Lord Knight & Lord Adonis
A running theme through conversations with my peers this week has been about the working practices of the Lords. Partly this came out of discussions with new peers on Monday, but Lord Goodlad’s working group on the subject has now asked for submissions and Lord Adonis has a challenging article in this week’s House Magazine.
I am nervous of pronouncing too soon on this great institution I have just joined. And I am especially nervous as an ex-MP, since we are most likely to look fondly back down the corridor to the Commons and try to reinvent it in the Lords. This was underlined by a conversation with Lord Lamont who told me that when Baroness Thatcher joined the Lords she discussed “shaking the place up a bit” but like so many others had to accept that the upper House has its own ways, developed over centuries, that do not change easily.
Those of us from the Commons have to accept that we are no longer in the primary chamber. We are out of the limelight and in a more consensual culture of scrutiny and deliberation. It is hard not to carry on wanting to shout and barrack, to intervene and challenge, but we need to learn new political skills born out of charm and the backhanded compliment.
BUT
That doesn’t mean we should be content with poor answers from ministers. It doesn’t mean irrelevance and chaos at oral questions is good enough, especially right now as the very legitimacy of the Lords is being questioned. And it must not allow custom and practice to get in the way of any sensible reforms that the Working Group may come up with.
In my view:
• There should be a two or three cross cutting domestic committees to properly use the expertise in the House and ensure we scrutinise the Executive across its range of competence.
• The Speaker should be the final arbiter of who is called at oral questions to the Government, not a member of the Government.
• I have never understood why a Commons minister can’t come to the Bar in the House of Lords (this is a part of the chamber not a drinking hole!) and answer questions or make a statement – and vice versa in the Commons.
• Questions and debates can be made more topical by having more opportunities to ballot for time in the coming week
We saw the House at its worst and its best this week. The nonsense of listening to the CSR statement being read out over 65 minutes, and then as a result having little time to question it, should have been anticipated. By contrast I sat in, and contributed to, what I thought was a great debate on educational excellence (although wished there was more of a culture of taking interventions). The week showed that the Lords can and does perform a highly useful function but I fear that if it doesn’t sharpen up soon it will come off very badly when we finally get thorough Lords Reform.
Why not have minister of either House appear to answer questions from the dispatch boxes? There’s no good reason in modern constitutional theory, the reasons are archaic.
Are we just wasting our time?
———————
Yes. Now stop wasting out money
The reforms you have mentioned, and even a change in the culture of interventions, would be more than welcome for me. From the bar, or the despatch box, I don’t really mind, though seeing MPs/Lords staying at the bar does have a traditional tone to it which I like.
I do wonder, however, how radical Lord Goodlad and his working group will be in his recommendations. I don’t know much of his history, though I do hope he will be daring and confident in his group’s proposals.
I am not sure if Lord Knight has read the reports of the three working groups which reported at the end of the last Parliament. (I declare an interest as I served on all three.) The Leader’s Group on Working Practices, chaired by Lord Goodlad, is not short of proposals for change in respect of legislative scrutiny, non-legislative scrutiny, and internal governance. I am keen to see a report with some substantial recommendations, not least in playing to the strengths of the House.
Ah! The windge of change, at 45 I remember it well; Mojo intact blood running hot in the veins. Passion! Ah, the passion. You must be patient, how much time do you have? The house lacks legitimacy; it gave up on ambition a long time ago. It consoles itself as a reforming chamber in a bureaucrat’s heaven, snug now in the comfort of the familiar.
The house has its hands tied as a prisoner of an autocrat. Lord McFall of Alcluith a rising star pleads with the leader of the house that the Commons must adopt pre-legislative scrutiny as a matter of urgency. The leader of the house simply sneers saying you had thirteen years to accomplish this.
You must learn the ways of the Jedi; young Knight; may the farce be with you?
Lord Knight obviously intends to earn a living in the house of lords as well. Ambition knows no bounds!
Labour? Socialist? forget it!
