A committee of MPs has just reported on ways to “make the Commons matter more, increase its vitality and rebalance its relationship with the executive, and to give the public a greater voice in parliamentary proceedings”. It was set up by the House of Commons in the wake of the expenses revelations and was chaired by the independently-minded backbencher Dr Tony Wright. As I worked with him – and with Robin Cook – on reform proposals when I was Shadow Leader of the Commons, I have studied the recommendations with great interest.
However, it is the implications for the Lords which should concern us here. If Parliament as a whole is to be more effective (restoring the public’s trust and justifying the taxpayer’s cash) both Houses have to work harder to hold the Government to account.
Some ideas to improve our performance came up in our debate here on Monday. Lord (Jeff) Rooker, a very experienced and respected former Minister, set the tone with a plea that the Lord Speaker should be allowed to fulfil the role we elected her for, taking the lead away from the party politicians in the House. Amongst other ideas, he made a very useful suggestion about legislation which currently gets such inadequate scrutiny from MPs: should not the Commons provide a certificate to show which parts of a Bill coming to us from them have been fully examined and which have not ? The Wright Committee goes further, recommending better management of the report stage of Bills in their House – taking it away from the Government. It is obviously silly that the very people who are being scrutinised currently decide what the focus should be and how long it should take. That’s a recipe for evasion.
Other participants on Monday – including, significantly, Lord Butler, former Cabinet Secretary – endorsed Lord Rooker’s views, and I did too. Hopefully, the Lord Speaker will now see the Wright Committee report and our debate as an urgent opportunity to put our own House in order. And hopefully too the Labour and Conservative leaders in the Lords won’t continue to get in her way.
These seem very sensible and long-overdue ideas to improve the House, Lord Tyler. I’d like to see the Leaders of both Houses made non-political positions, ideally!
Why oh why oh why are there Party Politics in the HOL ? This should be the house of free thinking, knowledge and wisdom not tow the party line. The children in the other house being spiteful to the messenger, forgetting about the message are enough as far as party politics go.
Why is it I can sit with a person with an IQ of less than 80 watching the commons and they know they are watching children bickering ! 10 years ago the Labour Gov had a deficit of ??? 20 years ago the Tories had ???? Who cares about all this point scoring cos I don`t play for the other team. GROW UP !
I though the HoL was the sanity, the adult house where they cared about the Country and it`s people and da*n well put them first. But no, it`s party first. Can you not see that this is where people have lost faith, lost interest. All they think is politicians are there for is to line their own pockets.
Rant over !
—————————————–
“Amongst other ideas, he made a very useful suggestion about legislation which currently gets such inadequate scrutiny from MPs”
I would very much like to know who ACTUALLY writes the bills ? I really cannot imagine an MP sitting down and writing one, so who does? And how much input do they have ?
Please excuse my ignorance.
No need to apologise Carl – perfectly good question.
Bills are the brainchild of whatever MP thinks of them (and in the case of the government, the minister or ministers), but they are all aided by the Parliamentary Counsel, a body of lawyers based next to Downing Street who specialise in framing Bills into parliamentary language.
I understand that once a Bill has passed First Reading it goes to the Counsel for review, in consultation with the MP that proposed it in the first place.
Thanks Adrian for the answer.
So if, as my Noble Lord Tyler suggests, these bills often do not get adequate scrutiny by MPs they could contain things other than was intended in the first place ? Also if they are written by a body of Lawyers, who presumably know how the Courts work etc., why so often do we hear about parts of bills that won`t/don`t work or are unjust ?
—————————————
Getting back to party politics, which by now you`ll know is a personal hate of mine. We put into place in this Country a system where no one knows how you vote at an election, so you cannot be coerced(to a degree) or bullied. Imagine if you will a big Union and no secret voting system, now if that Union was a closed shop and they told you to vote “Labour” else you`d lose membership, wouldn`t that be appalling ? Immoral ? Criminal ?
If you didn`t vote the Union line, you`d lose membership of the Union and possibly your job as it is a closed shop ( I know the law has changed now).
