The Lords has been in the news again over the issue of expenses. The sooner we get the problem sorted the better. As I said on the BBC’s Record Review last week, each House needs a system that is both simple and transparent. The rules and the transactions need to be clear to everybody: transparency is the best deterrent to abuse.
We will have a new system in place in the new Parliament. The House has already agreed, without a vote, the franework of the new regime. However, we also need to do more to restore public trust. We have suffered from the “if one’s at it, there are all at it” syndrome. However vacuous the mentality, such comments stick.
We need to develop our links with the public. We have already made progress. We have to build on that. We await a debate on the Information Committee’s report on Are the Lords Listening? Creating connections between people and Parliament. I hope that takes place soon. I also believe that, linked to enhancing that connection, we need to strengthen our capacity to fulfil our tasks of examing Bills in detail and calling government to account. In my view, we already do a good job – there is evidence that the public also think so – but we can always do better. I have been successful in the ballot for debates, so have a debate on 25 February “to call attention to the case for enhancing the means available to the House of Lords to scrutinise legislation and public policy”. This will be an opportunity to identify changes that can be made to strengthen the House. The House is not averse to changes designed to enable it to do its job better and I detect that there is a groundswell of support for such change.
If readers have any suggestions for how the House can be more effective in carrying out its tasks, please feel free to share them. I and like-minded colleagues have already discussed what may be done, but we are keen to hear what others think.
Engaging via this blog is a start. But how many of the public have the time and energy to engage back?
Perhaps an Elected Lords would excite more interest, but given the public’s disenchantment with politics, I doubt that this would be a solution.
Making the Lords more accessible perhaps, by holding Public Meetings (all parties) around the country, explaining your work might be a start.
This would remove you from the confines of Parliament, which to some of us appears to live in a different rarified world from the rest of us – to meet people, who genuinely want to keep the Lords in a format, which is both relevant and an effective filter for some of the Dross in terms of Legislation coming from the House of Commons.
The access we now have to inoformation about everything is so much better, only depending on our skills with IT (Information Technology)
It was thus in about 1999. The peers house and methodical, efficient, competent delivery of information, meeting time, agendas, and so on, took about another six years to arrive.
I’m told that all peers are to be emailed by the use of at parliament.uk. I don’t actually know whether that is so. Many are too old to use, or to have learnt to use the web/email
in anything but a desultory way.
Those enthusiasts, like Lord Norton and Baroness Deech are notable for their commitment to new involvement with the public, but they do both have an educational remit, which makes a bid difference to their motivation.
I have not actually noticed what fees are paid for public lectures specifically as peers in farflung parts of these islands.
If the public and school children/students
can become interested in the work of the yet another house of parliament…(Scotland,Wales,(N)Ireland, and so on then perhaps they will also help formulate the role that HofL should play in the future, without any reaction, in the event of a Conservative victory at the next election.
All the noble lord’ and Baroness’ work may be to no avail if a coalition of Libdem and Lab get together which demands further thoroughgoing reforms of an ancient and worn out system of government, which has only recently been tickled back in to life, unlike a worthy poacher out for a valuable dinner.
Some people would like to see the river dry out altogether, in my view best of all to change its course far more radically than it has done so far.
It needs any thing but strengthening.
It does need to be pared right down and given a democratic role.
300 peers at the most including elected heireds, elected, and accountable.
Gareth Howell: Most peers now us e-mail. The formula is the same as for the Commons (name and initial @parliament.uk). There are no fees for giving lectures to schools; in my case, that extends to anything that is basically educative and non-commercial. I doubt if there will major change in the next few years: that, in my view, is to the good. The changes that are both desirable and achievable are the sort to be debate on 25 February.
Enest: Many thanks for your suggestions. I am very much in favour of committees meeting in different parts of the UK. When I chaired the Constitution Committee, we went to Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont as part of our inquiry into devolution: inter-institutional relations in the UK and I was very keen to encourage input from the public (not that we got much). Also, a key part of the Outreach Programme is to get peers to go to speak to schools and other bodies about the work of the House. I regularly visit schools as part of the programme and am happy to do so wherever they are in the UK. I thoroughly enjoy the visits. I like to engage with the students and to find out their views on current issues. I agree with you that it is important to avoid being confined within Westminster. We need to go out to visit people – as well as encouraging people to come to Westminster (or, if distance is a problem, watch and engage online).
If you want to engage with the public then being seen outside the chamber would help. I was watching some Lords coverage on the BBC Parliament channel last night to get some feel for how it works, and noting the differences from the Commons.
I was fascinated by the voting, with the ‘content’ and ‘not content’ instead of ‘ayes’ and ‘noes’. I’m afraid the expression “clear the bar” brought up an unfortunate vision, especially as the numbers recorded as voting was significantly larger than the number of people in the chamber – I assume they weren’t all in the bar. Results turned up a lot faster than the Commons as well.
There definitely needs to be thorough scrutiny of the legislation, both to make sure it is reasonable and workable, and to ensure that what is written matches the stated intent of ministers for the legislation. We’ve had too many poorly-written bills go through, and I consider the Lords to be falling down on the job in allowing that to happen. Ask the people of Iceland what they think, given that a terrorism bill was used against them. while it might have been politically helpful to the PM to be able to invoke the legislation, it is not good that wording that allowed it to be used outside its original stated purpose was permitted to stand.
So, if you have a bill before you where the minister has assured the Commons that a provision would only be used in a certain way and under certain circumstances, amend the bill so that it says exactly that.
Is there a simple means for members of the public to provide input to the Lords committee stage for a bill? There’s a convenient link on the Parliament website to provide submissions to the Commons side of things, but there appears to be no visible means of doing the same with the Lords except by writing to individuals and hoping that they’ll (a) turn up to the relevant debate and (b) raise the issue. It’s much harder to work out who in the Lords to contact – while there are interests listed in biographies on the Parliament site, there is no obvious way to determine who turns up regularly and participates and who doesn’t, and therefore who it’s best to contact.
