The House of Lords jealously – and irrationally – guards the principle of ‘self-regulation’ which is supposed to govern the way the House works. It leads to all sorts of absurdities at Questions, and when Government Ministers are making statements, since it is in effect the Government which decides who should speak next. The Lord Speaker – who is very capable – has to sit silently on the woolsack.
Another failure of the system emerged on 11th October, and yesterday, when the Lords debated its purpose and its relationship with the Commons. These were both opportunities for lots of Peers to get excitable about just how marvellous they are, and how Parliament would be the worse off without their expertise, so the Speakers Lists on both occasions were extremely long. Yet since both debates were held under the “Question for Short Debate” procedure, they were limited to 90 minutes. The result: each of had only just two minutes to make substantial points.
I noticed that the preceding debate on Somali Piracy and the following debate on Royal Civil List had no such limitations. Important topics though they are, there’s something rather peculiar about this division of our time.
The Leader of the House has a group looking at the working practices of the House, and – as well as giving the Lord Speaker the power to chair Questions and Statements – I think it’s about time we gave her the responsibility of reflecting the level of interest in a debate topic by extending the time allocated.
After all, yesterday, the House rose at 8.35, so there were 85 more minutes until the usual rising time of 10pm. These could have been used to enable everyone to make a proper contribution to the debate rather than having to talk like competitors in Just a Minute.
You can read my attempt, and the whole debate, here.
Lord Tyler: what a fantastic idea: run Questions for Short Debate like “Just a Minute”! That would be most entertaining, and would no doubt increase the numbers of people tuning in for Lords debates significantly. It would also keep in check those Lords who otherwise tend to deviate…
There would have to be some changes, though. Or else the way you refer to other members would fall foul of the repetition rule…
Interestingly, you would have got away with that this time, as the debate was on an “Elected House of Lords”, so saying “Lord” twice might be permitted. The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells would therefore have had to wait to buzz in when you repeated the word “examined”.
In reality Jonathan the Lords is more like ‘I haven’t a clue’.
Baroness Murphy: when the Lords start having Mornington Crescent debates, I might be worried!
Lord Tyler,
I agree i have been calling on this blog for the lords speaker to have more power at question time to call people. At the moment when watching Lords Questions it looks like organized chaos!
all three parties have committed themselves to thoroughgoing democratic reform of your Lordships’ House.
The content of the noble lord’s remarks, is rather more interesting than the effort of delivery. Did all, or both, interested parties commit themselves to democratic reform more than 100 years ago when their Lordships house reform was first mooted, or is this really the beginning of something new?!
“I noticed that the preceding debate on Somali Piracy and the following debate on Royal Civil List had no such limitations. Important topics though they are, there’s something rather peculiar about this division of our time.”
And of course this post is about Somali Pirates and the Royal Civil List !!!
Self Governance is fine, handing everything carte blanche to the usual channels is another, hardly democratic is it.Though I agree Lord Speaker should surely preside over debate.
It was great to hear Baroness Hayman address the Pope as it was the first time I had heard her speak at length. She seems to be reduced to saying “As many of that opinion will say content…” during any debate I’ve watched.
I don’t understand either why she doesn’t call the next speaker at oral questions or resolve disputes. The way Lord Strathclyde barks “next” at the staff and the staff stands to attention to start the next question is rather silly when there’s a dedicated Lords’ Speaker. Having her fill this role would also stop the frontbench craning their necks around whenever there’s a dispute on their own side as they can’t see who is talking whereas Hayman has a view of the whole house. Hayman was elected as Lords’ Speaker and should be more forceful in forging her role.
Also I know this would go against the deportment of the Lords but she should try and reprimand peers who are talking away to each other during debates or at the very least introduce a minute’s pause at the end of Oral Questions so that the opening speaker in the next debate is not drowned out by peers deciding where to go for lunch as they leave the chamber.
I’d like to respond to Lord Tyler’s blog more seriously because I too have great doubts about the wisdom of the House maintaining the myth that it is ‘self-regulating’. Firstly, peers refer to self-regulation to mean how they personally behave in the chamber. This means honouring the conventions of behaviour in the House and acting in a courteous self denying way in the Chamber. This is all well and good and works about half the time; except that when passions are running high, it doesn’t work any more than self regulation works between an argumentative bunch of children.
Psychologists talk about the self-regulation theory of personal behaviour as a way of thinking about how people cope with their desire to be in control. The individual deliberately monitors their own behaviour, and evaluates how this behaviour affects others. If the desired effect is not realised, the person changes their behaviour. If the desired effect is realised, the person reinforces the effect by continuing the behaviour. Self-regulation theory is used to explain the cognitive bias known as illusion of control. To the extent that people are driven by internal goals concerned with the exercise of control over their environment, they will seek to reassert control in conditions of chaos, uncertainty or stress. In effect self regulation is a way of testing one’s behaviour against others and abstaining from that which will make one appear in a bad light.
