I reckoned some months ago that the HoL needs a minimum of 450 peers to cover all the Select Committees and ministries – but that is still way off the 900 mark.
No – the Chamber is rarely full – but there are times when there is a real crush. If we are moving towards better attendance and better commitment to being on top of all the topics implicit in the bills that come before the House, it surely is more sensible to have the majority as ‘working peers’. In turn this means that those who wander in sporadically and who my friend and colleague, Baroness Murphy, points out do not always help to progress the work of the House on account of their age should be offered the opportunity to retire with dignity?
Alas, I fear that a reasonable retirement ‘package’ is not on the cards; ANY additional expenditure mooted by the authorities would not I fear be supported by the public.
Bedd Gelert- a ‘hot-benching’ practice already exists – and in the case of the crossbenchers who regularly overspill on to the back benches of the Tory section of the Chamber is not always welcomed.
Err?
If the Tories win and no new peers are created they will (still) be the third largest group behind the XB and Labour? If Labour creates ~30 new peers in the resignation list then the Tories will be some 45+ peers behind labour. So even if the Tories created 40 peers they would not be the largest party let alone have a ‘substantial majority’ as you put it.
Of course it is true that the wide range of existing expertise must be safeguarded. I reckoned some months ago that the HoL needs a minimum of 450 peers to cover all the Select Committees and ministries – but that is still way off the 900 mark.
Really. Why then does the US only have 100 senators, and they do more than the House of Lords?
Nick
Baroness D’Souza: There seems to be some confusion about the role of the house, perhaps its time for a refresher and I would refer readers to the house library note and comments made in the third reading of the Life Peerages Act 1958.
The third reading refers to topics that are explained further in the pdf.
Another appropriate read is: The House of Lords at work: a study based on the 1988-1989 session by Donald Shell, David Beamish, Study of Parliament Group. However, at 165 USD it’s a nice little earner for its authors. A preview is available on Google Books.
Perhaps Lord Norton might extend to Google copyright license to publish some of his academic works online?
Ref: HoL Library Note: The Life Peerages Act 1958
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HLLLifePeeragesAct1958.pdf
Ref: Life Peerages Bill; Third Reading
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1958/apr/02/life-peerages-bill-lords
There is no confusion.
However, firstly, why is my post Oct 11, 1.11pm still awaiting moderation? It is comming over as censorship because you don’t like the message.
The issue isn’t the role, its over what the Lords achieve against the cost.
The cost is vast. Have no doubt about it.
The vast majority turn up, sign in collect the cheque. They aren’t in the chamber, and we shall see how many are in committees. More on that at another time.
So what are the achievements?
1. Lots of trips to exotic lands.
2. Large drinks bill
3. Large food bill
4. Large expenses bill
5. Control over government debt? Failed.
6. Control over bad government legistilation? Failed
It’s an expensive failure
Nick
Nick, I have a solution to the Irrelevancy to the House of Lords. Undue the reforms of 1919.
That way the Lords can simply reject the insane laws.
I’d also not make them subject to the endless Life peers beign selected by political parties to ensure a voice no matter what, and allow all of the hereditarians bakc in. I’d just have a sort of “Master chamber” that told us which Lords to summon on which occasion.
I think that’d be a better idea.
Have the Lord Chamberlain and a cabinet actually sort through profiles, and arrange the Lords in a filing sustem by expertise. If we are dealing with Tax laws, find those who are adept at tax laws. If we are dealing with War Issues, find those Lords who have war expeirnce or otherwise know a good deal bout stratagy or forign policy. If we are dealing instead with moral legeslation find those best suited to argue the law.
Then simply summon the needed Lords.
This prevents both problems, of Lords being irrelevant and Lords not turnign up. Few would fail to show up if they were summoned.
I dont think makign the Politicians more answerabel tot he electorate will in the end work, as it didnt int he US. Both the Hpuse of Representitives and the Senate here have career politicians who inact stupid laws, and no one stopps them. The viters get angry yes, but in the end nothign changes.
Also Nick, the US Senate is mroe active than the Lorsds becaue its allowed ot be more active. The House of Lords has real power to revise bills, or even kill them. The Senate can simply refuse to pass a bill and it never reaches the President. The Lords haven’t had this kind of power in a long time.
If we reformd the US Senate int he same way we did the Lorss in the early 20th Cwnutury, fewer of those Senators woudl bother to show up knowing full well that whatever Legeslation the House of Representitives passed was already law and there was little they could do about it.
The way you act, the Hous eof Lords and US Senate have comprable powers, but they don’t, and I fear that many Lords don’t take the House of Lords seriously preciciely because it lacks real power, not because the House is itself irrelevant.
Well Baroness D’Souza has said that on average over 425 turn up each day. Some more rarely, but on average 425. ie. We have in effect 425 Lords “working full time”.
The US gets away with 100.
Either the Lords are completely over manned, or they are exploiting the expenses, or both.
In all cases, we are paying over the odds.
