Last week, the Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill achieved some unexpected publicity. There was a leak from the committee about what had been discussed as to the proposed size of the House. On what one suspects was a slow news day, the BBC had a substantial item about the committtee’s deliberations. This gave the committee public exposure that it has not previously achieved. Indeed, we seem so far to have failed miserably in our attempt to raise public interest. That’s certainly the case if we use as our criterion the written submissions made to the committee.
Last week, I was collating the written submissions made to the Constitution Committee as part of its inquiry into the judicial appointments process. I put the pile of submissions alongside those submitted to the Joint Committee. Despite judicial appointments not exactly being a first-order constitutional issue, the pile of submissions was more or less the same height as that for submissions to the Joint Committee. As you will see from the Joint Committee’s website, we have so far had 98 written submissions. The vast of majority of these are from MPs, peers, academics and organisations such as interest groups and think tanks. On my count, a maximum of 22 are from members of the public, a category that could hide some academics. Whether or not the number increases significantly as a result of last week’s unexpected publicity remains to be seen.
Dear Lord Norton,
I am glad that one of the Joint Committee members who contributes to Lordsoftheblog has posted something about this regrettable incident.
In light of it, will there will be a leak inquiry? And if it is discovered who leaked the Committee’s discussions what actions can be taken against them?
How Ridiculous.
How Ridiculous: Disclosing the private deliberations of a committee prior to publication of a report constitutes a contempt. The House has various sanctions it can utilise in respect of anyone found to have committed a contempt.
Ah yes. We can’t have open government.
Government, of the people, by the unelected.
Lord Blagger: It is a case of private deliberation prior to publication. Parliament and Government are separate. If you want Government by the unelected, look at Italy.
Just have to look at the Lords.
Why can’t you have the discussion in public?
1. We pay you, we have every right to know what you are up to.
That includes the things that bring the lords into disrepute. Why are we not allowed to know what those lords have been up to, or is it someone else that is being protected using secrecy laws?
As for Italy or Greece. Yep, the EU have appointed their adminstrators, and the electorate don’t get a say.
EU coup d’etat.
Lord Blagger: Same reason other people have private deliberations before going public. Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem if our deliberations were in public. I suspect about as many people would turn up as presently turn up for our public sessions.
And why do they do that?
1. To hide what they believe to be good for the public.
2. To hide their own personal benefit in the matters
3. So as they can lie later about what went on. eg. I lost, but I can say I won.
4. To hide the bad from the public.
5. To hide errors.
…
It’s all part of the problem with Westminster, and its to the detriment of the public
Lord Blagger: Twaddle. It’s to allow unfettered discussion. The results are public.
Except that means the public don’t get the unfettered discussion. Facts are withheld because its only the conclusion, and that is sanitised to remove details.
ie. Secret committees.
Lord Blagger: There is a difference between secret and private, discussions are discussions based on evidence placed before a committee – evidence that is published, so no ‘facts’ are withheld.
If you want to drum up more interest, arrange to leak something outrageous so that the tabloid press make it headline news. Then the whole committee can appear in media interviews to explain things and how the leak is totally without foundation and encourage more input on what people really want.
I said the same in a guardian blog about ten days ago.
I suppose that it does not really matter whether there are 120 peers or 1200; that the number will go on increasing remorselessly, so now instead of having 1200 hereditary peers on the Gravy train we shall have 1200(-afew) life peers, doing the same thing.
In fact, if it is underway already, a good number of the new life peers are/will be hereditary peers with a new life peerage.
Stirring up empathy where there always was plenty…… for the expenses office.
It is surprising how foolishly similar the
set-up of parliament is to ancient Rome, with Plebs democracy and Elite senate.
The apathy on the Labour side would be due to the recognition that the senate should be abolished entirely, and yet it is surprising how old/new Labour have turned up there in the last year or so, theoretically to defend their character or reputation of previous years.
I shall name no names shall I
JOHN PRESCOTT.