So, come out of London and see those of us in the sticks sometimes and make it easy to contact those in the Lords who might have an interest or who are willing to assist.
Dave H: You touch upon some of the issues I plan to raise, not least in relation to improving scrutiny of legislation. I think we do a good job in preventing some badly-drafted legislation getting through, but we don’t always catch it. Sometimes the problem is what is not in a Bill as much as what is in it. On members of the public having an input, there is no simple way, other than through the routes you mention. This is one of the issues considered by the Information Committee. The consideration included the very point you make about knowing who to contact. We are alert to the problem. How do the public know who to contact? This is clearly something we need to address.
You need a team of engineers to pick holes in the legislation as if it were a specification. As someone who chose that profession, I find that worst-case design and asking “what if…?” can find the flaws in most things. It is this mindset that is behind my comments above about removing the ambiguity.
If you want to be really up-to-date, put a clerk in the corner of the chamber with a computer and a Twitter feed, and let him/her pass notes to participants in the debate to raise. That way we can watch the video feed from the Parliament site and raise the issues in real time so you can debate them. You would have to refine the technology because in that form it would probably fall over within an hour of being mentioned on the BBC or a popular website, but the point is that technology can make it more interactive in real time.
Dave,
In case you don’t know Dave, the “Bar” is the bar of the house, separating honored visitors and members.
The other case of people thinking that Members are boozing, is the “press bar” which some MPs enjoy, to allow them to work unimpeded, and OUT of public view, possibly on sensitive issues. The press could booze a lot, but that is not the meaning of it!
It would not be our concern if they were!
I’m sure you know really!
I’m afraid I come to the party with a warped sense of humour, hence seeing the silly side of some conventions. Those who use the terminology all the time are used to it, but viewed from outside, especially with the steady drift of language and new slang, the meaning outside the core field can be somewhat different to the original. That’s not to say it should be changed – it’s all part of life’s rich tapestry and can provide interesting historical projects for children to research the origin of various terms, procedures and expressions. Most were introduced for what were good reasons at the time.
This is partly why I was opposed to some of Blair’s proposed reforms – for some things the traditions remind people of how we got to where we are today and should be kept, however antiquated and quaint some of them may now seem.
I don’t wish to be unkind or unnecessarily revisit old ground but all the good work is undone by the main residences expenses that naturally attract the worst press coverage. I rather hope many peers were embarrassed by 1 day per month decision but there has been a depressing lack of public statements by peers. One of the biggest problems the house suffers from is that even when they are the story they are collectively very bad at getting on air to defend, explain or criticise themselves. Too often even when we see a peer it is an ex-MP commenting as though they still were an MP from a commons party perspective on the issue. The public are unlikely to appreciate the Lords isn’t the Commons or such a partisan chamber when we don’t see this reflected in the media. Now peers may (rightly) blame the media but I don’t think that’s good enough.
I know I’m saying this to the peers who are most engaged in improving the Lords public involvement but the trouble is getting the rest to change.
Croft: I agree with everything you write. We are working to get our act together – we need to get away from the situation you mention – but expressing a collective voice is something that can prove difficult. I don’t think there is much mileage in blaming the media – they report what they find. We need to create a situation where is nothing for them to report on in a negative light.
I don’t think blaming the media is useful from peers but I’m sure it is part of the problem. It seems that (crudely) too many journalists have phone numbers of MPs and use them and if they want to talk about the lords are likely to use the numbers of ex-mps (now Lords) [Has the plan to draw up a list of peers who are willing to speak to the press on topics as suggested in the hearings got off the ground yet?]
I’m not sure there is a collective voice nor is it useful for the Lords but it does need a voice (preferably from independents, XBs and indeed almost any party peers who aren’t ex-MPs/MEPs. It’s a distinct voice or a different voice rather than any collective voice that seems the best way to present the Lords.
The changes I would like make are mainly cosmetic, but I believe that they would increase the legitimacy of the Lords when challenging the Government/Commons.
Less Politically Nominated Peers: I would like to see the House Appointments committee be given a statutory role and a limitation placed on the number of politically nominated peers. In theory, a government could choose to flood the Lords with like-minded peers, as there are no limitations on the number of political peers you can elevate. While I realize this is an unlikely scenario, it is a rather hard flaw in the system to explain away (as Baroness Deech found out http://lordsoftheblog.net/2010/02/08/schoolgirls/).
Clarify the Lords’ Mandate for Challenging the Commons: The Commons has a mandate to enact the will of the people. On what grounds do the Lords challenge the people? My understanding is that the House of Lords is a chamber of experts that mainly challenges the Commons on the grounds of workability or for going against the values of the UK’s unwritten constitution. This should be clearly stated somewhere so that people better understand the Lords role. You can’t even find a short definition of the House of Lords’ function on websites like Wikipedia, where the public regularly go to understand Parliament. Instead, there are massive rambling explanations of its workings but no quick “why do we have it”.
Majority Statements: After rejecting a government’s bill, a peer should be nominated to give a press conference in which a “majority statement” is delivered, explaining on what grounds a bill was rejected.
Thanks for asking.
http://www.governing-principles.com
The one thing that makes all this a waste of time is the non- and even anti-democratic element of the Second chamber.
If there were democratic constituencies for 300 members, then nobbing off to lecture constituents would be a necessity not a professorial chore, for a few
Away with elitism; in with democracy and then
the chamber can start to do some useful work on Euro Delegated Legislation and be accountable for it.
Twm O’r Nant: No it doesn’t because having a non-elected second chamber – ensuring core accountability through one elected chamber – is not necessarily non or even anti-democratic. This is a point I have developed elsewhere.