Gareth, I intend to earn my living outside the Lords whilst playing an active part in scrutinising Government from the front and backbenches on behalf of the Labour Party. There are those that believe it is a betrayal of left wing principle to even participate in a House made up of people there by birth, appointment or as ex-officio bishops. I hope that we will be able to move to an elected Lords quickly, but in the meantime I will work with the current House to give this Government the fullest possible scrutiny.
“On behalf of the Labour Party”
Please do tell what is the difference in representing the Church, the landed gentry or a political leader/party ?
I would hope you would work on behalf of the Nation and it`s people and offer objective scrutiny rather than subjective.
The difference is that if you are speaking from the dispatch box on the front bench you are leading for the Opposition, which is currently the Labour Party. The Labour Party works on behalf of the Nation informed by its own set of values which in turn informs the nature of the scrutiny. If you read my education speech of last week you will see, I hope, a fair degree of non-partisan commentary in the interests of objective scrutiny.
While I disagree with you, Lord Knight, on many things, expecially Lords Reform, I respect the fact that you read and reply to the comments rather than ‘just’ blogging. Keep it up.
Your insight on your transition from Commons to Lords is particularly interesting.
“By its own set of values which in turn informs the nature of the scrutiny”.
Party policy in other words : If it`s Conservative we hate it !
“A fair degree of non-partisan commentary”.
What is the measure of “A fair degree” ?
How do you view the bloating of the House of Lords by Political Parties, the rising costs and the inability to seat the members ?
Do you feel that members who have spent a working lifetime dedicated to party can view bills independently enough to scrutinise impartially with the public at the foremost of their mind ?
Carl, I don’t think you’ll find us opposing everything the Conservatives do – last week we voted together on the Anti-Terrorism Bill. I agree that when the next set of new peers is announced it will raise more questions over value for money and is a reason for wanting reform so that we can get a more rational number. There is work underway on the retirement of peers which may help, and we remain much cheaper than MPs! In answer to your final question, yes I do. I think the Lords is much more independent minded, even the political die-hards, because of the absence of political ambition and the consequent weakness of the whips.
“Political ambition and the consequent weakness of the whips.”
Should I read into that the Commons is Governed by those with Personal ambition and the Whips are strong in that House ? Actually it`s nothing more than I already thought.
Cheaper than MP`s ! Certainly agree with that but far too many, more than is necessary. Yet the Commons keeps them coming even those who do not believe in or want the present system. Lord Steel put forward reforms that most, I believe, are in agreement with yet nothings happens, why is that ?
Is it not that the other House would prefer no scrutiny at all or at least that the current Executive, at that time, wants a House that wouldn`t stand in it`s way ? That the Commons believe that power comes from the people, except when people disagree with it ?
You are not elected, yet I believe you would state that I can only put my faith and trust in someone who is. My faith and trust have to be earnt and cannot be bought on an election trail that would deliver more car salesman/politicians.
Jim: Didn’t realise you had been made a Peer. Look forward to seeing you in action in the Lords.
There are those that believe it is a betrayal of left wing principle to even participate in a House made up of people there by birth, appointment or as ex-officio bishops
I wonder whether John Prescott was eventually introduced? I haven’t heard!
Lord Prescott came in in July
betrayal of left wing principle to even participate in a House made up of people there by birth, appointment or as ex-officio bishops
Uni-cameralism may not be a labour principle at all, but there are quite a few who do not believe in the exclusivity of the “second” chamber.
Better than sitting in the tea room.
It is the class war that is in question, and which is the cause for the uni-cameralist point of view, in this country at least.
If it is to be uni-cameralist then all the non royal dukes, earls, marquises, viscounts may sit in the single chamber in their names as “Mister”, defeating the whole purpose of class war.
The exclusive may be excluded no longer.
I’m not sure you’ve quite joined up your own thinking LK. Bringing Commons ministers to the Lords (lets be realistic it would be nearly all one way traffic) would introduce precisely that partisan element into debates and no doubt encourage peers to support or oppose in a more partisan manner – something whose absence you have just been remarking is a strenght in the Lords.