Dennis Skinner (and Clay Cross) have got democratic principles!!!!!!
I suspect about as many people would turn up as presently turn up for our public sessions.
And all one of them be turned away, as i have so often been, probably not excluding Lord Norton’s secret committees. How important!
Or else “come in”
and then
” now leave we don’t like the way you smell,
(or similar)
Gareth Howell: No one is turned away from a committee meeting that is taking place in public, unless all the public seats are already occupied. There are no secret committees. If there were, you wouldn’t know about them!
Dear Phil,
You might like to read the following before pronouncing on private committees not existing
===============
The House of Lords also regularly appoints other Select Committees on the following matters:
1. The domestic affairs of the House (for example, the Procedure Committee and the Committee for Privileges).
2. Private legislation.
3. Certain aspects of Public Legislation (for example, the Joint Committees on Statutory Instruments and Consolidation Bills).
Most Public Bills are considered on the Floor in Committees of the whole House.
For information about these committees (whose meetings are generally held in private) contact the House of Lords’ Journal Information Office (Tel: 0171 219 3107).
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldselect/ldscgen.htm
Lord Blagger: None of this contradicts what I said. You really must learn to read what is written and not what you appear to think is written.
There are no secret committees
========
There are committees who meet where no one is allowed to know what goes on because its private. It’s kept secret.
Er, such as?
“Gareth Howell: No one is turned away from a committee meeting that is taking place in public, unless all the public seats are already occupied”
In that highly unlikely event. I regret to say that the public meetings of the House of Lords suddenly become private ones if the peers decide they do not like the complexion political or otherwise of the public (usually me).
I took a check this week for lords public committee meetings and the very day I searched. TWO private meetings out of two.
Say no more.
No more elitism please. Give us democracy
every time.
Elite knowledge too. “We are elite because we have certain privileged knowledge and we don’t want anybody else to have it, just amongst ourselves!”
Meeting closed!
Gareth Howell: That is total nonsense. Public sessions are not turned into private meetings because the committee does not like the complexion of the public. I came across a similar claim by someone when a committee became inquorate and so could not continue its public session. It had nothing to do with who was attending.
“Gareth Howell: That is total nonsense. Public sessions are not turned into private meetings because the committee does not like the complexion of the public”
I know my quorates from non-quorates, but before I got LN’s post above I was just thinking that I attended Peers committees about a dozen times over 6 years and in all but one of them, was excluded from the meeting after a short while.
The peers’ committee corridor is not hostile to visitors, but their committee rooms certainly are!
On one occasion the chairman even asked his committee whether they needed the public there(me) and the answer came about “No!” so I was excluded.
A recent committee of Foreign Affairs, the chairman did not even exist, although he chaired the meeting competently. I looked up the name later, and there was no such peer.
With such denials as the noble lord makes above and the elitist hostility of the place, not much advatage is to be gained by Legislation being overviewed/reviewed by them.
Example: “What is your interest in this subject?” (to me the only member of the public)
“None in particular” (having only a general interest and not wishing to communicate, and presumably having that right not to)
“You may leave”
which was given to mean DO SO!
As far as I know I did not smell bad or have something hanging from the end of my nose or have excessively long hair, so my exclusion was based on an objection to having the public present at all.
Your “nonsense” noble lord is “garbage”
for want of a charming word to please you with.
Gareth Howell: I suggest you supply somewhat more testable facts, since I have never found an instance of anyone being excluded. I have, though, come across people so claiming, including in a session where I was the witness and the public hearing had to cease when the meeting became inquorate. I then got a letter from someone who attended, claiming the public were excluded because I was about to reveal sensitive information. Given my information was already on the public record – and there isn’t much that is sensitive when it comes to reforming the practices and procedures of the House of Commons! – I did try to explain, but I doubt if I overcame his embrace of conspiracy theory.