Nick
Oh and one small correction. It was 1911, not 1919, sorry for the blunder.
Senex,
This could be taken as a more harsh crtique of Commons than I intend by quite a wide margin. However, going through the third reading makes me think (as I have thought before) that for Britain to have allowed Dickens to publish “The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club” it must have had a great deal of freedom of the press and capacity to chuckle at itself.
I suspect that it would take more than I can offer to convince Nick of the value of the House of Lords – but I’m going to have a go.
I think there is a need for a second chamber which has the role of revising legislation if only because the pace and volume of work in the House of Commons necessarily means that much of the legislation is not examined line by line. This is what the Lords does and it is certainly a fairly unglamorous task and thus not one that reaches the public domain. But it goes on day in and day out and between 2007-08 the Lords tabled a total of 7,259 amendments to Government legislation of which 2,625 made it to the statute book.
Some of these amendments are seriously important and affect the lives of us all. For example, the Lords voted down Government proposals to extend the pre-charge detention period to 42 days; the Lords voted for the retention of the 14 day embryo and for stem cell research to continue; the Lords pushed for amendments to the Genocide law enabling the Courts to prosecute suspects who had committed crimes prior to 2001; the Lords voted against assisted suicide for the terminally ill. These are not trivial issues.
You might also consider that peers are not paid a salary and therefore in some cases the job is necessarily a part time one. This means that one needs more peers, as compared with US Senators, to carry out the functions required of them.
Croft, you may be right on numbers but the point I was attempting to make is that there will be an influx of new peers immediately after the election and that if the Tories win that influx may be very great!
I was fairly exasperated by Blair’s mass creations of peerages and not keen for it to happen again. The problem, as you perhaps see first hand, is that the majority of the Conservative peers in the Lords are not exactly ‘Cameroon’ in their politics/outlook so I expect that Tory high command has concerns about their voting and finding ministers.
When it comes to committee or being in the chamber, we shall see. You’re now back at work.
So I’ve submitted a FOI request for the number of committees sitting today, and the names of the Lords who turned up for those committees.
20 working days time and we can see how many Lords out of the 400 plus you say turn up on a daily basis were ‘working’. Add on a handful for those in the chamber, and perhaps something for double counting, and we can see how many are turning up, signing on and collecting the cheque.
Out of those ammendments, many are government amendments where they’ve got it wrong and adjust it after the fact.
So, 2007-2008, lets say you made an adjustment to 2625 lines. How many lines did you not adjust?
As for a salary, why not do away with the entire lords? Much cheaper.
Why 900 and not 100 like the US with 5-6 times the population and they do more?
Why are we paying a full time per diem allowance, tax free for 400 plus to turn up on average each day? These are your own figures.
ie. On average it takes 400 Lords full time to monitor legistlation, but it only takes 100 senators full time.
We’re a developed country. More and more laws solve nothing.
You’re grossly ineffcient.
For example, oversight. Why didn’t you stop Lord Paul on his expenses? Why are the Lords now doing the police work in investigating? Why hasn’t he been reported to the police like Lord Taylor?
For example, lets say I discover a murder. Should I investigate like Miss Marple, on the ground I discovered the body and so are best placed to investigate?
It depends. If you get in the way of the HoC, them more Lords will be appointed.
In reality its the standard trick. Offer people a choice of A or B, and they won’t think of C, D, E,… the other options.
The option that has to be consider is to reduce the number, increase the number, or Axe completely.
Axing completely and giving MPs a proper scrutiny role means that they might do something for their money instead of being lobby fodder. It also means we can save vast amounts spend on the Lords.
Don’t forget the worker on minimum wage pays well over 2.5K a year in tax. That means lots of people have been impoverished to pay Lord Paul’s expenses. Lots.
Nick
Nick, workers on the minimum wage do not pay well over £2.5Kpa in tax even if they work the maximum 48 hours per week. Assuming a 48 hour week, and minimum pay of £5.80 per hour for an adult aged 22, deductions for income tax + NICs amount are c.£2.4K.
If working the standard 37.5 hour week, total deductions are c.£1.5K, and for an 18-22yo, c.£1K.
You are of course excluding all the indirect taxes like VAT/Road tax/Congestion charges/stamp duty which actually constitute the majority of tax paid by the poorest as they generally pay low rates of direct taxation.
Of course. And I’ve also omitted working tax credits, child tax credits etc.
I guessed I wouldn’t make any headway, Nick! However, I regret I have no more time as there are three committee meetings coming up.
I’ll take it that you’re admitting defeat.
There are effectively 425 full time Lords by your own admission.
You haven’t answered the question about why the US manages with 100 senators to actually do more work than the 425 Lords. It’s pretty obvious why, because there isn’t an answer bar the fact that you are overmanned and therefor expensive.
You’ve said you are in the chamber or in committees. Well, On the chamber front, you haven’t commented. About 50 we’re there.
On the committee front, lets see what happens with the FOI request. We will know who turned up on the 12th, what committees, and therefore how many actually do something.
