The Constitution Unit at University College London has today published a report arguing that there should be a moratorium on the creation of peerages. It contends:
‘The House of Lords’ effective functioning has already been compromised by the recent rapid rise in membership, in ways which are damaging its effectiveness. Any further increase in size could fundamentally undermine the chamber’s ability to do its job.’
The report is supported by a cross-party group of peers, including Lord Butler of Brockwell, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Woolf, and Baroness Jay. I am also a signatory. You can read a copy of the report here. The report has attracted some media coverage.
I have read with some wry amusement a commentary on how this is all the fault of the Lords and that the Lords needs reforming etc.
While the current situation is not ideal, it is in large part created by the other place who nominated so many people to the Lords in the first place.
Why not fix the cause, not the symptom?
IanVisits: Quite so. It is amazing the strange conclusions that people draw.
in large part created by the other place who nominated so many people to the Lords in the first place.
Lord Norton does not really believe that for one moment. Any member of the other place with a clear understanding of procedure nominates him/her self if that is what he wants, ie a retirement seat in the HofL.
Go there; do that!
The ‘new-peeages’ is a misnomer for ‘the old FPTP one-paerty ‘democracy’:
what we all need, and the whole World needs
(and on up into the already One-and-a-Half Earth’s Amount of Resources we desperately need just to keep going sideways as human-civilisations are set to be)
is the Creation of Sustainworthy-People, and of at least one Sustainworthy-Civilisation (out of what is it a total of Eleven (11) civilisations extant around the Global-‘Economy’ ?)
‘cos creating more and thereby ‘fatter=cats’ is only triggering one more chamber ion a Human-Extinction ‘Game’ of ‘Russian-Roulette’…
who will be the Ultimate Almight Pyrrhic Victor ?
====
1059W200411.JSDM.
There is broad consensus here with members of the House and the public that too many peers exist, that the House is overburdened in terms of facilities and expense.
In light of every party wanting reform of the House, which involves smaller numbers it is ludicrous that more peers are being sanctioned by the PM. The public can see clearly that Government being able to adjust numbers and control the upper House is wrong.
The hypocrisy coming from the other place, whilst not unusual, is contemptable.
As the report (almost) admits, the moratorium should have happened in back in 1999. And what’s so great about the Lords Appointments Commission? Just a disguised version of ‘jobs for the boys’, to my mind. At least gaining the favour of the PM/major party leaders is good, honest patronage.
“At least gaining the favour of the PM/major party leaders is good, honest patronage.”
I don’t know if to laugh or feel sick that someone believes that a good thing !
From the makers of Lord Prescott and Lord Knight we give you Kiss My A** Too.
I am also a signatory.
But failed again to get a mention on the beeb! 🙁
Carl.H: I know, standards are slipping.
So which of the new Peers aren’t up to scratch?
Lord Blagger: The problem is one of quantity, not quality.
Standards are not quantity.
Standards are all about quality.
So its either that the quality of your environment is going down, and you want more tax payers money, or that there are peers that aren’t up to scratch.
Lord Blagger: Quantity is having an impact on capacity, so the argument is to limit or reduce quantity and hence the pressure on resources, thus to the benefit of the taxpayer.
Nothing stopping you from starting the ball rolling! 🙂
Lord Blagger: If I did, I may retire to Switzerland…
Not surprised.
Given the mess that’s been left by the political class in the UK.
After all, what’s better than sailing off into the sunset (sunrise actually), leaving others with the debts and the bills.
@Lord Norton: Do you have a sense of how many people would actually leave if the recommendations of the Leader’s Group were implemented and whether there would be any partisan distortion?
@Carl: Sure, people want a smaller upper house, but can’t you see the problem with a the relative party strengths we would have if the new peers hadn’t been appointed? Also, that first bunch of peers was largely a legacy appointment by Brown with, what, half being Labour that would have even further distorted the partisan makeup of the Lords if the later appointments hadn’t been made.
Rich: There are various estimates, or rather guesstimates, of how many would leave if the option of permanent leave of absence was offered, but no proper study has been done. The Conservative benches are, I think, still the ‘older’ benches. There is the question of whether there should be inducements to leave – there are ways in which one could do it on a cost-neutral basis – but offering any inducement is likely to be controversial. An alternative would be to remove from membership those who never attend or attend rarely, though this would obviously make little difference to the present crush on resources.