Again it is asserted that there is a lack of interest from the public. Again I have to assert that what interest there is out there, is outflanked by the feeling that our views will be ignored, anyway.
Matt: A somewhat self-fulfilling prophesy.
But not necessarily untrue, by virtue of that.
Interesting response in relation to self-fulfilling prophecies!
It goes back to your attitude (typical quango) and politicians.
1. Lip service is paid.
2. Deals are arranged in secret. Details are not given to the public.
3. Manifesto promises are broken.
4. Laws are enacted that are not in manifestos
5. We cannot get rid of you democratically
6. We cannot get rid of politicians democratically, without voting against our interests.
7. Small committees control who is elected – the selection committees.
8. We aren’t allowed a say on any issue.
Even the recent referenda, was just about who gets to tell us what to do, not us telling politicians what to do.
So with no say over what goes on, we as the electorate have no responsibility for the outcomes.
Look at Greece for an up to date example.
50% of the economy is now the black economy. People have opted out because they were lied to over Greek debts. The EU was involved in this fraud because they knew what was going on.
So the majority (It’s 50% of transactions, not 50% of the population). They have decided they aren’t responsible for the mess.
There is clear accountability of government through the House of Commons and, for that matter, accountability of the Lords through the Commons since the Lords is not by itself a law-making body. The outcome of any ‘deals’ on legislation is public since they legislation requires parliamentary approval. Laws are indeed enacted that are not in manifestos since manifestos cannot predict the future. A Government is answerable for measures it produces that are, or are not, in its manifesto. People are free to vote for whoever they wish, which doesn’t have to be a member of a mainstream party.
I have to assert that what interest there is out there, is outflanked by the feeling that our views will be ignored, anyway.
I don’t know about “self fulfilling” but it certainly shows a lack of passion for the campaign, of conviction that every body should know and you are going to make Blutty well sure that they do!!
And possibly compounded by Nick Clegg’s earlier committee seeming to show no interest in receiving views?
Best of luck with your endeavours – be they public or private.
Short of having a second “witness” of a slightly different kind , having “testable” facts would scarcely be possible in parliamentary corridors.
Perhaps Lord Norton is thinking of Witnesses?!!!
The test is my own long term memory, which is first class, and the methods peers use to convince themselves and others that they have some prior right to privacy over public information.
The commons committees do not announce their private meetings, merely open to the public when they are ready to do so and when they have said they would.
Lords do “Private meeting” announced on the
website (eg this week, if it has not been adjusted). There is not much point announcing a private meeting unless you think that the press will be baying outside for information of what was discussed, which is…testable…. !
Just another example of exclusivism.
Gareth Howell: “There is not much point announcing a private meeting unless you think that the press will be baying outside for information of what was discussed…”
In that case there’s not much point, since I have never known an occasion when the press have been outside baying to know what has been discussed. If they ever are interested, they can wait for the published report.
Gareth Howell: I suggest you supply somewhat more testable facts
As opposed to de-testable ones?! Larf!
It seems to me that the lack of public evidence is appropriate for the style of democracy we enjoy. It is not necessarily apathy. MPs do not represent their constituents directly; they hold a delegated authority from the voter to act upon their behalf. If they are not willing to delegate that authority they don’t vote.
The public have not delegated their authority to the upper house so the point you are really making is that an appointed house is justified. Is this all you can offer? To be a knife sharpener in a Parliament that is nothing more that an abattoir of Civil Liberties.
The same sharpness could apply to a directly or indirectly elected house. If this is to be the case then bring the number of peers down to fewer than 100 and let us invest in an infrastructure of grind stones.
It seems to me that the lack of public evidence is appropriate for the style of democracy we enjoy. It is not necessarily apathy
The ignorance of correspondents on a recent insidehealth discussion on radio4 about the huge computerisation chages in the NHs, was staggering. National commissioning of NHS procedures and NOBODY knows anything about it, except three of the 8-12 people who were in the Lords the day of the Bill. 5 of those asked questions which were so mindless that it was perfectly obvious they were only speaking to find out (which is not always a bad way) Two of them knew exactly what they were saying.