Now the House of Commons long ago realised that hot headed MPs cannot control their urge to express their opinions and ‘shout back’ and therefore have a Speaker who acts as Chairman/controller. We have no such person. The Lord Speaker is allowed to do nothing but sit and announce, as Lord Tyler says, a waste of a capable person in the chamber. So when personal self-regulation fails and 4 people stand up at once to speak it is the Government front bench, usually the chief whip or the Leader, who decides who shall speak. It is the Government who decide what order peers will speak in debate and for how long they speak. It is the Government who decide what will be debated. Hardly self regulation.
The second myth is that the House as an institution is self-regulating. Complete nonsense. I’ve never been quite sure what institutional self regulation could mean. Other institutions I have known which claim self governance like universities and companies have governing bodies and boards; we do not. The House of Lords’ financial vote is negotiated with the Treasury on a historical basis by gentlemanly agreement. The Government could cap it at any time if it wished. And the manner it carries out its business is again controlled by the Executive and the Usual Channels. Changes in procedures and the way we do business are negotiated in a painfully slow way and don’t happen at all unless they are perceived to be in the best interests of the Government.
The first type of self-regulation, that by individuals, means that we have no mechanisms for corporate decision making. Hence the institution cannot make a decision without consulting and getting the agreement of the full house; thus ensuring that very little ever changes unless the Government is pretty determined. Clever this self-regulation!
Parliament needs to find ways to act as a corporate entity to perform its scrutiny functions and legislative powers more effectively. A wise Executive would see that in the long term it would be greatly to the advantage of producing good governemnt.
when personal self-regulation fails and 4 people stand up at once to speak it is the Government front bench, usually the chief whip or the Leader, who decides who shall speak
It is arguable that the Speaker of the other place, and his numerous assistants, follow the argument sufficiently closely to foresee
the best next debater, and that there may not be that much difference between his opinion and that of the opposing leader or whip.
It is not as though the Lord speaker’s department makes any significant contribution
to the subject matter of debate from the Commons speaker’s department, the latter which is quite large, and decides the proceedings week by week, presumably of both houses, by default.
Presumably the reason the Lord Speaker does not act as a proper presiding office is because until recently it was the Lord Chancellor, a government minister, on the woolsack. The Lord Speaker’s role, within the chamber at least, is simply the speaker part of the Lord Chancellor’s job, and not a speaker in the sense of the Commons.
I don’t think it’s right that the Government front bench decides who should speak. However, one part of the self-regulation I do like is when during a debate, a peer may stand to interrupt and make a point, or two peers may rise, and the noble lords shout in unison to indicate who should speak next, or “No!” if they think they should not speak. The Lord Speaker could take over Lord Strathclyde’s role in deciding who speaks next, without compromising the House’s role of keeping itself in order during debates.
I do like the fact that peers don’t need someone shouting “Order!” at them, unlike the rabble at the other end of the building!
I think this business of the house choosing which peer speaks if two are standing is quite wrong because it prejudges what the shunned peer is going to say and can feel rather like bullying at times. A peer could be known for making prescient but uncomfortable points and be shouted down in favour of a government cheerleader. I’m not saying that this is a frequent occurance but having an aspect of the house work by who has the loudest supporters feels quite at odds with the sense of respect in the Lords and more like a tyranny of the majority which goes against the consensual nature of the house.
You have to watch Lord Tyler he is a tactical player in the house. You have to ask yourself what he or his party would get out of increasing the powers of the Speaker.
The members of the house are equals. To give the Lord Speaker more powers would make the Speaker first amongst equals destroying it impartiality and creating a hierarchy.
“A few Peers, mainly ex-MPs, have suggested that the time has come for there to be an effective Speaker of the House of Lords. We consider that there are the most powerful reasons against this. The large majority of those who offered evidence are not in favour of such a change at present…”
The apparent chaos of who speaks first can be resolved by the clerks on a scientific desktop calculator using its random function. However I feel there should be some ceremony to this. The house should commission a lotto machine that sits behind the strawsack.
In a short ceremony before the debate starts each peer is assigned a number that determines the order in which they speak. Three lights are prominently displayed in the chamber, a red, yellow and green controlled by the clerk to indicate the time remaining.
Of course the Lord Speaker may find such a suggestion to be a load of balls; much easier to change the constitution?
Ref: The Speakership of the House of Lords; 18 Nov 2003
The Case against an Effective Speakership
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldsphouse/199/19903.htm