This is what is going on regards whips and voting the party line. It`s criminal, nothing else, pure blackmail there is no other word for it. We have way`s in this modern age where voting could be done electronically, privately which is the way it should be.
Yes I do understand the need for transparency and it would be nice to see which way your MP voted but not if he did it under duress out of fear of losing his job from someone who didn`t employ him.
I cannot abide bullying, it`s something I grew up with, something my Nation always stood for,even fought wars for. It`s so wrong what happens in the House, it says to the Nation “don`t do as I do do as I say”. The House would outlaw this practice in any other sphere of life. It`s not democratic, it doesn`t represent the electorates wishes and has to stop.
While I understand what you’re saying I’d hesitate to condemn the whipping system *too* much. The Whips aren’t simply a bunch of thugs who cajole and threaten wavering MPs into toeing the party line (though there are ample cases of this), the other side of the Whip system is to provide a service to MPs, aiding them with problems they have and accomodating them as best they can without detriment to the interests of the party.
Additionally if you removed the Whips (something that’s nigh impossible anyway), party line-toeing would persist, as MPs tend to vote for their party’s line anyway, because they sympathise with that party’s philosophical outlook. Of course, there are incidences where this is not the case (particularly where the MPs see the party as straying from *their* line) and we sometimes see the bullying you mention.
Lord Norton wrote an essay on Lords whips and voting a few years back, and he highlighted the fact that while whipping is the Lords is weaker and less effective than the Commons, Lords still tend to vote on party lines – not because they’re told to, but because they generally agree with the line taken. The tendency remains, however, much weaker than the Commons.
<>
Like so many people, I had a mild set to with John Prescott (bless ‘im), and I don’t know which Sel com chairman was keeping him waiting, outside his committee room, but whoever it was
fully intended to go a little further to doing what this topic urges;
….whilst I, unwitting, became embroiled in the question.
The Whips aren’t simply a bunch of thugs who cajole and threaten wavering MPs into toeing the party line (though there are ample cases of this),
Isn’t that a bit like saying Ronnie and Reggie were nice chaps because they loved their mother?
Bring on referenda by proxy, and abolish the hose of lords. Everyone then has equal voting rights, and patronage is dead. It’s also hard to whip the electorate
This is what is going on regards whips and voting the party line. It`s criminal, nothing else, pure blackmail there is no other word for it. We have way`s in this modern age where voting could be done electronically, privately which is the way it should be.
For individuals, certainly. That’s why referenda by proxy is the cheap solution.
However, when it comes to a representative, all should be above board. Everything. Expenses the works. More so for those not elected.
Radavan Karadzic is very fond of his too, according to numeous YT videos.
The real problem of the second chamber is AGE!
How many people are there under 50, and how many of those who are under 50, speak to the Chamber, as though they are Care assistants in an old folks’ home?
Answers on a card.
The same may apply to the age 60.
Some people have all their wits about them at the age of 90, but not that many. Repartee is not really a part of the armory of the agéd.
Quick thinking and intellectual agility?
whips and voting the party line. It`s criminal, nothing else, pure blackmail there is no other word for it. We have way`s in this modern age where voting could be done electronically, privately which is the way it should be.—quote nickleaton
The extreme example of this was the Iraq war vote, for which of course the lib dems are the only ones who do not have very heavy responsibility, as they voted against the war.(if I remember aright)
I suppose we could also introduce Applause at the same time as electronic voting?!
There must be copious stats on the time wasted doing that in the EP.
“should not the Commons provide a certificate to show which parts of a Bill coming to us from them have been fully examined and which have not ?”
And that helps how? It must be perfectly obvious to peers which parts of bills have been timetabled so they are not debated in the commons – how does a certificate help? If it means you spend little time on those clauses the commons says it’s scrutinised then you can guarantee the government will use its majority to issue a certificate regardless of the reality of scrutiny.
Perhaps the proposals have changed but last time I saw them being discussed the government wasn’t being stopped from timetabling bills so the ability of the house to actually scrutinise long bills is very easily restricted even under a new system where MPs chose how to apportion the allotted time.