This is simply not true. I know for a fact at least 2,500 individuals submitted their views and over 4,000 participated in the consultation. http://unlockdemocracy.org.uk/blog/entry/lord-norton-stirring-up-apathy
I was referring to individual submissions, not people who signed up to a questionnaire.
But those are real people with real opinions. Why are you ignoring them just because they have the sense to get together to make their voice heard? Your attitude is offensive.
Philip Norton:
The survey asked individuals to submit their thoughts on the issue. It did not simply ask individuals to “sign up”.
If the committee had not made the demand that individuals respond both by email and in writing, you would not be able to suggest that few people responded “in writing”. You are suggesting that those people who did not respond on paper do not ‘really’ care about the issue and therefore their views do not ‘really’ count.
You could have acknowledged that thousands of people responded, but you chose not to. I do not think you are genuinely able to read the minds of the people who did not respond “in writing”. I do not believe that you are able to discern that every one of those thousands of people feel indifferent on this issue and therefore their responses are not worth mentioning.
Peter Facey;
People submitting their views is no evidence of knowing what the purpose of the bill was, however many submitted or consulted on it.
Obviously those who worked to do the Commissioning over 8-9 years KNEW the subject very well indeed, but the self containment of an NHS bill going through with out any member or Peer ,other than the Secretary of state and one or two others, in each house, knowing the subject at all, is surely a serious condemnation of parliamentary democarcy in this instance, certainly with regard to Sickness.
The Secretary of state may not see it as any part of his job to enlighten the public or encourage them to understand the current state of the NHS communications art.
Regrettably for him, IT IS!
See
http://unlockdemocracy.org.uk/blog/entry/lord-norton-stirring-up-apathy
Did Lord Norton ignore over 2000 written responses and over 4000 responses to a questionnaire? Or did he not know about them?
Martin Burch: I am quite well aware of the submission. I was referring to individuals who made the effort to submit individual cases directly.
Lord Norton, I hope that you’ll provide a response to this post by Unlock Democracy.
Paul: I have. I was counting the submissions made individually to the Joint Committee. The number has just gone over 100.
So when Unlock Democracy say:
“4,132 people filled in a questionnaire answering detailed questions about the draft Bill and 2,584 submitted responses in their own words” (my emphasis)
and
“Following a number of conversations with the Committee Clerks about how they wanted to receive this evidence, we submitted them alongside our own evidence in October. In total the evidence came to around five and half thousand pages. One of the largest ever responses to a Parliamentary committee.” (my emphasis)
they are incorrect? Or are the responses unacceptable for some reason? If so, what reason?
Paul; None of this affects the validity of the points I made. I was not referring to the validity of responses, but their nature and origin.
If there was no difference in the validity of responses, why didn’t you count them?
2584 is quite a different number to 22.
Anentropic: I suggest you re-read my post. There is nothing in what I wrote that is inaccurate.
Reading through this post it appears the ‘Lords’ are not comfortable with many comments they have received on the issue of Lords reform.
They don’t want to let it be known that the Public do, in fact, want to have an elected second chamber and have been writing to them accordingly.
And all this truly comes from the absolute fact that the nation is totally discontent with government, and are trying to place their trust in promoting a second chamber that will not pass laws, et al, that are being rushed through without the consent or knowledge of the people, who it will affect. This is what was practiced under the Blair/Brown fiasco, and it was too late to do anything about their policies as they were unknown until it was in motion. Then it came as a shock to us all.
Exposure is one way of getting the voter to realize what is taking place in government before they serve it on us as a fait accompli, and this is why so much is being held in secret. The previous government carried out their policies this way and this one is following suit. They know if the voter is aware of their plans they will not accept them.