In the UK, the elected first chamber also works on European legislation: the two chambers complement one another. It is not clear that two elected chambers would do so.
governing principles: I agree with you on the issue of making the appointments commission a statutory body. I think you would approve of the provisions in the House of Lords Bill, introduced by Lord Steel. What we sought to do in that Bill was not only to put the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis but also provide a formula that would limit the number of peers created, putting something of a brake on the PM’s capacity to create as many peers as he may wish. It is something we are keen to pursue.
I agree that we need to publicise more what the roles are of the House. Our principal role is one of scrutiny, both of legislation and public policy. We focus on the detail of legislation, so we are rarely in a position where we are challenging a particular mandate of government – which relates usually to ends, whereas we tend to focus on the means. The fact that Wikipedia doesn’t have a clear ‘here’s what the Lords is for’ entry is surprising as well as worrying. The idea of majority statements in intriguing, but raises a practical problem of how to choose who speaks for the majority. If it was a case of actually rejecting a Bill, it would be something that would be exceedingly rare.
Lord Norton: As ever, thank you for your reply. If the statutory changes in the House of Lords Bill come to pass, could you be so good as to promote the achievement on this website? I have to admit that, much like Concerned House Edder, I did not know about the Law Lords change until the UK Supreme Court’s big opening ceremony occurred. Admittedly, I wasn’t reading this website at the time.
Best wishes,
http://www.governing-principles.com
Make the words “Er” and “Um” illegal thereby saving at least 30% debating time.
Looking at debates in the House the formal/archaic way in which things are done seem to slow proceedings. It certainly seems to put people on edge who I would expect to be fluent speakers.
Why does the working week in Lords appear to start at 14.30 on Mondays ? Surely a more rigid structure of working hours should be implemented along with the rule ” Scrutiny takes as long as it takes Mr. P.M.”
I`m for Secretaries/assistants and salaries but within a set budget allocated to the Lords. A reduction in the size of the House also appears to be in order, it cannot go on ever expanding. Independent scrutiny is essential but we cannot have an expert from all fields, the common sense rule should be applied (that which joe public would apply).
Ministers for the Government in the House having no vote, they represent the Commons Executive after all.
All Bills for scrutiny put up on this blog or similar for public debate, the blog then printed or sent to all Lords for consideration.
A lot of things the public would want may slow legislation down, this is good else in 300 years time we`ll be discussing the latest issue`s with the “Toe nail clipping authorities and Minister”. It does appear some legislation is being thought up just because it can be, or to keep the boys in work.
And get rid of the whips……
😉
@carl.h.
re: working week
A more rigid structure does have downsides. In the private sector, junior workers seem to benefit from more structured hours, but senior workers have often achieved their position by concerted dedication, and enforcing petty rules on them often detracts from the hours they would otherwise gladly give during evenings or weekends. A valued employee who gladly dedicates themselves to the task is worth ten times the value of one who merely shows up on time because they are forced to.
I am as working class and egalitarian as it is possible to be, but I would grant peers the ability to choose their own working, hours, subject to doing a good job. That is the criteria upon which they should be judged, not what time they clock-in in the morning.
The nature of the beast is they all(those interested) have to be there to debate and vote at the same time. Sometimes the different parties play the system, important debates/votes will be deliberately held up until extremely late sometimes 02.00 or later. Members who have commitments the next day or are simply amongst the older might find this hard going.
When people have to work as a unit it helps if they are there at the same time. Add this to the fact they all have a life outside the House, except Lord Norton who is a workaholic, which I expect they`d like to take part in and it makes things difficult. To take the job seriously means putting effort in and I believe we can all be weak at times, if we don`t HAVE to we won`t.
At the moment I feel the job, although well done by many, is not taken seriously by all. The House is run like a club and you don`t have to turn up if you don`t want to. I would like to see a more structured House.
While not in a form for public debate, all the Bills are available on the Parliament website, including transcripts of debates and commitee proceedings.
Afternoon starts for Parliament go back to the days when most of them were lawyers and spent the morning working on cases before coming to Parliament for the afternoon/evening. They do also go on until 10pm, so there is the equivalent of a full day’s work.
“engineers to pick holes in the legislation as if it were a specification. As someone who chose that profession, I find that worst-case design and asking “what if…?” can find the flaws in most things.”
Talking about engineering, the best case scenario for the development of any chamber would be an e-chamber with video links.
Then how ever old you were/are you could stay at home and run the country until you breathe your last!
Just log in to the video set up in your home when the debate starts and the moderator
is the chairman/speaker, controlling who is seen and when.
You’ld still only need 300 members at the very most, and they would need to be nearer their prime than they are now too.
I’m even more disillitioned with the HoL’s then before the major reforms Nu Labour brought in. Nu Labour have simply used the HoL’s as a mechanism to get unelected candidates for MP’s into the Lords so they can become govt ministers and not answerable to the electorate. It’s an absolute disgrace.
And how many “people’s peers” are there? A handful every year. Even those people seem to get picked by how many charity’s boards they sit on. Well isn’t that great for them.
Until it is fully elected, I have no confidence in it because it’s simply abused by everyone.
Expenses mean nothing to me, until you sort out other abuses of power, I couldn’t care less how much you spend.
Concerned Home Edder: Which unelected candidates for MPs have become government ministers? Have you seen the latest list of peers announced by the Appointments Commission? Which of those fit your description?
You just have to pick any People’s Peer via Wiki to see what charity work they did. I left out half of have OBE’s etc. Well, I’ve met a few people with OBE’s and most of the time they are just good at blowing their own trumpet which is half the reason they got the OBE/MBE etc in the first place. (I’m talking about politicians in the main, I wouldn’t count our servicemen and women amoungst them).
It’s a sham. Where are the ordinary people? If you simply have people who are ex-MP’s/failed MP’s/ex- disgraced labour party MP’s (Mandleson, Kinnocks etc) then it’s just the same old people who are hanging around. Don’t let me start on the Kinnocks…..I’ll be ranting for hours.
All of you should make way for new *elected* blood, younger people who have to live with the consequences of your decisions.