“when I was Shadow Leader of the Commons”
Liberal democrat Shadow Leader of the Commons! There is only one ‘Shadow Leader of the Commons’ and that’s in the official opposition – but you know that perfectly well.
The only real problem is “knock-on” effects of acts, which cause the validity of a different Act and its Clauses to be compromised.
They are invariably noticed by the professionals, if not by the parliamentary debaters themselves,and when they are noticed then another act has to be emended.
Quite a lot of Annual Regulation (from govt dept.) passes on the nod, and a good deal of the minutiae of Bill resembles those annual regs, so the perceived problem may not be a problem at all.
Looking for perfection in the wording of acts is surely not a valuable exercise! Looking for workmanlike functionality certainly is.
“Looking for perfection in the wording of acts is surely not a valuable exercise! Looking for workmanlike functionality certainly is.”
Which is how tax evasion happens !A court case can rest on the definition of one single word.
There are two issues.
1. What does the House of Lords change? The answer turns out to be a very small part of legistlation, and most of those I suspect has been the Labour party correcting its own mistakes in the bills from the commons.
2. Huge parts of legistlation aren’t up for the lords to change. Laws from the EU, laws created by dictate of ministers under enabling legislation. Huge areas of finance related are all out of scope for the lords. At the end of the day, they don’t change much, but cost a fortune.
3. Then there are the errors. Laws they have allowed to pass, and that makes them complicit in my view. They are the government, all of them since their responsibility is the law
So.
Removal of habeas corpus was allowed.
Removal of trial byy jury has been removed
Presumption of innocence.
Allowing people to be jailed for not self incriminating
Allowing enabling acts
Allowing parliament to be come a secondary law maker
Allowing the expenses to be committed by lords and not stopping it.
Allowing bribery of lords not to be a criminal offence [After all why are you now changing the rules?]
…
“Which is how tax evasion happens !A court case can rest on the definition of one single word.”
Or avoidance, because of the case law definition.
The act is only the beginning.
If the courts decide that the law means X, then its not tax evasion. It’s legal.
“Labour party correcting its own mistakes in the bills from the commons.”
There is no doubt that the huge majority in 1997/2001 was the cause of a good deal of bad law being pushed through on the nod, there being no adequate opposition to argue against it.
“Laws from the EU, laws created by dictate of ministers under enabling legislation” Peers task is useful in scanning DL (delegated legislation) from the EP, and there are times when certain clauses are excepted from the law as it, again, goes through on the nod.
“They are the government, all of them since their responsibility is the law ”
Somebody has just discussed that on another thread, and of course the legislative chambers are not the government.
The chambers are ruled on a day-to day basis by Mr Speaker, and Lord Speaker, in their places.
The government is those 109(!?) ministers and secretaries of state gathered around the leader of the party in government.
“Somebody has just discussed that on another thread, and of course the legislative chambers are not the government.”
Gareth although this has been discussed and personally I withdrew so it would not be tedious, there remains a discrepancy. Even Direct.gov.uk places the HoL under Central Government in the A-Z.
To Govern in dictionary terms means : To exercise a deciding or determining influence on.
Now this is how most people view Government at it`s dictionary meaning. Now I have come to realise that there is a certain amount of seperatism between, Executive, Legislature and Judiciary but and this is a very big but from where I stand, the legislature hold the power. They hold that power in so much as they decide yay or nay to a bill put forward by the executive.
I know my Noble Lord Norton will again counter the argument, at least in mind so this doesn`t get tedious.
The power and ability to stop or allow a bill will alway`s be seen as a way of government, as it is in business. I know we have a complex system in the “Westminister Parliamentary Government” as it is known but I think to allow us peasants our view on what controls us is beyond those in parliament. Now to the peasants there are various forms, when spoken, of Government. It can refer directly to the party who got the most seats or alternately to anyone in the “House” with office or any aspect of Administration concerning the Government in general.