So when that comes back we can make some headway.
So far we’ve come a considerable way to showing that as an unelected Quango, you’re not up to the mark
Nick
Nick, And the cost of the U.S. Senate each year is what?
Nick,
I see Lord Norton got to my question since I got from my e-mail here.
1. Senators have healthcare and retirement benefits and a private clinic far above what most Americans have and vastly superior to whatthe least advantaged have.
2.They receive millions of dollars yearly in campaign donations of which until recently they could keep the unused “war chest” when they retired.
3. They can retire at maximum funding and be supported for decades after much fewer years than the average American.
4.There campaign funds expenses include food, drink, limousines, chartered jets, hotels, aides and assoicates with whom they sometimes father children who are either kept on retainer or set up for contact.
5.They almost always have a home in the district of Columbia and in their State and this is often protected from tax to some degree by their role as both a part of district government and a part of the US government.
6.Senators have access to a panoply of government services and privileges superior to those of their House colleagues by a traditional ratio of their getting about 1% of an alottment where the Representative gets 1/435. This may be changing.
7.Senators have all got their own offices and a dedicated staff that they share with nobody at all.
8. Senators all have their own seats and without a closure motion can speak as long as they want on any issue whatsoever.
9. Senators are the recipients of significant and little reviewed cooperation and support from their home State governments.
10. Aside from the advantages enjoyed as Senators they participate as the senior not less privileged players in all advantages enjoyed by the Congress as a whole.
I more or less like the Senate find. Although I would reform it in some ways if I could. However, I would not argue that it is cheap.
I’ve no doubt the senate is expensive, for Americans. They’ve voted themselves the perks.
However, they do more with only 100. We can then sack 800 Lords leaving 100, full time. That saves lots of money, helping lots of poor people or pay off some of the debts.
Heck, we could even try democracy and elect them.
There is the alternative, get rid of them completely and have commons committees audit legistlation.
Nick
Nick, I answered why the US Senate does more. its not because its Democraticlaly elected, it did more even before it was.
The reason is because its allowed to do more.
In 1911 the House of Lords lost its ability to refuse legislation, and could only revise the Commons legislation.
This means that whatever law is passed by the Commons, even if it is absurd or intrusive, this will become law, in some form. The only power the Lords retain is revision.
Even if you make the House of Lords all elected next year somehow, you’d STILL be faced with this problem. Unless and until the House of Lords is granted more substantial legislative ability, then we shouldn’t;t expect them to do as much as the US Senate, which has much greater legislative power than the House of Lords.
Its not like making them elected will magically give them this ability. You’d have to change the law that prevents the Lords form refusing or drastically altering legislation. You could have done that when the House was all Hereditary.
Zarove,
Still no answer as to why the US, who do more needs 100, and the UK 900 members of the second legislation.
Even if you make the House of Lords all elected next year somehow, you’d STILL be faced with this problem.
At least we could kick them out for fraud and asking for money to change the law.
However, think. What would happen if we abolished the Lords completely?
We’ll apart from some Lords who would have to get a real job and not rely on the rest of us for a living.
Nick
I’ve lost count. Whose turn is it?
Nick: You really don’t get it, do you? 100 Senators by themselves could not do much at all. The reason they are able to do what they do is because of the sheer scale of the resources available to them, both individually and collectively – the infrastructure of each Senator’s office (especially those representing the large states, such as California) is enormous, as is the infrastructure of each Senate Committee. The Library of Congress is a major resource, unparalleled in the world. The demand on the public purse is enormous. If you tried to replicate that in the UK, the cost would far exceed what we have in the House of Lords. We get the second chamber here on the cheap. The reason for that is largely historical. It was assumed that members have outside incomes; many peers do indeed have jobs. It is because some don’t that allowances were introduced, but no salary. The infrastructure of the House is lean – it is run efficiently. The capacity to reduce costs is limited. Removing peers who don’t attend would save you, well, more or less nothing. If they don’t attend, they cannot claim anything.
I don’t disagree with any of the above though I would expect that the administrative costs of maintaining/supporting a large number of offices for less regular peers would be cut with a smaller number of more regular peers even if the latter were somewhat better resourced. In the same way that it is generally more expensive to have 2 staff job sharing than one full time.
Croft: The cost of maintaining/supporting offices for less regular peers is fairly minimal. If you start having full-time peers, with research support, the research support will be new and not an amalgam of existing research staff.
I apologise Lord Norton, this is something of a tangent; I don’t know whether you have read Tribes on the Hill by J. McIver Weatherford, but if so I was wondering how accurate it is in the US of today. I hear that Congress as a whole is much less independent today than it was in the 1980’s, with more presidential influence, but I don’t know how true that is. Certainly it seems like the financial arrangements haven’t changed much!
Thanks!
Nope I do get it.
We are paying 425 Peers each day to turn up. If you don’t believe me ask Baroness D’Souza.
Now cutting that to 100 peers saves money. We only pay 24% of the expenses. (Income in reality)
However, I’ve an even better proposal. We get rid of the house of lords. That saves even more money.