It is far easier to get dark legislation to move swiftly through when those who will be affected know nothing of it. Does this remind anyone of what took place in Germany in the 1930’s?
maud elwes: See my earlier post on public attitudes towards House of Lords reform. Over 70% of the public want an elected second chamber and over 70% of the public want a predominantly appointed chamber.
I am amazed and dismayed by Lord Norton’s dismissal of people who gave their time to respond. Yes over 4,000 people filled in a questionnaire, answering questions on issues such as composition, the electoral system and even on powers in their own words.
But in addition over 2,500 people then did their own submissions many concentrated on a few issues that concerned them, but a few did full submissions covering all the issues covered in the white paper.
The only difference between them and the ones sent directly to the committee is that Unlock Democracy promised to ensure that they got to the committee without them having to email and print off and post their responses separately.
We talked to the clerks to ensure that we provide them the submissions in the easiest way for them to handle. We offered to print them out, put them in envelopes and deliver 2,538 individual submissions but they said they where not set up for that size of response and ask us to turn it in a single word document and a excel spread sheet.
And now because we have attempted to work with the clerks and the committee Lord Norton is effectively erasing their voices from this process.
So Lord Norton what would it take for you to count their submissions, them emailing you directly?
Peter Facey: The submission from Unlock Democracy was precisely that. Supporters were variously implored to respond to the survey and as far as I am aware those who responded constituted a minority of supporters (unless support for Unlock Democracy has collapsed in recent years). If you contrast it with other surveys recently, it does not suggest any public pressure on the topic.
What I was drawing attention to was the submissions that individuals took the time and trouble to pen individually and, as far as I am aware, of their own volition.
But as Unlock Democracy have pointed out they had over 4000 survey responses and 2500 who wrote submissions in their own words.
As far as I am aware all of those responses were people acting of their own volition, without being somehow coerced to do so by goons from the Unlock Democracy organisation…
Anetropic: Whether or not they were acting on thier own volition does not invalidate the accuracy of my comments. Unlock Democracy is an organisation and it was through Unlock Democracy that the comments were collated and channelled.
I am not dismissing them. I am putting them in context and no one has contradicted my particular points.
I have read halfway through the comments on this page so far and would like to comment at this point. I believe I was one of the many people who responded to Unlock Democracy’s submission on this topic. I am grateful to them for bringing the information to my attention, as it is very easy in the course of our busy lives for important things to escape our notice. I can see exactly what Lord Norton is saying here and it’s given me a bit of chuckle. He is very clever and quite correct. He did indeed receive one individual submission from Unlock Democracy. That much is true. It is also true that that submission contained letters from hundreds of people, a fact he does not refute. The issue is a question of semantics. Lord Norton would make a great contract lawyer and I would expect no less of a man who has held the post of Director of the Centre for Legislative Studies at Hull University for some 2 decades now.
My apologies if this has already been covered further down the page, but would it not be fair to ask Lord Norton; is it not a bit misleading sir to state the facts in the way you did? It may have been accurate to do so, but by failing to elaborate that one of the 22 public submissions contained responses from a few thousand people it would seem to suggest an apathy towards the subject on behalf of the public which simply isn’t true. As evidenced by the responses on this page it could be very easy to misinterpret your words and I would suggest that you knowingly phrased your comment in such a way.
The fact that Unlock Democracy gathered in and submitted responses from people, who may otherwise not have not known about this, or understood it clearly, should not and does not invalidate those responses, nor does it indicate apathy. As I already mentioned, there isn’t really enough time in the day to keep abreast of all open submissions on topics and make fair written comment on them. I am grateful for the efforts of the Unlock Democracy team who make sharing my views so much easier and having worked on one of the BBC’s editorial teams I usually set a high standard for myself in formal communication, so I am loathe to simply add my name to a pre-written letter without making at least a few changes. (I must admit I HAVE been guilty of this on occasion due to lack of free time however). Nevertheless I would never sign my name to something I had not read in full and was not personally in agreement with.