A twitcher would say a Lesser Spotted Warbler, I say it`s a bird.
The peasants will alway`s see the people with the power, and that is the legislature although they do not propose the bills, as the Government. Although they fully understand only the Cabinet (and supporting cast) is “THE Government”.
I suppose it`s a bit like looking at a Court Room, the Jury is the legislature, the prosecution the Executive and the Judge of course the Judiciary. You can seperate it all up like that but it`s a Court, each seperate part holds sway over the defendant.
That`s probably a very bad analogy and no doubt Baroness Deech will be seething, my apologies.
Oh that Maximilien Robespierre were here to help me out on this.
Lord Tyler: I would like to make a contribution to the elected house debate; in doing so I want to cover three topics, relevant democracy, constituency and independence.
It seems the world has forgotten that second houses quintessentially serve to protect their people from those that govern and rule. This is the natural source of their authority and by which they serve. The HoL is partly elected with the rest being unelected. The unelected part represents an eclectic membership drawn from a wide cross section of society to process legislation in a timely way. It minimises bureaucracy and cost by employing expertise directly with no state remuneration except legitimate expenses.
The link below ‘Composition and Membership of Second Houses in Europe’ shows that they are principally elected on the basis of population or land ownership. What’s also shown are the limits of their membership? No mention is made of how these houses are financed or how they maintain their independence.
To change the unelected part of the HoL the democratic process should be relevant to the need. It should establish relevant constituencies and those constituencies should finance membership. Parliament should set boundaries to that membership to allow the Monarchy to deny a ‘Writ of Summons’ presented by either house but allow honorary peerages to take place.
So how is this to be established?
The Irish ‘Seanad Eireann’ gives a clue in that three are elected by the graduates of the National University of Ireland and three are elected by the University Dublin Trinity College. See link.
This sets the general principle of relevant democracy and for academics a collegiate of universities would be their constituency. For political peers like yourself, constituency would come from your party’s rank and file membership. I think you get the drift of where this is coming from? The constituencies should not be static but dynamic to best serve needs as time goes by.
Now to the need for relevant democracy in terms of the popular vote;
Turnout in general elections will never reach 100% but events may conspire to erode participation thus lowering turnout. There must come a point where a low turnout questions the legitimacy of an elected government in that the majority do not wish to participate in its prospectus.
However, whilst they abandon the Commons they are not abandoned by the HoL or the Monarchy and this should be the authority that switches the balance of power from the Commons to the HoL. The value of this switch would be set at 49% turnout. Anything above this would give the Commons authority to overrule the HoL whilst anything under would give authority to the HoL to overrule the Commons.
Ref: Report on Second Chambers in Europe, P. Gélard (France)
Council of Europe, CDL(2006)059rev, Study No. 335/2005
http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2006/CDL%282006%29059rev-e.pdf
The constituencies should not be static but dynamic to best serve needs as time goes by.
A gerrymanderer’s charter?
Ok! I take your point but I have not seen Lord Tyler or any of his pro elected house lobby come up with a plan and Lord Tyler needs to be a man with a plan if he is to move forward.
Lord Tyler is right in proposing an elected house but then again so is Lord Norton when he says the house should remain unelected. What Lord Norton should remind himself of is that when Plato’s students left him they chose not to install democracies but installed autocracies because it was the easy way out.
I think Professor Gélard has produced in his report a very balanced critique of second houses. What the HoL enbloc must do now is debate the issues of constituency.
Its simply not acceptable for the government to create peerages with an automatic writ of summons. The writ was created in the first place to stop the monarchy from doing the very same thing. Only the establishment of constituency and limits on membership is going to stop government from abusing the HoL as it is doing now.
Lets get some real debate going and, no, peers cannot be guaranteed a job for life; those jobs must be given to the best of the bunch otherwise what’s the point of it all we might as well do what other second houses do and base constituency on land and population and compete with the Commons.
The nature of the holding company bears further scrutiny in the light of privacy, 24/7 media and investigative journalism. It also raises the question of why does Parliament quintessentially exist?