MPs are underworked. They don’t scrutinise legistalation. Far better to have the work done by elected MPs, rather than poltical appointees.
If they need particular expertise, allow them to call witnesses.
Even that is a compromise. The expenses issues (I notice another Lord’s been reported today for fiddles) shows that you all, both houses cannot be trusted. We have a majority of the House of Commons have been found to have fiddled money from the public purse. To re-emphasise, the majority. The entire system has been found to have been corrupt.
Even now, there is talk of appointing more Lords to get the votes the next government wants. ie. Get lots of new Lords so that there are no revisions that the government doesn’t want. Democratic? No, Corrupt.
Instead of appointing another 100 lords, we can just abolish you and make things far cheaper.
In the meantime you’ve just signed up a failed speaker.
One of your own speakers isn’t sitting whilst he’s investigated.
Gordon Brown’s been reported to the Commissioner on standards.
…
Corruption and expense is rife.
Each one of you Lords has had lots of people on the povertly line pay thousands in tax to keep you in the style to which you’ve become used to.
I’ve posted the figures as to how much tax someone on minimum wage pays.
*****this paragraph has been removed by the moderators*******
So come on, your a constitution expert.
Why don’t we abolish you, and have referenda on each act?
Look at what that achieves. The government has to take care to get it right. Each act has to have the democratic support of the majority of the UK electorate.
At the moment, the government forces acts through. If the Lords started refusing, it either forces them through or it appoints more lackies. You’re redundant. Why should we pay for a redundant house?
Nick
In fact less than half of the peers have a desk space let alone an office within the Palace of Westminster. As to costs, the latest estimates are as follows:
Total Cost of running annually –
House of Commons £391 million
House of Lords £107 million
Avearge annual cost of
MP £245,000
Peer £26,000
Nick, you are misquoting the POTENTIAL figure of up to 900 peers – the current number is in fact 740!
Nick: You still don’t get it. You are so off-beam that it is difficult to know where to start. Picking up on an earlier point of yours, it is worth remembering it is not the same 400+ who turn up each day. If you rely on 100 peers, this changes the nature of the institution, since the members will be full-time and have resources which existing peers do not have. At the moment, the House exists on the goodwill of members; the allowances are fairly incidental. Once you change it to a full-time institution – seeking to emulate, say, the Senate (on which you have now gone silent) – then the nature of the work changes fundamentally, as do the costs. You are no longer able to run it on the cheap.
The Commons may presently have a light session but generally MPs are far from underworked: a 70-hour-week is not underworking. The Commons cannot cope with its existing workload, especially in relation to legislation. If it cannot cope now, it certainly could not cope in the event of the second chamber being abolished. The Lords adds value to the legislative process. That point is generally recognised. The suggestion of replacing the Lords with a system of referendums is facile. Leaving aside the practical point that relatively few people would vote (there is research of all national referendums held in the history of the world to support the point), you cannot hold referendums on all aspects of legislation: the number of amendments considered in the Lords each year runs into the thousands, with votes running into three figures. That cannot be replicated through referendums.
Corruption is not rife and I am starting to get rather sick and tired of the nonsense that is spouted. Too many people are willing to generalise on an N of a few. The creation of new peers after the next election would be to give the governing party, as now, a plurality of members in the Lords, not a majority. It reflects the maturity of the system that Government and Opposition accept that no one party should have a majority of seats in the Lords – unlike in the Commons.
it is worth remembering it is not the same 400+ who turn up each day
==================
Agreed. That is why I used the phrase “equivalent of 425 full time” peers.
If you average 425 a day out of 720, that is the equivalent of employing 425 full time peers in terms of costs etc.
As for corruption not being widespread, it depends on your definition of corruption.
If you think expenses fraud isn’t corrupt, then you may well be correct.
If you think that corruption that hasn’t been discovered isn’t corruption, then you are wrong.
Lets look at the facts relating to the House of Commons. How many MPs have been sent letters saying that they have overclaimed expenses. The general public views that as being corruption. It’s MPs overclaiming money and that is corruption.
If you rely on 100 peers, this changes the nature of the institution, since the members will be full-time and have resources which existing peers do not have.
That’s your assumption. More money. I personally prefer abolishment. Get rid of the second house completely and let the MPs do the job. However if we cut it back to 100 full time, why do we need to pay them US style salaries? Why do we need a huge staff? Lords are very fond of pointing out they have lots of skills. Why pay them if they don’t have the skills and have to employ others?
Referenda are not facile as you dismiss them. You are deliberately in my opinion distorting what I have said. I said referenda with a yes/no vote on each act. You’re now claiming I’ve said that referenda should exist on each clause.
It’s also particularly rich when you claim a disadvantage is that relatively few people would vote. Compared to what? A handful of votes in the Lords when your conventions allow it. Average of 425 who turn. Do you really think there would be a referenda where fewer than 425 people vote? ie. You are confusing what MPs could do just as well, refine acts, with voting on the actual acts themselves.
