I was at a symposium this morning on the Parliament Act 1911. I spoke on the historical background to the Act. One of the points that I made, repeating what I said in my History of Parliament lecture, is that there was very little public interest in the issue of the second chamber as such during the period from 1909 to 1911. What happened to the House of Lords in terms of the Parliament Bill – both in content and passage – was determined by the burning issue of the day: Irish home rule. As Roy Jenkins noted about reaction when the Parliament Act was passed, ‘The general public remained as unexcited as it had been throughout the long struggle’.
I was reminded of this in reviewing the written evidence submitted to the Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill. You can see it here. If you exclude the submissions from MPs, peers, academics and interest groups – the people you would expect to submit – there is no more than a handful of submissions from members of the public. Even Unlock Democracy, despite prompting its members, could only produce an online survey to which fewer than 4,000 had responded. If you think this is a lot to express a view on an issue of public policy, look at the Government’s e-petition website.
In short, not much has changed over the course of a century. If the public are interested in the subject of Lords reform, they have managed to hide it well.
A lot of people come out with ‘standard’ comments if asked, but I do wonder how many have thought through the full implications of implementing the media soundbites.
Dave H: Indeed, see my earlier post on ‘Holding contradictory opinions’.
The draft reform bill is a shockingly poor piece of legislation. It is badly thought out and raises more questions and issues than it answers. It is reform for reforms sake, and seems to the lib dems attempt at clutching a universal policy.
I have said it before, but we need to decide what we want from the lords before we decide how to reform it. The terms set out in the bill are ridiculous, and will make for even less accountable members.
The question to the public shouldn’t be on lords reform, it should be where do you want hundreds of parliamentary hours spent, lords reform or discussing the economy, Europe, the common fisheries policy, health and social care…. Need I go on
Tini: The point that we should decide what we want from the Lords, indeed, from Parliament, before deciding on composition was actually well made in evidence to the committee by a former Lib Dem MP, David Howarth, now a law academic at Cambridge.
My point was that the draft bill was badly drafted, and putting the cart before the horse, by drafting proposals without any clear aim of what is to be achieved. I wire like the first submission from jonathon boot.
I think the main point is that the committee and evidence gathering should’ve taken place before the White paper emerged.
If I could ask a cheeky wee question lord norton, how many hours do you estimate you have personally spent on lords reform since the coalition came to power?
Have you not considered that there may be large numbers of ordinary joes out there who have not made a submission, because they have presumed their opinions will be ignored (due to them ‘lacking credentials’) ??
Matt: Er, no. Being a member of the public is a sufficient credential. We have had some very good submissions from members of the public; it is just that there are very few submissions.
Lord Norton, have you got a better ‘comparitor’ than the e-petition website? (IE, You have had very few submissions, relative to what??).
Short-summary of my notes-in-progress:
If the public is apathetic then that has been seeded and cultivated by the Parliaments.
Such Peers’ psychopathological-projections are like ‘farts-in-collanders’ – they do not resonate with, nor attract, The Public.
What we need is Sustain-worthy Leadership, particpatory-democratisation of the People; an increasing quantity and quality of upwards-democratic-channels of communication;
and win-win-win Needs-&-Hows Problem Solving legislation from the two Houses of Parliament.
“In short, not much has changed over the course of a century.”
It has; that is why we are not interested
Reactionary Tories and constitutionalists would prefer to think that it has not.
“The draft reform bill is a shockingly poor piece of legislation. It is badly thought out”
Tini Well! well! well! Would you believe it!
DELIBERATELY SO, to keep the libdems in government in tow.
What is more LN even mentions a lib dem
Howarth of Cambridge, which might bode a little better, except for one thing, he is every bit as much of a constitutionalist and nit picker as the professor from Hull.
LibDems and Tories are beginning to deserve each other!
I don’t think the public are not interested in the Lords reform. I feel it is more a matter of sensing they can do nothing to make a difference. And as a result, apathy sets in.
Another draw back could be they see it as a long drawn out time consuming effort they would have to make for no good return.
The average person has little time for his home life or leisure these days, and is either too tired to work out how he can change the Lords or to bother would be overwhelming, as he understands little of the workings therein.
You ask why there is apathy when you are systematically trying to count away those groups of people who feel strongly about it and work together to campaign.
It’s exactly this kind of perceived bias that turns people away from politics and makes you an advert for why the lords in its current form needs drastic reform.
I would raise the question of whether you are fit to be on such a committee given this, but I know that like almost everything else in the UK politicial system it’ll be a waste of time.
Alan