Don’t take my word for it, read what the Lord Speaker had to say last night: “Ermine, Ethics and Engagement – Evolution in the House of Lords“ is a must for everyone who wants Parliament to do a better job of keeping the Government up to the mark. And in the process, we may be able to restore a bit of trust in our representative democracy.
Why are we waiting ? It would be so very damaging if the Government and Opposition front benches in the Lords drag their feet, hoping to play party games with these reform issues in the run-up to the 2010 General Election.
We elected the independent Lord Speaker to stand above all this nonsense: let her lead the way now to drag the Lords into the 21st century.
Noble Lord Tyler,
I have often wondered over the last few months what exactly Harold Macmillan meant by “Never had it so good”, whether in fact it really refered to Old Etonians ransacking the family silver without a by your leave and thank you to anybody except the Fees office.
It would be interesting to have a historical analysis of those fees over the last fifty years mentioned, but like all good accountants they probably only have such things over the last 10 at the most!
Thinking laterally of anything that the noble lord Speaker has omitted,even by commission,
to mention, and that is public mandate for her own office. In other word to elect the Lord speaker at the general election.
Provided it is quite clear that we are electing a Lord speaker of parliament, poll booth business might be brisk.
Regarding hereditary peers, I wonder whether the large number of Independent cross bench peers is partly because they are waiting to decide which way to jump after a general election. Independence in politics is something I can not agree with the noble baroness about. Independent usually mean far right and if that is not “tacit” political party I do not know what is! I have known some crossbenchers for a great many years and
whilst there is no doubt at all about their legislative, law making skills, their political point of view is usually of the hereditary peerage variety!Those are generalizations.
I am interested to know precisely what Tony Wright intended by the word “Certification” of the non scrutinized parts of Bills sent for second reading. I still have not worked out what this certification is! Tell me somebody please, and what possible value.
The question of the non-involvement by one chamber with the other, is an old chestnut
surely. The tradition of merely refering to it as the “other place” is a chestnut in the hand. I am fairly sure that Peers do not get involved with Select committee debate or attend select committee without a clear invitation from the Chairman. It would be difficult without being a witness, since ex officio membership of select committee would then entail a commitment and responsibility to the HofC, which a peer does not have.
It will be interesting to see, if (or when) it happens what the approach of a different government will be to the Electoral college of the Hereditary peers which has emerged over the last 7-10 years. How do they do their electing? Do they have their own secure website for discussing the selection,of the 4th Viscount so and so, and so on and so forth?
I do not recall exactly what the procedure is for a peerage to be made hereditary, but there is Sweet Fanny Adams point in having one at the moment unless, a non-hered wants to be selected as one of the chosen 90 hereds
in a forthcoming parliament.
Whose peerage was the last Hereditary creation? I can’t even remember. The Earl of Stockton certainly had a fine Great grand father, but there must have been quite a few since then.
Peers for the life of the Parliament is a must have for the future. 700 doddering old
… what was the word Bedd Gelert used ….
goats… perhaps…. is far too many.
The splendor of the place is what attracts so many non politicians, as an accolade in retirement. Should a second chamber which deals mainly in delegated legislation and rubber stamping Bills, be concerned with
that kind of mistakenly perceived intellectual glamor?!!!
The idea of “ethical principles as well as the specific rules” sounds very like the commons which had both but the supposed ethical catch all of “wholly and necessarily in the performance of their duties” didn’t seem to be enforced and rules always have gray areas.
As to the various proposals she references, and with which you were involved, I’ve yet to see a clear explanation of exactly why they will all help. They may look and sound nice presentationally but what real nuts and bolts will change? I raised an obvious question about the certification in you previous post but the same can be true of much of the others. How does a treaty committee matter if the house will vote on party or ideological lines? Was anyone going to change their vote if the proposed commitee had been more or less in favour of Lisbon (doubtless the most controversial recent treaty)? How often do you see government dismiss committee reports before the ink is dry if they don’t like the content.
Personally I’ve always felt the Lords would be the ideal body to perform confirmation hearings to key posts – especially those not elected but which have considerable power/public spending.
I’m not at all clear what sharpening up question time means? Shorter? Longer, more often or perhaps follow up questions? The present short debates system seem far too short and too often peers have barely any time to develop a point even on crucial issues.