I’m an independent parish councillor and at least I can say over 1000 people voted me in, which is 1000 more than any of you.
Lets see on similar abuses.
How many MPs rejected by the electorate have be given seats in the Lords, and as a consequence control over laws?
How many peers have never had any mandate from the electorate, and still get control over laws?
How many peers have attempted to sell changes to legistlation for cash, and still get to decide on laws?
How many peers have fiddled expenses, and yet because the Lords haven’t any financial controls or checks in place have got away with the loot?
Why is it that the Lords, yourself included, have not stopped other business and immediately plugged the loop holes?
My conclusion, you all want the gravy train to continue.
What’s your evidence to the contrary?
Wolfgang: Simple – the fact that we are actually doing something about it. It is a bit difficult to argue we want the so-called gravy train to continue when we are in the process of replacing it with a new more transparent and restricted system. The Leader of the House acted expeditiously when a problem was identified. There are limits in place in the present system: they may not be as robust as they should be, but they are limits. The House of Lords, incidentally, does not decide laws, Parliament does (or in exceptional circumstances the House of Commons). There are also checks in place, with notable limits.
One other thing – the fact that People’s Peers aren’t paid even a basic salary excludes anyone who isn’t rich. Complete hypocrisy.
Concerned Home Edder: While I share your desire to reduce the number of political peers, I urge you that an elected house is the wrong answer. The elected second chamber would probably end up being filled with the very people you want to get rid of: career politicians.
It is also worth noting that our political system lacks many of the necessary safeguards required for a totally elected legislature (a written constitution, a supreme court which is actually supreme etc…) and are unlikely to acquire them upon the creation of an elected second chamber. This could lead the UK to acquire ill thought-out populist legislation that would be damaging in the long-term (simply because something is popular does not mean it is right: attacks on free speech, habeas corpus and equality have all been popular in the past). Currently, many of these measures are revised/defeated in the Lords, where the appointed nature of the peers means that they are not obliged to go along with popular sentiment.
Thank you for your courteous reply Governing Principles.
Whilst I have at times vented my anger at certain politicians here, I do not mind career politicians. And whist I might criticize many, I admire many too. Generally these are back benchers who work hard in their constituencies and who are not afraid to vote against their party.
The MP in my neighbouring constituency is a prime example. She’s well liked by all and had quite a few questionable expenses (though nothing along the lines of moats/helipads etc). But most people I spoke to about it didn’t care because she does a great job and works hard. Bless her.
I do understand what you are saying that the HoL’s is different and has a different job to do, but I still can’t see why it couldn’t be elected. Maybe only those who are not members of political parties can stand, (probably unworkable) but you see what I mean. At least if elections are held there is a chance of getting rid of the useless, whereas at the moment that is impossible.
It’s all about being accountable.
What is frustrating for me is that as a Councillor, if I lie to the Council then I’m answerable to the Standards Board and ultimately the electorate.
Yet in the last few weeks I’ve not only seen Ed Balls and Vernon Coaker lie in the house of commons (they said the majority of Home Educators were in favour of the current DCSF Bill, yet the public consultation saw approx 4000 Home Educators reply saying they were against it. I think there was about 150 who were in favour.) Not only that, but last weeks Prime Ministers questions, Gordon Brown said that Regional development agency money is helping hard up areas. Well, in my parish, the RDA has withdrawn funding for a major project therefore crippling our one chance of improving the town. The RDA says their money has been withdrawn. Gordy seems to not know this, or he is lying.
So, what I’m trying to say (before Lord Norton accuses me of using a pointless example) is that the general public feel totally helpless to do anything about those politicians in westminster who do not listen to the public, or who make statements that they are helping people when they clearly are not.
They don’t seem answerable to anyone whilst they are in power, at least an election can flush some of them out.
Another example of how HoL’s should be elected – Delyth Morgan. Despised by Home Educators because last year she made the whole country believe that all Home Educators were pedophiles abusing their children, hiding them away to force them into marriage after we’d finished using them as domestic slaves. She has been utterly and totally proved wrong. She is a Labour appointed peer, member of a string of charity boards (note my example Lord Norton) who has made that error yet how can we get rid of her?
We can’t. Because she is a life Peer. Let loose with no way of getting rid of her until the day she dies.
In the very least, Lords should not be allowed to be ministers and parties should not be allowed to appointment peers either. That would placate me enough to say elections for you lot can wait (for a while anyway).
@Concerned Home Edder
I`m slightly at a loss, you talk of the Lords then give three MP`s as an example of apparently lying. I do realise what you`re trying to get at here but I have to disagree. The Lords appear to be a lot fairer and are prepared to listen WHEN GIVEN actual data and evidence. They do on Bills hold the Executive to account by means on amendments etc.,so if lies went into a bill they may reject part or significant parts of it.
The expertise and independence within the HoL, I believe is second to none ( don`t say I said that). They are prepared to listen to the public and I believe will expand on that over time. Being in such a responsible office obviously means that evidence put to them must be beyond reasonable proof as they are at times going against the will of the democratically elected Government.
If the Lords were indeed elected, as had been said, I believe this would lead to just another extension of the commons with career politicians. You`d get nice words but no grey material behind it just the ability to accept the whip. The Lords AT PRESENT is pretty evenly matched with no party having an upper hand and there is less need to vote along party lines, there won`t be a vote of no confidence in the House.
Most people will feel someway affiliated politically with one party or another but being as expertise and a reasonably open mind are, I believe, factors in becoming a member of Lords, I believe this the best way at present.
If say we`d held Lords elections at the time Labour came into power I doubt very much the Home Edders would even have been listened to in the HoL let alone the commons.
The system is work in progress that I doubt will ever be perfect at least for some of us.
Carl H
I’ll learn more about the Lords as the DCSF Bill passes through it, and I’m sure my opinion will be shaped by what I see as it does.