@Matt: Good honest patronage? Where have you been living?
Let me put my point another way … Why should I put any MORE trust and faith in the Lords Appointment Commission; than in the party leaders??? They are all equally remote from my life. IF ANYTHING, it is more difficult to see what gives the Commission the right to make appointments; and it is more difficult to see what their democratic basis is.
Do the commentators on my previous remarks not get this??
Matt: The Appointments Commission does at least make clear the criteria it applies – see
http://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/selection-criteria.aspx
and it is open for anyone to make a nomination. I accept that there are steps that could be taken to put it within a statutory framework and make it more accountable to Parliament.
Why not simply cut out the ‘middle men’, and give the job to a joint select committee? That way we could all follow their deliberations on parliament tv.
Matt: In principle, I would not have a problem with a Joint Committee, though whether its deliberations on names put before it should be in public is open to debate.
@ Lord Norton.
I can understand your reservation if you have in mind the sensitivities of the candidates – which would include putting the ‘losers’ in the public eye, as well as the ‘winners’. On the other hand, being a working peer necessarily entails being scrutinised, as well as being a scrutiniser – so it shouldn’t be that much of an issue for them.
And it would be positively a healthy thing for the committee members to put their cards on the table, as regards their general preferences (and reasonings for those preferences).
I’m sure you don’t mean this, but I’m also sure you can understand that a concern about putting these things into the public eye can come across as, “Oh no, for goodness sake, we don’t want this to become too transparent, old boy!”
Should I let the home team choose who they want as referee ?
At some point I have to trust someone to do the job, I really cannot run this country all on my own Matt. As for being remote from peoples lives I think most of us could say anyone in Parliament probably is, at least the people around me could.
I have no wish to personally vet each and every candidate, I can’t seem to pick a Government that is any good based on what I am told.
There are of course things people would like to see, ordinary people in the House perhaps and I think at times this does not occur not because of the Commission but because of the Rules the Commission are given to go by. So we can take one more step up the ladder and say who is making those rules ?
We can go on questioning infinitely and never ever satisfy everyone. Kant stated that whatever we do, although we may believe it to be altruistic, we cannot fathom that we are actually making a decision that is self satisfying in some way or form.
Politicians, MPs, have proved themselves in the eyes of most to be liars, manipulators and in the service of industry in most cases, they are untrusted and self serving. These are the last people we would have choose the Judges of their work and that is after all what the Lords do or should.
Can I ask how much research you have done on the Appointments Commission ? Also what you see as it’s failings ?
@ Carl H.
I read some Kant for my philosophy degree – but what he has got to do with this is beyond me.
Your sweeping judgement on politicians is also a counsel of despair.
The House Of Lords Appointments Commission (‘HOLAC’) contains three party-political representaives. Again, I’m not too troubled by that (that’s “good, honest patronage”, so to speak). The others on there have an assortment of titles to their names; but there is not a whisper on the HOLAC website about the people who appointed them.
http://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/about_us.aspx
Here are some selected gems from Lord Jay Of Ewelme (chair of HOLAC), when he appeared before the House Of Lords Constitution Committee, on 16th February 2011:
Lord Renton: … Do you, in fact, ever say how many you’ve rejected, without naming?
Lord Jay: … I don’t think it’s helpful myself to start talking about how many … the point is we look very carefully at the nominations we get …
LR: … You are careful … but perhaps that is one of the reasons why some of us know so little about you?
LJ: … I am spotted around the place, from time to time.
Lord Norton: … You raised the question, should you be doing more? – there’s the allied question, could you be doing more? – in other words, the resources … do you have the resources to disseminate information…?
LJ: … It’s really a question [of making certain] we don’t have the unintended consequences of a large number of applications.
Lord Irving: … From an external standpoint, a test of how well you’re going about your job could be seen to be, what proportion of cases are rejected?
LJ: … I do see the party leaders in the Commons and in the Lords fairly regularly… The judgement is not just, how many we are rejecting, but also, whether the names that are coming forward are sensible and reasonable names … We do advise the Prime Minister against the appointment of some names put forward … [and that is] as far as I would wish to go …
LI: Do I take it that you’re saying you decline to tell us what proportion you, in fact, say ‘no’ to?