Speaking to my wife last night about the blog, which she knows I partake of, she stated to me ” But what do they do ?”. Having not been certain of anything until I arrived here myself I was less than surprised. I asked a friend, self-employed business owner, this morning he couldn`t tell me either.
From my own experience of talking with people the expenses experience of the HoL is far less worried about than that of the Commons. MP`s lied to us and have done persistantly for years, we knew they were really there to line their own pockets, the media just provided the proof. The Lords however are a bit of a mystery to the working class. We`ve seen them on the telly (should be in retirement homes), drivelling on monotonously in a tone that has us reaching for the remote seeking the sanctity of Peggy Mitchell`s dulcit tones in the Queen Vic.
What I`m trying to get across is that little is known of the work the Lords do. It doesn`t have to be to the man in the street, he doesn`t need to know how to milk a cow to pour milk on his breakfast. I`m 50 odd years old and figured out some of it a year or so ago, only so I might get my voice heard by people who might listen, unlike MP`s who seem to regard my opinions as somewhat less than useless.
I have read the Lord Speaker`s speech and I personally think The Lords have taken too much public anger aimed at, in this case, ” The Government” too personally. The public are more angry at the people that address us, that give false promises, that appear neither honest or honourable, those that we elected.
Aren`t MP`s snivelling little toadies, who`ll promise anything for your vote, until elected ? Aren`t they the children in the other House shouting my “bill” is better than your bill nah nicky nah nah ? Aren`t they the ones who cannot address ?
Aren`t they the ones swapping homes constantly to maximise their personal profits ?
The Lords. Who are they ? Aren`t they similar to the Knights of Arthurs Round Table ? Head and shoulders above a politician surely, able to address issues with wisdom and experience ? Honest, honourable, next down from the Queen ? Free of party politics only having the Nations interests at heart ?
Are they not the Mother of the system, the Nation ? Looking out for it`s children ?
So if we don`t really understand the sytem, maybe it should be taught in school ? -Yawn- Boring Miss and besides I don`t want to tell fibs for a living and I`m not old enough to retire to the House of Lords !
Honesty and Integrity will get you a long way in peoples eyes e.g. Lord Norton. I don`t alway`s agree with what he say`s, and we`ll argue over “Government” forever but I admire him. He appears honest, helpful and has time for you, however uneducated or at times possibly slightly ill mannered in comparison to the House.
Money, remuneration, pay .
Nobody is asking you to work for nothing, well maybe “the other place”, it is not expected. The House is packed with experience and great minds, good people…and Lord Sugar (Sorry personal thing) 😉 The Lords certainly deserve payment for all their hard work, the measure is the problem. Certainly at 700 strong they would represent a good proportion of society but that has it`s weaknesses and failings too. Payment schemes must be transparent and all inclusive, they myst be similar to how the public deal with Inland Revenue otherwise it will seem unfair.
£130k for running a Country doesn`t seem a lot to the public, nor £65 for being a Minister. It`s the hidden earnings we don`t like, the expenses that Inland Revenue would throw the book at you for.
Now a Lord on a 5 day week at £200 tax free is £1000 a week which is quite a lot to the public, £50k a year. In my opinion you are worth that IF you are truely working and doing the best you can. Now as I understand it you have to take research fees, admin and secretarial out of that. I`ve no problem with them being expenses, after all that`s what they are. Travel ? How do the Services work it ? You get the train ticket or the equivalent in cash. London Residence where necessary ? The equivalent of a reasonable hotel for one ? No family members as employees. Limits set on employee salaries.
Does this appear fair ?
On the subject of expenses I hope the Lord Speaker does not do her own accounts judging by this mathematics.
“Those of us born in 1948 and ’49 are told we are the golden generation – the beneficiaries of the Beatles and the Pill, and the death of deference. But, in the still of the night forty years on, I suspect I’m not alone”
————————————–
I apologise profusely to Baroness Murphy whom I accused of throwing her toys out of the pram, she is only human after all. It was however not what I expected from a “Lady”.
And therein lies the problem, you are expected to be above corruption, above bickering and whinging. To have honesty and integrity…… to be a Lord. You are also a servant of this Nation, payed by this Nation and if we should wish to see your accounts we should be able.
I`m sure I`ll post more, don`t I alway`s? -red faced icon –
There`s nothing quite like a “Gar Hywel” and a “Croft” for making one feel a little inadequate in this place. Their knowledge of procedures making me feel wholly uneducated in matters of The Lords and indeed Parliament.