The N of the few. Just ask yourself if the number of Legg letters sent out is a small percentage of the number of MPs.
I would still be interested in the value of the House of Lords. Are you worth all the tax of 107,000 people on minimum wage? [1]
Nick
[1] Calculations from a fellow Lord.
Nick: Offences can only be prosecuted on the basis of the law, not public opinion. Right, you would place all the burden of legislative scrutiny on the Commons, a burden that it cannot cope with at the moment, let alone if the second chamber disappears. You would introduce referendums. Here is a task for you:
(a) Find the figure for the cost of holding a national referendum.
(b) Find the number of Bills introduced into Parliament in a typical session.
(c) Multiply (a) by (b).
(d) Work out how many people on miminum income could be covered by the amount in (c).
(e) Take the annual cost of the House of Lords and subtract it from (c) to find out how much your proposal costs in excess of the cost of the current arrangements.
You will then discover why your proposal doesn’t work even in your own terms.
I may do a separate post on why it is more appropriate to refer to referendums rather than referenda!
It depends on how you organise referenda.
Back to one of your critisms.
You’ve said that the problem with referenda is the small turn out.
Why is that a problem when currently the turn out for the Lords is about 425?
Why should you get the vote and not me, my neighbour, …
You still are not saying why the Lords is worth all the tax from 75,000 people on minimum wage?
It’s important. Currently there is a borrowing requirement this year of 220 billion, an over spend of 180 billion. The level of government debt is in the trillions when you add up govenment bonds, pension liabilities, … Since you are basically a Quango, and one of the more expensive quangos, you aren’t doing a very good job justifying the expense.
That’s why I’ve proposed my prefered setup which is referenda. It works elsewhere in the world.
Failing that just straight abolishment works too. Based on the fact that the Lords don’t really add much. You might modify some legistaltion, but you allow through vast swathes of bad legistlation. As a filtering/revising chamber collectively you don’t do a good job.
For example, let me give you one thing that is completely under the Lords control. Corruption within the Lords.
Why hasn’t the Lords passed legistlation outlawing cash for ammendments and making a breach of these rules expulsion for life from the House of Lords?
It’s a serious offence, and my understanding is that there were limited options available as a sanction in this case. However, collectively you have had time to address this and make it the serious offence that it should be. Hasn’t happened from my searches.
It’s a legacy where Lords were assumed to be honourable. Honourable Lords wouldn’t behave in that way, so we don’t need to do anything about it.
I’ve just done a little calculation based on what one of your fellow lords has said.
Apparently you make 2,500 successful amendments a year. There are 720 of you.
About 3 1/2 amendments a year per Lord. Not particularly productive would you not agree?
What about cost per amendment?
107 million, divided by 2500 is circa 43,000 pounds per amendment.
These are staggering sums of money.
How can you claim that the Lords are value for money when your productivity is put as starkly as that?
Nick
Get rid of all the Hereditary Peers? Are you forgetting the Treaty and Act of Union Article XX11? Remember that there were only Hereditary Peers at that time and that Sixteen Scots Peers shall be the number to sit in the House of lords. For if you deviate from that number, it may be just the nudge wanted for the SNP to encourage Scotland to become a completely Separate Country. I know as far as the European union is concerned, but as far as the people of Scotland are concerned Scotland is a Nationand Country.
Obviously there is a great difference between a “life” Peer and an “Hereditary Peer”, otherwise there would have been no need to remove all the Hereditary Peers.
The “Privileges Committee’s brief (20 October 1999) was to report on “whether the House of Lords Bill, if enacted upon, would breach the provisions of the Treaty of Union 1707 between England and Scotland”?
We already know the answer was “NO”, for the House of Lords was decimated, trashed, by this Government in their efforts at alleged “Modernisation”. I had a brief of my own, which was to try to understand why a government that had been elected to serve High Office, having sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen could set about to destroy the constitution of a Country which they were, albeit temporarily in charge of.
The two separate countries, states and nations (Kingdoms) of England and Scotland merged together into a Union on 1st May 1707 and the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain was born. In support of this I offer Sir Hersh Lauterpacht’s observations in Oppenheim’s Peace, 8th edition, pp155-156: “A state ceases to be an international person when it ceases to exists…By voluntarily merging into another state, a state loses all its independence and becomes a mere part of another”. (We would do well to remember exactly those words because this is what will happen to the United Kingdom if ever the EU Constitution is ratified! Now renamed the Treaty of Lisbon.)
Clause XX11 remained the source of great difficulty in removing the hereditary Peers for it states quite clearly in the Treaty of Union 1707 that 16 is the number of Peers that should remain. (There were no ‘life’ peers at that time). There is no doubt what so ever that had the numbers not been agreed upon, exactly how many Scots hereditary peers should sit in the House of Lords and how many Scots MPs should sit in the House of Commons, in fact, if there had been no ‘Article XX11, there would have been no Treaty between the two Countries.
As Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said (27th July 1999) “There is no doubt that the Scottish Parliament would not have agreed to the Treaty of Union if the position of Scottish peers in this House and of Members of Parliament in the other place had not been entrenched”.
If, once the Treaty had been ratified the new Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain had tried to remove the hereditary peers a couple of weeks after ratification, it may have resulted not only in the break up of the new Union, but perhaps a new war. It would not have been lawful then and it is not lawful now and could lead to the break up of the Union even now.
The alleged deletion of Article XX11 by the Peerage Act, was in the eyes of eminent Lawyers, ultra vires. I too believe that it was, otherwise I would not be writing this. I am well aware that eminent lawyers and Law Lords have looked at this argument, but this brings forth another question. “Whose rule of law were they going by? Is it the European Union’s, or is it the United Kingdoms”? The Act of Union is part of our
intricate Constitution. It is part of the law above the law to which all should be serving. There is also strong evidence that Article XX11 is entrenched and I quote from Lord Slynn of Hadley, Privileges Committee Second Report. “The more complex question is whether the Bill, if enacted, would violate Art XX11 of a Treaty which is an entrenched part of the Constitution of the United Kingdom” Has it been served well in this case?
The question arose as to whether this particular Article (XX11) was ‘entrenched’ or not, and of course it was decided by some that it was not. However, we are talking about a Treaty here and as we are all too aware, a treaty cannot be altered to suit one or the other, as we have found out with the treaties we have ratified with other countries. If the Treaty needed to be altered, then the peoples of Scotland and England should have been consulted separately. It has been said that both countries involved that took part in that treaty and Act of Union 1707 (of unification) no longer exist. The people of Scotland most certainly exist and they will tell you in clear tones that they are Scottish. The English people seem to be more reserved! (For now-but do not underestimate them when roused!)
At this point it is well worth writing down a statement by Lord Renton (Hansard 27th July 1999) “My Lords, before the Minister sits down, if I heard her correctly, she was saying that the treaty between England and Scotland in 1706 was a treaty between two countries, but not an Act of Parliament. But in the Union with Scotland Act of 1906 which I have obtained, as amended, from Volume 10 of Halsbury’s statutes on Constitutional law, we find that the treaty is embodied in that statute and is therefore still part of the law of the United Kingdom. We cannot escape that fact.”
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (12.2.2004-col 1298) “I understand that the proposed new Supreme Court is to be the Supreme Court of Scotland.” “It is also, as I understand it, not proposed that appeals in relation to criminal matters should come to this Supreme Court. Therefore, it is not accurate to describe it as a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom because in that respect it is not the Supreme Court of Scotland. The High Court of Justicary is the Supreme Court of Scotland in criminal matters, and of course there is the Court of Criminal Appeal set up by statute for appeals on indictment. These all stop in Scotland and never come, so far as I know, to the House of Lords.”
“When the devolution settlement was set up, it was proposed that there should be an appeal effectively to the Law Lords on devolution issues. But some devolution issues could well involve crime. Therefore, it was felt inappropriate to have devolution issues come to the House of Lords from Scotland because they might innovate on the exclusion of criminal appeals from Scotland to the House of Lords. The proposal will reverse that. Therefore, there will be a very serious question about the extent to which criminal appeals from Scotland will arrive in the House of Lords”.
The question has to be asked WHY cannot the House of Lords or a new Supreme Court hear appeals on criminal matters from Scotland? For that we have to once again look at the Treaty and Act of Union 1707 Art X1X, “That the Court of Session or Colledge of Justice do after the Union and notwithstanding thereof remain in all time coming within Scotland as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom and with the same Authority and Priviledges as before the Union subject nevertheless to such Regulations for the better Administration of Justice as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain etc, etc”. (The spelling from the ancient Act, not mine-I can make enough spelling mistakes of my own!) The Government really should not try to “cherry-pick” from the Treaty of the Act of Union, it is after all a Treaty and cannot be altered willy-nilly.
The Government of course, if they wish not to destroy the United Kongdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, need to up the Numbers of the Scottish Hereditary Peers forthwith. If they wish to continue with the destruction of the United Kingdom and the violation of their solemn Oath of allegiance to the British Crown, it is up to them but Labour will not always be in Government.
Nick: It doesn’t depend on how you organise referendums. There are basic requirements if you hold a referendum. I notice you have completely avoided the question I put to you and instead try to deflect the issue. I suggest you get to grips with the exercise I invited you to undertake. Basically, you want a system that adds little – it is not clear you have read the comparative literature on referendums – but costs a lot. what you advocate is extremely costly and would, in addition, get rid of a major means of legislative scrutiny. The House of Lords makes a significant difference to the content of legislation – one estimate is that it makes twice as much difference as the Commons – and substituting referendums does not add anything in relation to ensuring that the legislation is drafted effectively. All you are arguing for is the equivalent of a national vote on the Second Reading of the Bill.
Your researches on the sanctions available to the Lords has clearly been pretty minimal. Have you not looked at the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (Clause 28 to be precise) now before Parliament?
