When I arrived in this House, after some 14 years service in the Commons, I was very impressed by the extent to which both Peers’ questions to Ministers, and the Ministerial replies, were actually concerned to exchange useful information. MPs don’t tend to operate on that basis. Government backbenchers there want to give their Ministers an opportunity to say everything is wonderful while Opposition questioners want to expose incompetence or inconsistency.
In the last few days, I regret to say, Lordly Ministers seem to have fallen into the tribal habits of their Common counterparts.
Last Tuesday, for example, I asked the Justice Minister, Lord (Willie) Bach whether the much leaked legislation to implement the cross-party agreed White Paper on Lords Reform would be a draft Bill or merely some draft Clauses. Since Jack Straw has been sitting on the White Paper for some 89 weeks I thought that we were entitled to know what was intended, and whether it is to be just an electioneering ploy at the fag end of this Parliament.
But Lord Bach gave an answer which totally failed to answer the question.
Can it be that the unfortunate politicking of the other House is beginning to infect Ministers in the Lords ? If so, here is just another example of the way in which the unreformed House is already intensely political, whatever its supporters claim.
I’d wager that it’s down to the current government, which frequently misunderstands the purpose of the Lords, abusing its appointment powers to bring people into the government as it cannot stand its own backbenchers in the Commons.
I don’t think this reflects on the Lords at all, but on the Commons’ failings. Not saying that the criteria for appointment to a peerage couldn’t be tightened up somewhat, of course.
When I heard the reply I thought much the same. Still as this would all have to start after the election, with potentially a new government and minister, does it matter very much what is promised or not promised about the form of a bill or clause. After the election is the time to get an answer.
My Noble Lord Tyler, I think it is to do with Ministerial positions in the Lords and how they see their roles. Lord Myners first attempt at a blog came across very much as political and Im` afraid I gave him a bit of a hard time because of that.
A personal view or bit of independence in just reporting facts is much better.
But anyway what would Lord Bach know, he think`s Lords Spiritual CAN indeed vote in a general election. Not according to the Government they can`t.
I’m not sure that it should be surprising that a government peer is evasive leading up to an election. While the Lords are usually less partisan, even they are likely to be susceptible to election fever.
Also, I’m hardly shocked that some of the Lords are extremely partisan. Politically appointed peers have, after all, been chosen for their loyalty and service to a political party. All the more reason to reduce the number of politically selected peers in favour of Appointments Committee selected cross-benchers.
http://www.governing-principles.com
“give their Ministers an opportunity to say everything is wonderful while Opposition questioners want to expose incompetence or inconsistency.”
It is called debate and it is a valuable method of getting at ALL the facts. If you are any good at intelligent analysis of facts you do it in your own mind as well.
It was unfortunate for noble Lord Tyler that his first five or six years in the HofC were with an incompetent government and the last few with an over-confident one, neither providing ideal circumstances for first rate debate.
The Labour govt scen-ario of not having an opposition to debate with, because it did not exist, was rather worse than having an incompetent one, in the case of the previous
Tory one.
The most that could be said was that the general gist of the bad law going through from 1997 onwards, was based on different, and in my view rather better principles of government than the previous 6 years.
Even then, the “third way” was concocted by a machiavellian glamour boy.
“I’m hardly shocked that some of the Lords are extremely partisan. Politically appointed peers have, after all, been chosen for their loyalty and service to a political party.”
Assuming of course that they are not former MPs in which case they are as likely to be independent until they
“know a little more about the chamber”, which on the Labour side does not take long to decide.
It’s curious how so many never find anything more out about the chamber and remain independent, and on the reactionary right, by definition.