I do disagree entirely with Gar on the topic of Cross Benchers though, from what I have read and seen I`d say they were definitely more to the left. Not a Mussolini in sight.
Carl does good; no worries!
On the subject of representation in the Second chanber as it is now known,this would be my proportion of seats for it.
100 hereds (to be re-elected at their electoral college at general election time)
100 elected by direct mandate at General election.
75 City mayors (unitary authorities) appointed by right of mayoralty. (refinements to follow since they are usually only elected for one year)
That would be as worthy a goal to aim for as the Irvine/Falconer/Blair/Brown quartet did in 1995.
It would even be acceptable to a Conservative govt, especially when you consider that there are a good many people in the HofC who would like a unicameral Parliament.
1. An elected Lord speaker by public mandate at GE
2 An elected HofL but NOT elected City Mayors; city mayors wholly appointed.
2a) Elected Hereds in electoral coll
2b) Elected Peers for the 4-5 year term of the parliament.
Get rid of all those dodderers,who just like to live in the place because it is acomfortable and pleasant to live in.
In answer to Croft’s question about:
How does a treaty committee matter if the house will vote on party or ideological lines?
Amended clauses of Bills may entirely transform the bill itself; regarding International Law “Treaty” I am not quite certain how different countries have placed limiting conditions on their acceptance of it, but that is probably what they have done.
On a slightly different tack again, I have never been a Uni-cameral man myself. The Second chamber is there, so it might just as well be used.. there is a good case for reducing the number of Members of the HofC as well, say to 400, and spreading the load and usage between the two places. That little comment sits well with Lord Speaker’s remarks.
I have always enjoyed my contacts with the HofL Lord Chancellors,all the way back to Lord Llanelli, Elwyn Jones the junior Nurnberg prosecutor, Harold Wilson’s right hand man! Was it Lord Havers, bless ‘is departed soul under Maggie T; a very dear man indeed, although loathed by some of the Labor party I heard!
Carl, there are various sites, often mentioned here, where you can look at the Xbench peers voting records and I can’t see any basis to argue they are “far right”
Gar: Since a treaty committee will in the commons crudely represent the balance of the house they are rubber stamps for the governing party and won’t ‘amend’ the treaty. If the Lords were to ‘amend’ it then the government would use its majority and ultimately the parliament act to overturn it.
Croft wrong guy ! I said they were left I think it was Gar who said Far Right!
Oh my, here we go again !
Defence Minister tries to obtain expenses of £27k for Bell tower and lead guttering.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8404942.stm
He didn`t get it all, just £5,380 and stated that it was for roof repairs only yet the invoice states clearly Bell Tower and lead guttering. £5,380 is rather a lot just for lead guttering.
Let`s have a look at some roofing prices shall we ?
http://www.whatprice.co.uk/prices/building/roof-repair.html
Oh dear the roofer appears to have ripped off Mr. Davies…Maybe !!!
C`mon guys don`t take us for mugs. If you bring the roofer in and he states everything you say is 100% I`ll apologise.
Election now please Mr. Brown !
I don’t really see how the Lord Speaker can “drag the Lords into the 21st Century”, and I’m even less sure that I want it to.
Such an enormous constitutional upheaval MUST NOT be done by any one parliament, the winning party having put Lords reform in the small print of its manifesto. (As what happened in 1999*).
At a time when the Executive is so unaccountable to the legislature and the public I don’t really see Lords reform as the priority. In fact, I actually think it’s dangerous. Let’s get the Commons in order first by cutting the number of government payrolled members (ie, ministers) and letting the Commons decide its own timetable for debates and bills. When we finally have a Commons that can stand up to the Executive then, and only then, should the issue of Lords reform be addressed.
*For anyone interested, “The Lords’ Tale” (about the removal of the hereditaries) is on youtube.
Chris K has a serious point with which I concur.
The Lords must be reformed independently of the Executive or a majority of the legislature in the other house. Perhaps the best way would possibly be to reverse procedures for once. For the HoL to put forward a Bill for reform to the Commons ?
So why do we need more Laws Carl.
Two laws good, 4 laws better perhaps?
Croft,
I guess Treaties are things that governments do, and can’t be amended by their critics.