Many more were contacted by Unlock Democracy and chose not to respond. As a member on the mailing list, I am invited to submit my feelings on a number of issues and I select which ones I wish to respond to, I do not submit blanket responses to every single invitation. I would hope that our thoughts are given the due consideration they deserve and I’m sure you will… but it is a bit misleading to use a trick of semantics to paint a picture of apathy that isn’t quite true in order to substantiate the comment made in the title of your piece.
Are they still accepting input from the general public then? I notice on the web page it says ‘preferably by 12th October’. I think their terminology might also put people off – ‘call for evidence’ to me implies hard facts, whereas I assume the committee would actually like to hear people’s thoughts and questions on the subject with a bit of coherent reasoning to justify them.
I cam submit three pages of brief notes and observations if that’s useful.
It’s a lot of document to go through for someone who’s never really tried reading that sort of thing before (I have, and it deserves more time than I’ve really given it) and may go some way to explaining the lack of responses. You really need to get people worked up and annoyed if you want to increase the response rate, ask any government department about comparing consultation response rates where there was something controversial in what was proposed with those where observing the drying of paint was more interesting. I suspect that this topic is down there with the paint for most people even if it is going to have a significant effect on everyone.
Dave H: Yes, written evidence is still being accepted. The guidance date of 12 October was in order to enable the committee to receive it in time to consider who should be invited to give oral evidence. Anyone wishing to put in written evidence is very welcome to do so.
Please see my submission ‘the Public is not Apathetic’
inadvertently posted under Lord Norton’e
“Socialising New Members”, above.
Well, for what it’s worth, here is what my individual submission to the joint committee would be – in the form of a ‘less ambitious’, but also ‘less turbulent’ draft bill:
“As from 1st January 2014, the total number of sitting members of the House of Lords shall not exceed 600, at any one time.
By the 1st June 2013, the clerks of the house will have compiled a list of those life peers who wish to continue sitting in the house from 2014 onwards.
By standing orders of the house, there shall also be a prior agreement about the maximum number of sitting members to be allocated for each party grouping. This will be proportionate to their pre-existing share of seats, among all life peers, but it may build in a slight bias in favour of the smallest parties, and shall have due regard for non-affiliated office holders, in this first instance. Crossbenchers shall be considered to be a ‘party grouping’ of their own, for these purposes. It is expected that the total number of seats in the house held by the two largest parties shall be equal, or very close to equal.
If and where it is found that the number of peers on the clerk’s list exceeds the allocated maximum for their particular party grouping, then the life peers of that grouping shall hold an election among themselves at the first opportunity, using the alternative vote system, whereby those who poll the fewest votes will be removed from the list.
This mechanism, in the first instance, only affects the position and privileges of life peers, and does not concern itself with the place of bishops, hereditary peers, or retired law lords in the house.
It is expected that around two thirds of life peers will continue to be sitting members of the house from 2014, by this mechanism.
This legislation does not affect the status of any peer in terms of their title and honour, nor is it concerned with any broader questions about the creation of new peers. It does, however, remove the automatic right of a life peer to sit and vote in the Lords, following the precedent set for hereditary peers in 1999.
After the January 2014 changes have been put in place, if a vacancy arises in the house, due to the death of a sitting life peer, then anybody who holds a life peerage, but does not have a seat in the house at that point, may put themselves forward to fill that vacancy. Where there is more than one person wishing to do this, the winning candidate shall be chosen by a vote of the whole house. Therefore, these by-elections shall not be determined by party groupings, as such. As from January 2014, the same principle shall apply to any hereditary by-elections: all vacancies from that point onward shall be filled by a vote of the whole house”.
Happy to write explanatory notes, too, if needs be. Is it worth my while submitting it?
Matt: That is very interesting proposal and one that may well elicit support from some, and possibly a great many, peers. It has certainly been useful to me. It would certainly make a valid submission, so do please feel free to submit it, along with your explanatory notes.