I would like to point out, that Lord Ralph Lucas has been an absolute star over the Home Education section in this Bill and is wonderful. He is a hero to many Home Ecucators, as are a number of Tory MP’s (Graham Stuart, Mark Field to name but 2) who have put masses of effort into our cause with very little gain – we are such a minority its certainly not a vote winner.
PS If my grammar spelling is bad – blame my comprehensive state schooling 😉
Concerned Home Edder: I understand your concerns, although respectfully disagree with your desire to elect the Lords. If you are interested why some are quite eager to defend the appointed Lords on the grounds of it being a good safeguard, this page from my blog (specifically the introduction) might help.
http://governing-principles.com/the-uks-westminster-system/
Thanks Governing Principles. That does help explain – what a shame this blog doesn’t have something similar! We will have to agree to differ 😉
Anyway, I agree with you that there needs to be more teaching of the “empire”. I was shocked after leaving school that whilst we were taught there was a british empire, we weren’t taught things like how badly the English treated the Irish, Scottish, Indians etc In fact it’s shocking how we were NOT taught the shameful parts of our history and tramping all over peoples and people. Luckily as a Home Educator, I can make sure my children know about the good and the bad parts of our history as an empire.
Sorry – this is very off topic now…
Concerned Home Edder: Instead of using Wikki, you might care to look at some of the aggregate and objective data on the Lords. I note you have not answered my questions. There are plenty of peers who are not rich (me included); indeed, the Lords is a more diverse House than the House of Commons.
Between a rock and a hard place.
The Lords
May 2010 the BNP gets elected to Government, elected by the people. Bills start to make their way through the House not in keeping with a majority of Lords, the EC or UN…. A hypothetical situation and PERHAPS an extreme but what does it say about democracy and The Lords ? Should the Lords listen to the people or is their view all that counts ?
We know that political parties have a nice manifesto to tempt the public but then do as they darn well please once elected. We can say with pretty much certainty this would be the case in the above scenario. So shouldn`t the Lords be seen as representing the public in the here and now or should they be voting along the lines of their own bias and doctrines?
If they vote along with Government, they`ll get it wrong for all those who didn`t back the FPTP and that could be a majority of the people at times. Voting against will be interpreted as voting against the will of the people and democracy.
The Lords of course do not represent every sector of society, most have lived their lives in upper or middle classes and do not any longer have a view of the bottom or even scenario`s they have never encountered. They get expert Government advice from people handpicked that do not live the scenario but project their views on it, statistics that are often misleading or interpretations but when voting are they really enlightened ?
Most people by the time they reach middle age have cast iron views of things and changing an opinion or view is virtually impossible. Black and white is rarely the case in life however. So being a member of The House must have as it`s primary`s an open mind, the ability to emapathise, a good ear to listen those who will be affected and skin about two feet deep because you`re never going to be right for everyone.
The growing need appears to be the ability to engage with the public, which this blog does admirably. However how can we,the public, know that our views are getting across to all those concerned. Of the 739 Lords (I believe) how many take the time to read the blog ? If you`re not listening to us you are merely entertaining your own view of things and this view can be biased.
More engagement with the public is needed by the House and those that are interested in the subjct matter, in learning, will actively seek that out. It is a poor show that this blog is frequented by so few members of The House, it appears to show that most have no interest in anyones opinion but their own. You don`t have time you say ? Yet you have the time to take my money ? A couple of paragraphs a week will hardly kill you, the question is are we worth it ?
Yes we`ll slate you and your views but it isn`t personal. You can`t win but as above that`s the nature of the beast.
—————————————–
Teaching politics in schools.
There are 739 Lords, there aren`t enough seats for all of them, there are 650 MP`s, Government is a majority they form a cabinet called the legislature…blah..blah..blah
How boring is that ? Get the kids involved, don`t teach them the history of politics actually make them a part. Should hoodies be banned ? Let them have their view set up their own debates. Teach them to be part of it not look there`s a load of rich people and this is where they are and what they do. Get them voting and debating in schools in subjects they view as important, that they have an interest in now.
Carl H: I don’t disagree with your basic point about engagement. It is imperative that we enhance our means of engaging with the public. There are two elements to that. One is developing our own procedures so that we can hear from the public (and they can hear from us). The other is getting people to use those procedures. This can be hardest part. This links to some extent with your observations on teaching politics in schools. When I speak at schools, I invite views on the sort of issues we do debate and on which people do have decided opinions – be it a ban on smoking in enclosed public places, assisted dying, or lowering the voting age. The important thing is to explain that they can make their voices heard on these subjects.
I agree that we need to be able to be open minded and able to empathise. I have learned a lot from comments on this blog and it has certainly influenced my stance on issues. I know thst our readership includes other members of the House. Some are avid readers, a category that includes at least one member of the Government front bench.
I often wonder why here we seem to be lacking in public participation in comparison to “Have your Say” on the BBC site. The latter having hundreds if not thousands of responses, albeit from the entire globe, for each item online. It`s certainly not that you can see your post straight away, as is here.
Is it perhaps paranoia ? If they make too much noise the Lords may send around MI5 or the old bill ! Is it that there are indeed 1000`s of post`s that Lord Norton dumps in the rubbish each day ? Doubtful !
I expected more than the regular few I find, not that I should complain but I am intrigued as to why not so many. The EHE posters have been a welcome sight and I hope some at least will stay with us, whatever the outcome. Or could it be everyone thinks talking with politicians a waste of time ?
I think the lack of participation is because people just don’t know about this blog. I only came across it a few days ago.
It needs advertising more. Facebook adverts would be a good place to start. I seem to be getting a lot of Labour MP’s adverts on there at the moment.
Croft: “Has the plan to draw up a list of peers who are willing to speak to the press on topics as suggested in the hearings got off the ground yet?” Good question. We are waiting for a date to debate the report of the Information Committee. However, I will pursue this point independently. There is a case not only for a list of peers willing to speak to the press but also for publishing lists of peers’ interests. If people wish to contact peers, it is important they know who are the most relevant to contact. One possibility would be for me to post on this site every so often the peers interested in a given subject, though ideally the information should be placed on the Parliament website.