To me it is a medium where diverse points of view can be discussed in a controlled and peaceful manner such that all that have a viewpoint or petition can speak and be listened to without fear of retribution from those that hold power or oversight.
This fundamental requirement was weakened in 1911 as the power centres moved from aristocracy to the people, the principal loss being oversight by the HoL on Treasury spending or legislation concerning money matters and the ability to block it. In the fullness of time this oversight has moved from the controlled environment of Parliament to the mob represented by a sophisticated investigative worldwide media.
If the HoL is to remove itself entirely from any dependence on the public purse as was the case under the aristocracy it must be able to protect its privacy and that of its members from aggressive public scrutiny, any such disclosure being given entirely at the discretion of the HoL itself. The best medium at the moment for creating such a holding company is ‘The Partnership (Accounts) Regulations 2008’.
I say this because practice has proven that it can successfully resist the best efforts of investigative journalism as demonstrated by the financial support team of former Prime Minister Tony Blair and a competition to reveal its structure by the Guardian newspaper.
Ref: Mystery of Tony Blair’s Money Solved
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/17/mystery-tony-blairs-money-solved
All Lords who acquired membership by right of birth should go.
All Lords who acquired membership by patronage should go too.
Now who does that leave?
I deliberately avoided mentioning hereditary peerages. Those that remain in the house are employable in the sense of merit. Their constituencies are still relevant democracy albeit land based and they know they are an endangered species because the Monarchy creates no new peerages of their ilk. This would not be the end of them though, others could still come to the house via one of the other routes, they would however have to be ‘employable’ and gain entry on merit.
As to patronage or cronyism, I assume you mean political peers arriving in the house from the Commons. Any given Prime Minister would still be able to submit candidates to the house’s PPC process but after that they would have to be approved by their constituency (made up of rank and file members of their party). Indeed the constituency itself could submit candidates allowing party dissenters to join the house.
The main problem for Lord Tyler’s lobby is that even if the principle of relevant democracy is accepted, just how do you make hundreds of independently minded monoliths move in the same direction short of stacking them up like dominoes?
The carrot might be some independent control over their taxation affairs, privacy concerning expenses and a strengthened independence.
The constituencies could form UK registered incorporated companies that are satellite to a UK parent holding company. The satellite companies would receive their income from their constituencies who would fund their peers and who would also be non exec directors. The exec directors would be constituency members only. Expenses would be borne by these companies or perhaps the holding company and peers would no longer receive recompense from the public purse. For working peers they would need a P46 to receive income from their companies as a second job.
They would have to justify their expenses not to the public but to their constituencies and they would be subject to audit by the accountancy profession and subsequent approval by the tax authorities. Their details would remain private except those parts available in submitted year end accounts or legally required by Companies House.
The role of the holding company would be to fund all peers and their necessary bureaucracy again taking nothing from the public purse. The limit of what is possible is down to their collective imagination and available funding from their constituencies.
You must forgive me but I have only a very superficial understanding of such matters financially. None of this may be possible or even practical. It does show however that achieving democracy in the house will not be easy but in the end well worth it?
Lord Tyler: Some more bloggers prospectus, this time on the role of an elected house, its constituencies and why from first principles the house should be elected. Historical references are taken from the book ‘Gentlemen of the House of Commons’ by T.H.S Escott linked below.
The start of a recognizable Parliament as we know it begins with a French rebel Baron (p18), Simon De Montfort. His Parliament of 1265 embraces suffrage by ensuring that all members are elected. This largely ends the practice of appointing members to the English Parliament until the arrival of the Life Peerages Act 1958.
The appearance of two separate houses of Parliament occurs on Sep 9, 1332 during King Edward III reign (p44) in a session titled “the affairs of France, and the King’s expedition”. One speculates that the reason for the separation was a pragmatic desire to make progress on the issues of war and commerce.
A house that does not enjoy suffrage in its controlling members has no legitimate right to exercise power or invest itself in the wellbeing of the nation by exercising such power. The mandate therefore to have an elected HoL draws from established historical precedent as a right to enjoy such powers that are granted to it from time to time by the constitution.