Sounds much better than the draft bill, to me. One query, though, if there was a change in second party (as with the decline of the Liberals and the rise of Labour) or a new third party were to emerge how would that be reflected? (e.g. a rare statutory change to the proportions if/when necesary, not at all leading to further reform calls or an element of indirect election determining the party percentage of seats).
All second chambers have a ‘time lag’ in their representativeness;
Every time the government changes ie commons majority at a general election, the flood of new members to the Lords, caused thereby, has the knock on effect of an opposition majority in the HofL, but IT DOES NOT MATTER.
You can see the value of the cross bench, except that ‘Independent’ generally means far right Tory.
The “Independence” of Hansard society is also questionable in that context, with which opinion most Labour members in the lords would concur.
Dear Gareth,
Can you provide some explanation for this comment:
“The “Independence” of Hansard society is also questionable in that context, with which opinion most Labour members in the lords would concur.”
The Hansard Society is non-partisan and has been since our establishment in 1944 – our first members were Winston Churchill and Clement Attlee, and since then the Prime Minister of the day and leaders of the main opposition parties have publicly supported the work of the Hansard Society.
We are currently supported by our Co-Presidents, Rt Hon John Bercow MP, Speaker of the House of Commons and Baroness D’Souza Lord Speaker in the House of Lords. We are also supported by our Vice Presidents, Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, Rt Hon David Cameron MP and Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP.
If you could explain how you came to the above opinion/cite your sources it would be appreciated.
Michael Raftery
Hansard Society
I’ll give you one example.
You’re not independent in that you will censor posts critising the behaviour of people associated with the Lords.
ie. You have a pro lords stance.
Dear Lord Blagger,
Your “example” is not relevant to the question I put to Gareth Howell about his equating independent to “far right Tory”.
To address your point – if you click on most posts on this website you will find comments below the line (often your own!) that challenge the House of Lords as an institution and the work of Peers themselves. Many of the Peers respond to these challenges and it is this dynamic that is the purpose of Lords of the Blog.
When comments do not go live on the website it is because they fail to meet the Terms and Conditions of the website (http://lordsoftheblog.net/terms-and-conditions/)and the author is contacted by a moderator to explain this and offer them a right of reply. This is the only criteria used to approve posts.
I do not understand how a blog that hosts discussions like this one on welfare reform: http://lordsoftheblog.net/2012/01/13/welfare-reform-again/#comments can be accused of being censorious but do get in touch if you feel that is the case.
All the best,
Michael Raftery
Hansard Society
“You’re not independent in that you will censor posts critising the behaviour of people associated with the Lords.”
ie. You have a pro lords stance.
I hope I have highlighted just part of the noble Lord Blagger’s post since he hits the nail most firmly on the head with it.
On reflection with the other so called Independent NGO I mentioned (Zimbabwe foreign policy), there is a striking similarity which Mr Rafferty elucidated with his all party references.
“A pro lords stance” is not a left of Labour stance, so it can not be independent.
Mr Tony Benn is living evidence of that proposition. The gentlemen, the Skinners of Clay Cross some more.
Those who are lured in to the Peers chamber may well be done so by precisely the kind of double talk in which NGO independence indulges.
The one I am sorry for is Bob Mugabe, whom
Lord Blagger and I may both know, from the old days?
I agree with JH and LN that sounds like an improvement on the draft bill from Matt, and JH’s appraisal is also appropriate on proportions after an election. How?
Could you link proportions directly to General election results in the other place?
JH: On your precise point, if things ‘evolved’ in that way, ie, the seat ‘holding’ of a party in the Lords was drastically lower than their holding in the Commons, then we might want to look at an amendment whereby we open up the internal by-election ‘electorate’ to members of the Lords + members of the Commons, to bring about a gradual rebalancing. Given the dire standing of the Liberal Democrat leadership in the public eye now, I don’t think this is going to happen any time this century! So your point is a largely technical and hypothetical one, though not invalid.