LJ: Yes … It is not a large proportion… The important thing is, we take it seriously …
LI: And why are you not willing to specify the proportion for us?
LJ: … Our process, as far as individual names and so on, is confidential …
LI: But nobody is asking for a name.
LJ: I know, but there is always the temptation to look for names …
Lord Rogers: If you only have five or six members in a session, do you look for people in a minority [group in society] … What does ‘balance’ really mean?
LJ: [Merit] is the most important thing … But we have made a series of appointments, over time, which do represent Britain, as much as we can, in it’s diversity …
LR: … Would the ‘merit’ be in achieving something, from disadvantage?
LJ: … We won’t be looking for people who ahev done something in one particular field … but to make a wider contribution to the house …
Lady Jay: … Do you look, in that sense, at the balance, for example, of people from different walks of life? … Looking at Meg Russell’s tables … Of the Crossbench peers, there were 25 lawyers … and 13 from banking and finance …
Lord Jay: We have found her report extremely helpful … Nurses .. Schoolteachers … Areas of life which I think are really important for this house … Of course, the word, ‘lawywer’, does encompass a large number of different professions …
Lord Norton: … How much capacity is there for you actually to be pro-active, and go out and seek someone?
Lord Jay: I think that is one of the more difficult questions we face …
That covers the first 20 or so minutes of the meeting. I would go on, but I would be in danger of losing the will to live …
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingId=7678
Re Kant I was merely intimating that whomever makes the decision of who to be a member or not will probably do so with a bias albeit unknown to themselves.
My sweeping judgement on politicians is a judgement of opinion amongst friends, family and associates. Politicians are generally not trusted to be unbiased as you should be able to tell here. The expenses scandal proved a lot untrustworthy, a lot more evaded legal repercussions. Nick Clegg epitomises the ability to go back on your word, lie, which is done seemingly quite often. So rather than being a counsel of despair it is an opinion of how I and an awful lot of other ordinary people I know see it. You may dislike the opinion on the profession as I expect Car salesmen and estate agents dislike their pigeon hole but you cannot deny the opinion exists, nor can you state there is not some legitimate evidence for people feeling thus.
@ Carl H.
Your first paragraph appears to be in support of what I have said already.
Your longer, second paragraph opens up a different debate altogether. I would simply point out that being trustworthy does not necessarily entail being unbiased. (I don’t even look for trustworthiness that much in poilitics ~ I go by what is actually being said and done; and by what provisions could be put in place to provide checks and balances).
Going by what is said and done or has been in this context is that each new government appears to pack the Lords with it’s own supporters.Each government of course stating they are only trying to even things up and yet the Lords is supposedly a place where bills are looked at on merit.
The latest rounds appear to have had the effect of turning the House even more party political, that’s not to say it wasn’t divided previously but appears to have worsened a good deal.
Trustworthiness is, to my mind, a basic necessity in politics. The Politicians are controlling the taxpayers money, are paid by the taxpayer and if we cannot trust them, we’re in deep doodoo.
I agree checks and balances are necesary but being as they, the politicians, are in control of most things checking them can be a nightmare (see the furore over IPSA). The few that went to court over expenses were, in my opinion, the tip of the iceberg and a lot of people feel the same. The House of Lords is part of a check and balance and yet what I think you are saying is that the commons should be the judge of who should be members. I hope you’ll agree that any check or balance should be from a neutral standpoint and neutrally selected, as far as is possible.
We need a system that will choose members without appearing in anyway corrupt or corruptable. I don’t think allowing those whose work will be scrutinised by the chosen are the best to choose.
The public, electorate, are not in my opinion educated enough to choose those best for the positions. The Appointments Commission as you say may not be as transparent as we would like either, neither are possibly the rules but to my mind are at present a lesser evil, for the time being.
A fully transparent entity, accountable to the public but wise enough to enable good decisions on membership is required. I would prefer it a-political but see the problems that may occur at this time to be insurmountable. So what I would propose is to stay with the Appointments Committee but ensure all business was completely transparent.