The basis for saying that XBench is often far right, is about Independence from parish council onwards and upwards. Membership of party conveys a kind of good sense which Independents in district or county council rarely have; there are very few Independents who show any resemblance at all to socialism, and plenty who do to reactionary conservatism! (Please don’t ask me who!)
Ok so the political position structure of HofL is organised on ad hoc basis but if we all face the crown like that, we would have a
Russian format for our second parliamentary chamber, a confrontational one with a supreme being, in their case a president.
What if they all insisted on cramming in to the one Xbench?!
In the early days of the blog I mentioned the role of Prince Otto Von Bismarck and his social reforms and since the Lord speaker mentioned 1911 I want to give a differing view of our history at this time in a way that describes Germany’s political needs.
Germany’s population grew from just under 2 million in 1870 to just over 5 millions in 1910 whilst the UK population over the same period grew from 3 million to 4 millions. The ballooning German population reflected its prosperity but it presented enormous problems for the German exchequer especially after it embarked upon its welfare state.
If you were a known socialist you got no welfare from the German state, in fact one could argue that the persecution of the radical left in Germany provided a fertile breeding ground for the far right something that would not bode well for a future Germany.
These socialist radicals ended up in England where they had a lush ground in which to grow and influence the politics of socialism. The Liberals at this time were a collection of disgruntled Tories, Peelites and Whigs in search of a popular political identity and mandate.
Bismarck died July 30, 1898 and Wilhelm II free of Bismarck’s influence was given free reign. A still rising population meant the pressures on the exchequer remained unabated. Germany did, what they would do later, and expanded their military machine which meant jobs, taxes and a content political class.
The HoL at this time was aware of Germany’s military build up and many wanted to rearm our military but it was no match for German spending power. The choice faced by the HoL in 1911 was rearmament or a welfare state. The Monarchy was leveraged and the welfare state won the day. The government went into denial of the German threat and Britain was ill prepared to face the German military in 1914.
Democracy since 1911 has had a clear mandate, improve the lot of ordinary people and make for a fairer society. All over Europe the story has been about this journey but now the prosperity train has arrived but politicians have failed to realise that it has stopped. This is the nub of our political problems in Europe.
In 1893 Bismarck gave a warning:
“My fear and anxiety for the future is that the national idea may be stifled in the coils of a boa constrictor of bureaucracy, which has grown rapidly in the last few years.” Castle Friedrichsruhe, July 9, 1893. See PDF in link.
The HoL is the most cost effective second chamber in Europe. The phrase: “Politics is the art of the possible” (“Die Politik ist die Lehre von Möglichen”) came from the lips of Bismarck on August 11, 1867. Many in politics that have used the phrase are wrongly attributed with originating it.
Ref: German Empire: Bismarck’s Era
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Empire
Prince Bismarck’s Warning: NY Times, July 10, 1893
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D02E5DC103BEF33A25753C1A9619C94629ED7CF
Population History
http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/population/
Gar, this is pretty much from the man in the street view but no party shows any resemblance to socialism now. The Government are very much viewed as conservatives under the banner of “new” Labour which is partly the reason for the apathy.
When it appears there is no difference in whomever you vote for, there is no point. This is where parties, such as the BNP, are picking up votes. The Labour Party is viewed now as very “middle class” and a world away from the realities of working class, they have lost touch with the masses.
Politicians in general are now viewed in a very derisory way by those at the bottom of the ladder. The expenses scandal has only seemed to harden the view that they are only there to line their own pockets.
From the man in the streets point of view what difference is there ?
He`s worried about his kids getting a home of their own without having to get pregnant at an early age to get a Council house.
He knows the hospitals are not fit for purpose.
He see`s the immigrants, sometimes illegally, taking jobs for less money and getting the housing.
He see`s year after year his freedom eroded by Nanny state.
Even the Police, and this comes from an inside source, have had their job made so difficult and constantly see things thrown back at them by the press and courts are only in it for the wage packet now.
To the average man there is no blue,red and orange it`s all grey. All suits just out for themselves.
Don`t just spend your life in political circles, go out there and I don`t mean do things that are arranged, you`ll only get an arranged view. Don`t just speak to your party membership, they`ll give you a party view.
When the truth is told it`s not the electorate who are apathetic it`s the Politicians who are apathetic to the electorate.
Don`t knock on doors and give them YOUR view, ask them THEIRS !