Oh, I had rather hoped that this was achievable by the committee though the usual channels without the house having to wait for a debate. It really does need the house administration behind it as this blog is not the first port of call for people who might be wishing to contact a peer.
“I know thst our readership includes other members of the House. Some are avid readers, a category that includes at least one member of the Government front bench.”
Now you know it’s harder to justifiably lambast ministers for their non answers and evasions if you think there is a free spirit trying to escape their ministerial shackles – clearly proved by their reading the blog!
Croft: I agree. Debating in the report will not, it itself, be sufficient to trigger the changes anyway. We need to be making progress on the recommendations. On your last point, I could not possibly comment.
You may be poor, but I bet you are at least drawing a pension which is more than a poor young person would get. My point is, that unless you have some income other than your work, there is no point in applying to become a people’s peer because how are you going to pay the mortgage if you did?
Yet people involved in work and industry are just the sort of people who should be there.
When I was at University, the lecturers stayed for a few years, then went back into “real work” and the industry in which they taught on. It meant my IT degree covered stuff many other Uni’s lagged behind on. I’ve been out of work for one month in 15 years – and that was immediately after I graduated.
My other point is this – Political parties should not be appointing peers. We may as well go back to the old system otherwise, it was less corrupt.
It should be fully elected. I’m not anti-monarchy, I’m not anti-awards, anti-titles, anti-peers. I just want those who make decisions on laws of the land to be answerable to an electorate.
Concerned Home Edder: Your comments rather suggest that you are not a regular reader of this blog (or of the Parliament website). Many of your points have already been discussed. People involved in work and industry, of different sort, are precisely the type of people who are in the Lords. However, if the House were to be elected, they would not be. Election would not enhance accountability to electors but rather, in terms of public policy, the reverse. I don’t have a pension. I’m still busy working. I’m the sort of person you are referring to. Providing a salary for peers would not, at the moment, be wildly popular. The whole point of the expense regime is to ensure that peers are not out of pocket for their attendance at the House. For anyone not in receipt of a regular income, the expenses are not fantastically generous, but then neither are they trivial. My own view is that we ought to review the situation for opposition front benchers (essentially full time, having to do lots of research, with no pay) and possibly others prepared to devote themselves full-time to the work of the House, or at least full time and exclusively. Some of us can claim to be doing two full-time jobs (albeit only paid for one). Even if you formally removed political parties from the process of appointing peers, there would still be political groupings coming into being. There are also advantages to having political parties, though in the context of the Lords no one party has a majority and the government has to persuade others in the House, beyond its own supporters, in order to get its business.
Governing principles: I understand what you are saying, and my mother taught me from a very early age that the HoL’s was supposed to protect the country from HoC’s bringing in stupid laws and to scrutinze etc.
But I am not convinced it is doing it’s job properly. Why? Because we keep getting laws passed where there are already perfectly adequate laws in place. There has also been laws passed that are just darn stoopid.
For example, Violent Crime Reduction Bill banned the selling of Air guns over the internet if you were a shop whose main business is selling guns. The Act doesn’t stop private individuals buying guns from other individuals over the internet or from car boot sales, private ads etc. This doesn’t stop violent crime, it just stops legitimate gun sellers selling guns.
[Peers]may not obliged to go along with popular sentiment.”
No, but there is still party politics in there and the Labour party are taking over the asylum (so to speak).
But what worries me is if you get a closed-minded bigot in the HoL’s (and I bet there are a few!) we, the public can do nothing to get rid of them. Knowing how unpopular Lord Mandleson is, do you really think most of the public would have voted him into the Lords, yet there he is, working as a minister.
The Kinnocks – supposed socialist (until they get rich) and hatred of the HoL’s, yet there they were donning their gowns and happy to take their seats. Don’t see them giving away their millions.
Lord Norton, regarding a salary – this is exactly the same question that comes up in my parish council every year. Each Councillor is supposed to be able to have £250 for being a Councillor. Every year the Council votes to not take that money because they feel it would be better spent in the community. However, I know for a fact that some of the Councillors could do with that money. One of them has been unemployed for a long time and can’t get to out of parish meetings because they haven’t got a car, there are precious few buses, no trains and taxi’s cost a lot. Another works in a low paid job, and it could mean the difference between getting a baby sitter to attend more Council meetings. Yet the rest of the Council, to appear Politically Correct vote that none of us can take it.
There has to be consideration for those on low wages/no wage to be able to access their democratic post. In the same way, I just can’t see how anyone, regardless of expense claims, would be able to work as a People’s Peer without a salary.
Concerned Home Edder: In some ways, the complaints that you have are part of the compromise that comes with having an appointed second chamber; it can stop laws that are unworkable/bad/dangerous but finds it harder to reject laws that are unnecessary/silly/stupid (a distinction which is really up to the Commons as it is more subjective). A House of Lords with an electoral mandate would probably be freer to reject laws that are that unnecessary but also more likely to allow the laws that are unworkable and dangerous.
As for your concerns about political parties taking over the Lords, I would prefer less political peers. However, a certain amount are necessary (someone has to advocate the government/oppositions points of view to the members of the chamber) and electing peers is certainly not going to get rid of the politicians in the Lords but increase their number.
Concerned Home Edder: I really do suggest you spend some time researching the Lords. Some laws do get through that are poor, but that has to be set alongside what the statute book would look like were it not for the House of Lords. The House does not do a perfect job – I am among those pressing for change so that we can do it better – but we do a good job, certainly relative to the alternatives. There are doubtless some bigots in most or all legislatures – many managed to get elected. Labour are not taking over the asylum. They have just over 200 peers in a House of just over 730 members. There are almost 200 cross-bench peers. Why would Lord Mandelson not be elected to the Lords? He was elected to the Commons. Your point about councillors’ expenses does not appear to have much relevance to my point. Peers can and do claim the expenses to which they are entitled. If they attend every sitting, then the expenses are the equivalent of a salary. It is not a large one, but when the tax-free element is taken into account, it is certainly one on which one can survive.