Yes it does.
The problem with electing a representative, is that you have to vote for the bundle of policies. (In the case of the Lords, we don’t even get that)
There is no obligation on an MP actually even doing what they say they would do. Witness Brown and the referenda.
There is no obligation on them not doing things they haven’t told you about.
ie. It’s the complete lack of democracy on the issues that is the problem, combined with what I view as corruption politicians.
So here is a proposal that makes referenda cheap. You are allowed to nomimate a proxy. They either vote the way they want, because you trust them to make a decision for you. Alternatively you could have proxies for lots of people. They are allowed to vote their proxies according to your wish. For example, they set up and run a website where you log on, and cast your vote. The proxy then votes for you. Parliament doesn’t pay for this.
Now, if you want to change your proxy because you’ve decided that you don’t like the policies of your nominated proxy, you can. It’s only the switch that needs a registration.
You still get your vote. However, its the same as my vote.
That way we get rid of all the Lords and save lots of money.
We can even get rid of lots of MPs too. All they are responsible for is introducing legistlation and making sure it is written properly. We could even have petitions for legistlation.
Then all we need is the ability to recall MPs.
We could even have the ability to recall a Lord and get rid of them. Democracy.
The House of Lords makes a significant difference to the content of legislation – one estimate is that it makes twice as much difference as the Commons
No. You’re not counting the fact that the bill originates in the House of Commons.
So I’ll challenge you on this. How many lines get scrutinised a year, and how many get changed. If you don’t change more than 50% of all legistlation, you are wrong. Mind you I suspect you didn’t quite write what you meant to say. I suspect you meant to say, we make more changes than the commons.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (Clause 28 to be precise)
So lets see. If you accept money to change legistlation, what offence will you have committed? None. Unblieveable. No crime, just booted out for accepting money to change the law. Is that not a fair reading?
Why doesn’t the proposal say up to 10 years in jail on conviction? Why isn’t it a criminal offence?
You’re not exactly being tough on corruption. It’s still being treated as a matter of honour. Effectively, we will kick you out of the club.
Why don’t you have a clause saying being a Lord and having a criminal record is incompatible and you lose your peerage?
In reality, you need a website, each clause is posted, and people can comment Lords and all.
Nick
WELL if we used Nicks logic and followed through, I suppose the best way to save money is to abolish the House of Commons which costs far more.
Well, nopt really since Nick has an ulterior motive. He wants more Democracy, and see’s the Lords as not Democratic enough. The Corruption charges and the complaints of the costs are just excuses to bolster this claim.
However, Democracy should not be our aim, just and fair Governance should be. One need not be Democratic to be just and fair, and can be corrupt as a Democratic institution.
Nick, I think you have simly embraced the modern love affair with Democracy and simply want to enact it to fulfill your desires for a Democratic society, in the dreamlike belief that this will somehow solve all our problems, bu if the Democratically elected Commons are as corrupt and underworked as you suggest, how can, by your reasoning, we know elected officials are our solution to corruption?
I would propose something else entirely.
The only revision I think is needed is to overturn the reforms from 1999 and 1911, and give the Lords real power to alter or even eliminate bills passed by the House of Commons, whilst restoring to Peerage the Hereditary Lords.
I also think a new, permenant (But small) commission can be erected to summon Lords who are expert in certain fields, to discuss new laws and their ramifications that happen to be in that SPhere. Thus, if a new Tax Law was beign discussed, those Lords skilled in economic affairs or monetary matters woudl be summoned. If Military affairs, those who know STratagy woudl come up. If the matter before the Lords is one of Moral consideration, summon the Bishops and others who have skills in moral matters. If the Environment is the issue, summon those who know of Environmental Sciences.
That way we get the clear headed, rational Lords, who are knowledgeable about the topic being discussed, helping make the laws.
I don’t see that happening with an all elected house of Lords, or abolishing the Lords in favour only of the Commons. Elected politicians are good at being mouthpiece’s for concerns of the populace, and good at running campaigns, this doesn’t make them experts in the range of fields the Lords are.
How can you easily corrupt a referendum?
Can you bribe 50% plus one of the electorate? It is difficult. You can’t pay for holidays for all the electorate? Well not for long anyway, because they will get the bill and complain.
You say that you have particular expertise in the Lords. It’s true, some of them do. However, there is even more expertise in the population in general. However, that only matters when it comes to framing the law. It doesn’t matter when it comes to saying yes or no to making an act into UK law.
So that is why I’ve said there should be a website where all can comment on acts of Parliament. Everyone can comment or propose amendments so you get the expertise of people not in the Lords. There is more there than outside.
However, the major reason for getting rid of the Lords is they aren’t effective.
2,500 amendments a year, 720 Lords, 107 million.
That means 3.5 amendments each. ie. On average they produce 3-4 sentences a year. I suspect the majority don’t produce any amendments, and that most amendments come from government ministers.
The cost per amendment is 43,000 pounds.