Lords Appointment Commission; than in the party leaders??? They are all equally remote from my life
The Appointments commission is for those who become smitten by “being a Lord” from afar.
Members of the house of commons who want to continue attending parliament, without being
an elected member, select themselves for the HofL by attending, and speaking.
In these days of radio and TV media, their face and their voice (and their opinion!) is their patent. It has nothing to do with party leaders.
An outside body that is not biased is needed to first eliminate those who are past their sell by date. In other words those who play little or no part in the daily workings.
This should leave some spare room. After that those who are slavishly political one way or another. Meaning, those who will go along with a party line because it is a party line and not because it will benefit the nation. The tail coat huggers should be out.
After these people are eliminated, then it’s down to those who are the top at what they do and what they offer. Their track record, their ability, their worthiness in society and whether they could be elected if they put themselves forward.
Out should be those who are there simply because it is politically correct to have them for the pictures. They are a waste of space and money. All Peers must be either of benefit in their daily expertise or they are not.
A country needs to be in the hands of those who are worthy of that privilege. Not those who know how to give an apple to the teacher.
Members of parliament select themselves if they want to take a seat in the lords. Quite a few do not, and are,gladly for them and for us, not heard from again.
Those who are addicted to argument and debate as a way of life, and death, need somewhere to do so, and where better than a chamber for hot air attached to the best London club?
Take a walk down Pall Mall and ask yourself if you would want to be a member of any of those puffed up clubs, and also ask yourself if they are any different from the House of Lords. They are not.
Except, those who attend clubs in order to argue pay their own ticket. The Lords are funded by the tax payer and therefore must be worthy of that huge cost.
We also need those who have integrity. Something not too fashionable presently, but, it will make a comeback. Fashion always does the rounds.
Gareth Howell: I don’t know many London clubs that serve as among the busiest legislative chambers in the world.
Doesn’t come close to New Zealand’s. They have never made a mistake.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/last-past-the-post-cameron-told-to-stop-flood-of-new-peers-2270677.html
My Lord, this has come up previously, Health and Safety and his Lordship stated although the House did not have to, by law, follow the rules it did so voluntarily.
If the House is to be packed as the article above suggests there are some very real safety issues that should be looked into.
It is not common sense for the lowliest of workers to be safeguarded but our heirachy not covered. There are very real dangers in overcrowding and with some extremely elderly people, some disabled, this becomes all the worse. How often does the House practice fire drill ? Is the venue licensed to hold only a certain amount as it should ? We cannot ignore the Health and Safety of our Government.
Matt: Discussion of the LAC is old ground here on the blog. When the hereditaries filled the house it is difficult to see how they represented the diversity we see now. The only merit that the appointments system really has is that it gives the establishment some control over that diversity. At the end of the day it is Betty that has to approve the appointment so she must be part of the loop and that is perhaps why things have to remain private?
The challenge for an elected house is to maintain diversity. One could argue that the increase in the number of peers is a result of increasing that diversity. The point is where do you stop? Our own Lord Blagger wants to see hairdressers and plumbers ennobled. Can it be that the follicley challenged Lord Jay (one of those super bright ex Foreign Office things) is rejecting hairdressers and plumbers? Yes it could be true and octogenarians are very sensitive about the state of their hair.
One way to reduce the size of the house (can redundancy be noble?) is to create a Parliamentary Research Service that serves both houses. The diversity the house requires could be established in say 20 categories. The Professors that feature often here on the blog could become part of a much wider diverse PRS back office effort (including hairdressers and plumbers) or they could become election candidates for one of the 20 groups. The challenge for these academics is that they would be elected by their professional peers to meet what is required by the house and not by the LAC or a PM that is clueless about any particular discipline the candidate holds. The LAC would remain to become the PPC engine of an elected house.
By going down this road the house would be largely a political chamber with helpers from the PRS.
Ref: HoL Appointments Commission: Lord Jay
http://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/register_of_interests/lord_jay.aspx
@ Senex
“Discussion of the LAC is old ground here on the blog…”
Well, I’ll take your word for that … but, given that, a) the LAC has only been around for 11 years, and b) with a largely elected upper house, it will be crucial to clarify the equivalent legitimacy of the non-elected element; it would seem to be a pretty up-to-date issue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1950254.stm