Mandelson was elected as an MP before he was twice disgraced, not to mention other controversies.
My point about expenses is that many people Councillors, and no doubt yourselves spend a lot of their own money on doing their job as a Councillor/Lord. Not only in time, but in money. In order to get the time to do the job, something else has to give way. No doubt you get to read through very long and boring documents that take up masses of time.No doubt you could be a “Lord” doing HoL stuff full time. But you don’t, why?
So, I go back to my point – how can an ordinary person, with a mortgage to pay, and a job, afford to be a peoples peer in time and money unless they are either rich, or retired poor. Or get a salary.
It’s been my experience that many people who have power, cling onto it in any way they can. I’ve seen peoples head turned with just a little bit. So, it’s understandable why all you Peers don’t want to be elected and keep the status quo. One day you’ll be prized out of your seats, and I’ll be first in the queue on the first election day for the upper house. Maybe I’ll even stand.
Concerned Home Edder: which would you rather have represent you as a councillor? Someone with real experience of living and working in the local area who sits on the council part-time? Or a full-time, career politician who doesn’t care about the town, but only about furthering his own career? The latter is the equivalent of what you would have with an elected Lords.
In fact, your message is rather mixed. You complain about not having an elected house, but also about “ordinary people” not being peers. You complain about party-political peers, but then advocate elections, in which people tend to vote by party.
The term “People’s Peers” is a rather unfortunate one concocted by the media, not an official term. Realistically, peers chosen by the Appointments Commission were never going to be random people of the street. One only has to look at some of the ill-informed comments on the BBC’s Have Your Say – or indeed on blogs such as this – to understand why we need people who have reached the pinnacles of their professions in the upper chamber, and not some sort of collective wisdom of the wider public.
“Some laws do get through that are poor, but that has to be set alongside ..”
Some Acts are merely an official seal on a good debate, and have no more effect than that.
If people enjoy debating then the effect on their morale can be excellent, whether they come up with effective Law or not.
I have actually been quite appalled by Croft’s/Lord Norton’s figures for Acts now compared with Acts 20+ years ago, there being an 11 fold increase in paper work/
e-output.
Some would describe this as obvious proof that our Civil liberties are being eroded by the day. I am not so sure.
My own have not done too badly, but I would describe mine as cultural liberties rather than civil…… agri…cultural!
People who enjoy the Liberties of towns and cities may indeed have found their day to day Liberties being seriously eroded.
The NAN-ization (ie from nano-bytes and so on) of our civilisation from IT to Genomics
has greatly increased our liberties, but not in the way that “civil” liberties were originally formed.
There are vast, and previously unimagined, micro-worlds to be searched for,and discovered, all at our finger tips.
It should be possible and realistic to elect a parliament with E-chambers (on the subject of the thread).
It should be possible to elect an e-chamber which deals exclusively with referendums,
that ANY member of the public with a vote, may join in with a debate and vote for Law BY REFERENDUM.
If you get interested in Law making as Home Edder is, he/she would log in and e-debate and e-Vote,(using skype style techno) on the Bill in parliament.
You are not going to get that with a bunch of geriatrics are you, and yet that is the kind of use to which a second chamber could valuably be put!!?
Concerned Home Edder: Your point about Mandelson is incorrect. He was re-elected after losing his first Cabinet post. You haven’t really addressed my point about expenses. The expenses for a session can amount to more than the average wage (on which ‘ordinary’ people, to use your terminology, survive) and people from very modest backgrounds make it into the House. I do rather lot of Lords stuff, as I suspect regular readers are aware (hence my reference to two full-time jobs). Of course there is an opportunity cost, but I do it because I think I have something to offer, and not because I am paid to be there.
Oh yes, stupid me. I was forgetting myself. At Westminster you are allowed to claim for things on expenses which weren’t actually incurred whilst doing your Parliamentary duty. Unlike the rest of the nation who are only allowed to claim for direct expenses. Which is why the whole expenses scandal started….in which case, if you were paid a decent salary….
Mandelson – he is in the lucky position of power where he can pick and chose his constituency where people will vote Labour whatever numpty is the candidate. I’ve seen this happen before with all political parties and at all levels. Most recent was last years County elections near me had the Tories ousting well respected councillors so the local leaders could assure themselves of a guaranteed seat.
But whilst I dislike Mandleson being a minister, his appointment has added benefits – he is so disliked, even amoungst my Labour sympathising friends that he is another nail in Gordon Browns political coffin. (The failed Labour coup to get rid of Brown another. I was so glad it failed. People really hate Gordon because he wasn’t elected as Prime Minister and the longer he stays, the more people despise him for clinging onto power.)
. Of course there is an opportunity cost, but I do it because I think I have something to offer, and not because I am paid to be there.
———————-
So are you going to renounce expenses and save us some of the 2,000 pounds a day you cost us?
Wolfgang: Since I don’t cost £2,000 a day, your point has no bearing.
We have suffered from the “if one’s at it, there are all at it” syndrome.
===============
Not really. Most people realise there are two sorts of MPs, as there are two sorts of lords.
The majority of MPs, an dno doubt too the majority of Lords too, have been fiddling expenses left right and center. Given that you control the police and the prosecuters, you’ve made sure that only a handful get prosecuted, not all those who commited fraud by saying the expenses were wholly necessary.
The minority, the other sort, are those that turned a blind eye to what was going on. If they didn’t know they clearly aren’t compentent to manage any public money.
Wolfgang: Your unfounded accusations are akin to the ‘they are all it’ comments one finds on other blogs. To claim that ‘most of them are it’ on the basis of allegations made against a handful of members illustrates my point.