Having acquired elected status the house continues very much as it is except for the additional ability to manufacture and give scrutiny to any regulations that might accompany Parliamentary statutes and to take control of its electoral affairs.
The HoL has always represented the most powerful in society and their interests. However in contemporary society these magnates have changed from individuals to group identities. The expertise of the house has an intimate association with these groups and it is only proper that such groups should formally be able to influence the needs of the people through their Parliament as constituences.
The role of constituencies is to provide the best people to serve in the house. The term ‘best’ must be relevant to the need. If experience is required it should offer candidates with appropriate experience. If academic excellence is required then it too should be offered. In practice a combination of the two might best serve the house and its constituencies.
The prospectus allows for hereditary peers to move from individuals to group identities to best represent land. It also allows for life peers to become members of their constituencies as champions. Such peers could nominate champions to receive the writ of summons on their behalf and for the summons to transfer back to the hereditary peer upon demand. This would best serve the work life balance of peers that are employers. The champions would have to be approved by house management and could be members of other constituencies.
I offer this elixir of life to the house and commend it to the blog.
Gentlemen of the House of Commons: Hardback: Author; THS Escott.
BiblioLife (2009) ISBN-13:9781113016317, ISBN-10:1113016310
http://books.google.com/books?id=6wYJvg0CYIoC&pg
Lord Tyler: There is a need in an elected HoL for a number of appointed peers.
The Library Note below talks of elected Law Lords.
Page 7, Para3: “Failure to provide a reliable body of law lords drew increasing criticism from the legal profession, which, following Brougham’s reforms, now expected professional work by the House as a court. Palmerston’s government decided to promote lawyers into the House of Lords by granting them life peerages.”
It goes on to say:
“Sir James Parke, a judge of the Exchequer Court, was created, in January 1856, Lord Wensleydale for life. Furious opposition from the Conservative members of the House forced the question of life peerages to the Committee for Privileges which ruled that the prerogative power could not create life peers.”
The HoL was abolished during the republican Protectorate:
Page 3, Para 4: ‘The end came when the Commons voted on 6th February 1649 “That the House of Peers is useless and dangerous and ought to be abolished.” The House was condemned as much for its judicial work as its legislative role.’
However this unicameral Parliament soon realised the need for a second chamber.
Page 3, Footnote 5: “During the Protectorate a Second Chamber was briefly established, from 1657 to 1659, consisting of members appointed for life by the Lord Protector.”
The thorny issue is that of electing retired ‘Law Lords’ to the house. The judiciary as a group cannot do this because of the separation but the legal profession might. However, one cannot imagine a judge coming up to retirement being nice to barristers just to become a peer. There is here, a clear case for appointment by a HoL Appointments Commission in an elected house.
The house would be wise to keep the door open to special case appointments.
Library Note: The Appellate Jurisdiction of the HoL (Nov 2009)
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-library/lln2009-010appellate.pdf
There is another group, the clerics that for practical reasons merit appointment to the HoL. The purpose of clerics in the house is to inform the legislative process.
Harvard Law School in its note linked below talks us through the difficulties in defining religion whilst the HoL report is a good example of just how peers inform the legislative process as a matter of practise.
The difficulty in establishing a group identity is therefore self-evident.
The English Church has seen many changes down the centuries specifically in the 14th, 16th, 17th and 19th centuries. As the presence of clerics in the house is not to promote one faith group over another the constitutional position of the bishops should reflect this and they should consider loosing their automatic right to sit in the house as a group.
It would be down to the Lords Appointments Commission to appoint such clerics as it felt necessary to provide adequate representation of faith within acceptable legal definition in a multi cultural society.
Ref: The Complexity of Religion and the definition of
‘Religion’ in International Law
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/gunn.shtml
HoL: Religious Offences in England and Wales
First Report – Introduction and Background
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldrelof/95/9501.htm
History of the House of Lords: English Church
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldbrief/ldhist.htm