So let me follow this up. I’ve read the rules for the Lords. It’s still not clear to me that all Lords amendments originate in the Lords. I’m certain lots come from the government and a proposed by ministers in the Lords. They are just acting as mouthpieces.
So to determine this, I’m prepared to get an FOI request in.
Something like, name of the Lord, number of amendments proposed in the last 3 complete sessions of the Lords. ie. A year prior to the summer holidays.
That way we can see who are the productive Lords.
So I think overall you are making assumptions about my aims that are wrong.
I want to abolish the House of Lords because it’s productivity is so low, and its cost so high. It doesn’t add much to the democratic process, and certainly not enough to justify the cost.
I want to abolish it because it is not democratic. Enelected Lords should not be in charge of the law, because they cannot be held responsible by the electorate.
The Commons have certainly been shown to have a problem in that Legg has asked for cash back on the grounds of breaches of the Green Book and/or the Commons Code of Conduct. [His Notes to MPs on the review’s approach to the ACA rules]
Giving the final say on all acts to the population solves this and I’ve proposed a mechanism that is cheap. Namely referenda by proxy. It even address aspects where you say that you need experts to decide. So if someone wants a Catholic Bishop to vote for them, they nominate the Bishop as their proxy and they vote on the final acceptance or rejection of acts. If you are like me and want the final say, I can see people setting up services. You nominate them as the proxy, vote via their web system over the net and they vote according to your wishes on a case by case basis.
There are many ways of getting a cheaper, more democratic, and hence better system into place.
The downsides are that the electorate probably won’t do what the politicians want. The ability to override the public and force through something against their will isn’t there.
Nick
Perhaps I may be permitted to bring you into to the present day situation. AS there is now a strong possibility of the President of the Czech Republic ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon, what would be the point of keeping on either the House of Commons or the House of Lords? The EU can then govern us Directly through the EU Regions. The Parliament of Scotland is after-all an EU Region as is the Northern Ireland Parliament. The Welsh Assembly is an EU Region as is the London Region and there are eight more scattered thoughout ENGLAND. Let me write ENGLAND once more for that will soon become a name in the dim and distant past.
Let us face it, and be quite frank. The people simply cannot afford to pay for all these extra regions as well as two full Houses of Parliament and after all the people did not have a ‘say’ for had they have done, they would have saved their own constitution and government, even the present Labour Government rather than accept anything that is contrary to their Oaths of Allegiance to their Queen (British Crown).
As for the Democracy that ZAROVE writes of. If we used our Vote, what choice would we have had? For ALL three Political Parties want the same thing. TO REMAIN IN THE EU. Ah yes, we have a choice of three, it looks good and they have different names, but ALL WANT TO REMAIN IN THE EU. It may be ZAROVE’s kind of Democracy, but it isn’t mine.
Anne is correct. It is exactly the problem. When Politicians resort to imposing on the electorate and doing things they do not want to have imposed, its not democracy it is dictatorship.
The EU is part of. The Lords is another. We have no say in who is a Lord. Resorting to being a peer by birthright is just as bad, although it has an element of randomness that patronage doesn’t.
Nick
PS. I will keep posting, even if you don’t want to approve the posts. Censoring people who disagree with you is just another sign of a dictatorship
Nick: If you send several comments in quick succession, they tend to get diverted to the Spam folder. For some reason, some of your comments get through and others end up in Spam. I have found that you are not the only one who triggers this.
Lady D’Souza forgot to mention in this article that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill also has another major effect. It will allow life peers to renounce their peerages and to stand for election to the House of Commons. Thus, if and when Labour lose the general election, which is more or less the pre-supposition of this article, sneaky Lord Mandy will be able to install himself in a safe seat. I think that there is something in there about a period of five years in between a renunciation of a life peerage and an election to the House of Commons, but it would seriously surprise me if a little bit of amending by Labour peers were not able to resolve that flaw.
O yes – what I meant was…install himself in a safe seat so that he can become leader of his party. Typical of Labour to use their last bit of time in office to further their own party interests – though it would be quite an interesting constitutional experiment if he were to become leader of his party while in the Lords.
Whether Labour gets its Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill through Parliament or not makes no matter.
a) because no Parliament may bind another
b) because if it bites into the people’s Common Law Constitution, it will have to be put before the people or the Crown, or the people will ignore it.
c)The people are so angry at the moment they might either only obey all EU law direct and do away with a UK parliament altogether-isn’t that the ultimate end-the demise of UK Governance for that is what has been going on since 1972. Just be ruled by the EU though its EU REGIONS-So-the people just simply give up?
d) You forget the people have a ‘choice’ and there is nothing to say the Conservatives will ‘get in’.
e) People might think it time this present Government sorted out their own mess.
f) decide to vote only for a True British government that actually wants to govern this Country themselves, working with other Countries but not and never to be governed by them. That rules out any one of the three major Political parties because ALL THREE WANT TO REMAIN IN THE EU.
TAKE YOUR PICK.