Concerned Home Edder: It is precisely because of the problem with the expenses regime that the House has moved to implement a simpler and more transparent regime (though what we each claim is on the public record) but one that ensures that no one is out of pocket for serving the House.
Lord Norton: In the second reading of the Fiscal Responsibility Bill by the HoL on 10 Feb 2010: Column 776 Lord Preston said:
“My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that, at the beginning of our debate, the Lord Speaker read a passage from the Companion about what we cannot do? I thought that she said that we must say nothing that would implicitly criticise the Speaker in the other place or criticise the way in which the other place conducted its business.”
The Lady referred to was Baroness Noakes as she had raised an amendment to address the lack of scrutiny by the Commons of certain clauses and simply wished to address this. She was forced to withdraw the amendment.
1. Can you tell us what section of the Companion the Lord Speaker referred to?
2. In what column of the recorded proceedings can we view what the Speaker said?
3. The bill is headed by a paragraph in bold type that says:
“The Speaker of the House of Commons has certified this Bill as a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911.”
Can you explain how the HoL is able to debate a money bill and what constraints were placed upon peers during the debate not withstanding what the Lord Speaker had already said?
Ref: Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the
Proceedings of the House of Lords
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldcomp/ldctso02.htm
House of Lords: Fiscal Responsibility Bill
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/024/10024.i-i.html
Parliamentary Business: Fiscal Responsibility Bill: 11:36 am
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100210-0002.htm
Lord Norton: As your reply to my questions is notable by its absence let me say in your defence that all answers are available by reading what was said in debate.
I think Parliament should takes it eye away from what the bill is about and ask itself what would be the consequences of a government failing to meet its obligations in terms of the law something that is sovereign.
The electorate would be compelled to ask how a Parliament can make laws when it cannot fulfil its own obligations under the same law. This is the slippery road; Parliament would then pass a law that exempted it from meeting its own legal obligations. In effect it would have the same powers of immunity as the QEII.
An alternative scenario is that Parliament could seize whatever assets it needed from the wealthy in order to bring it into compliance with the law. This fight or flight on behalf of the wealthy would bring misery to ordinary people.
The QEII must ask herself, “Do I need such a competing Monarchy?” Tough choice, we should all hope that she is availed of all the consequences, constitutional, legal, imagined or otherwise when she gives Royal assent to this bill.
Senex: The Lord Speaker’s comments are to be found at col. 741 on 10 February:
“The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was extremely careful in the phrasing of her spech. However, her amendment deals with issues that are referred to in the Companion, and the House may be interested in paragraph 4.52, which concerns criticism of the House of Commons, when it comes to debate further.”
The House then had a very full debate on the amendment. At the conclusion of the debate, Lady Noakes sought leave to withdraw the amendment. She did not have to – she was not forced to – but felt that she had achieved what she wanted to achieve.
On money bills, the House is perfectly entitled to debate them. A money bill passes into law a month after being sent to the Lords, but – as the Companion points out – “This does not debar the Lords from amending such bills provided they are passed within the month, but the Commons are not obliged to consider the amendments. On a few occasions minor amendments have ben made by the Lords to such bills and have been accepted by the Commons”. It certainly does not debar the House from debating them.
It is worth noting that very few bills are actually certified as money bills, given that in order to be certified they have to contain “only” provisions dealing with national taxation, public money or loans or their management. If other provisions are inserted, it ceases to be certfiable as a money bill.
Lord Norton: The position then is very much like that of the US constitutional and the Senate in that it can comment on money bills but cannot amend them?
I feel very strongly that the government has missed an opportunity here in delivering this bill in the way it has. Fiscal responsibility is a non partisan matter for the whole of Parliament. The fact that the bill exists at all is an admission that things must change. I would of course see an elected HoL become the concscience of the Commons in all statutory money matters.
Congress chose to hollow out a non money bill and reinsert the original contents plus the money components to make it a hybrid non money bill. This work around allowed the Senate to debate and amend the bill just like any other bill. The government could have chosen to do this but they did not do so. I would like to the bill thrown out and a US style hybrid bill reintroduced to demonstrate to people that Parliament is seriously getting to grips with its finances.
Another issues arises out of the present arrangements on money bills. If a son of BNP government ever came to Parliament on say a 20% turnout it could introduce its nasty laws by inserting them into money bills. The government in pursuing its ‘PR’ election methods would make it harder for such a party to do this?
A bloggers prospectus for an elected house would have the 49% power switch in place to enable the HoL to better deal with such an illigitimate government.
If this blog is to try and engage with the public and get people more interested in what goes on in the HoL’s, can I suggest you do a couple of things:
1) In your FAQ section you provide basic information on what the HoL’s tasks are, and what the procedures are. So that :
2) When you suggest people “go and learn more about the HoL’s” you point them to the FAQ’s
Many people aren’t like me and won’t bothered to try and educate themselves more – they’ll get bored and click away.
Concerned Home Edder: Thanks for that excellent suggestion. I shall pursue it.
Nobody has mentioned petitioning yet? The Scottish system seems to having some successful outcomes:
Schoolboy’s petition prompts move on MS link to vitamin D [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article7021318.ece]
But scepticism seems to prevail at a UK level:
David Cameron’s petitions: Sign up for a little chaos – A Conservative plan to give petitioners new rights may backfire [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7021012.ece]
I wonder why?
10 Downing st has a petitions system, which has also been good for some people.
Richard: Thanks for that. The issue of petitions is one that I have raised (including through a PQ) and am continuing to pursue. I have raised the possibility that we should consider allowing ePetitioning in the Lords.
More of a threefer than a twofer: given the already large number of peers, more likely to be increased than not, would this be an opportune time to send the willing to tread the town hall boards and hear consultations in person?
ladytizzy: I am very much in favour of committees meeting in different parts of the country as well as of members individually engsging with schools and other bodies.