Much better to keep a sense of the peers managing their own affairs, by ‘co-opting’ in the best of the bunch, as vacancies arise. Note also with the significant Crossbench presence, I don’t think party loyalty would count for all that much in whole house elections. Also, in holding that ‘last resort’ amendment ‘in reserve’, bear in mind that:
1. All second chambers have a ‘time lag’ in their representativeness; 2. Even Labour and Conservatives would only end up with about a quarter-share of the whole house, under my bill. 3. A government with a weak showing in the Lords would still be able to employ the Salisbury Convention and Parliament Act; 4. A ‘new’ party winning a series of elctions would ‘show through’ as a higher proportion of the ‘non-sitting’ peers up for election (via new creations).
Your question was a clever way of projecting the historical background into the future, all the same, and made me think much harder!
Many thanks for the reply – I hadn’t taken fully on board that the ‘main’ party percentages would be lower and the potential for them to reduce further through the by-elections.
If there was a regular repeating of the AV vote (with e.g. general election performance determining the political parties’ ebbing and flowing proportions) then it could answer the demand for democratic legitimacy without doing too much damage to the virtues of the House. While I accept that the need or desirability for the second chamber to
be democratically elected is by no means undisputed, the injection of a democratic element could possibly satisfy some of the ‘democrats’ or make it harder for them to oppose.
Just two points which may help Matt in his deliberations. 11 peers have died since this date last year. That probably means 50-60 over the course of a five year parliament.
At the moment by far the largest party in the House is Labour with about 60 more members than conservatives, and only a couple les than both LD+Cons put together.
Those are the facts; this may have been caused by the retirement, forced or otherwise of so many labour members from the HofC in 2010, and their natural inclination to go/enter the HofL as soon as they are thus retired. They/we don’t wait for an invitation, merely enter.
It may also help for me to write up my ‘explanatory notes’ in a piecemeal and responsive way on here, I suppose:
Purely on the point of party balances in the Lords, on first instance:
– At the time of writing, going by the parliament.uk website, the grand total membership of the Lords now stands at 826.
– My bill provides for a reduction in the number of sitting life peers, in order to cap membership at 600 (equal with, by the way, the planned membership of the Commons in the next parliament). This means – one way or another – the departure of 226 life peers by 2014.
– The current grand total of life peers is 686. 226 out of 686 comes to about a third. This calls for the ‘voting in’ of two thirds of the current party groupings (presuming that natural wastage, retirement, etc, doesn’t get us there).
– 2/3 of Conservative Life Peers (170) = 113; Plus their 48 Hereditaries = CONSERVATIVE (‘POST 2014’) HOLD OF: 161
– 2/3 of Labour Life Peers (235) = 157; Plus their 4 Hereditaries = LABOUR HOLD OF: 161
– … Of Lib Dems L.Peers (87) = 65 (smaller party bias in favour); Plus 4 Hereds = LIB DEM HOLD OF: 69
– … Of Crossbench L.Peers (154) = 103; Plus 33 Hereds = CROSSBENCH HOLD OF: 136
– Leaving approx: 22 ‘OTHERS’ (Preserving all the very small-party people, party-independents and non-affiliated officers; but losing 2 or 3 notably ‘dodgy peers’ who we won’t bother to name here).
– POST 2014: ESTIMATED PROPORTIONS (out of 600) in %:
CON: 26.8% … LAB: 26.8% … LIB DEMS: 11.5% … CROSS: 22.67% OTHERS: 3.67%.
My ‘statistical methodology’ and/or maths must be a bit ‘off’ in places; but you catch my general drift about the likely and desired outcome.
put to … Howell about his equating independent to “far right Tory”
There is no doubt at all that Independent peers
are well to the right of Tories in most things, although it may be true that some of the revolutionaries of early days in communist russia had landed estates. Paternalists may vote in a way that they think their supporters need rather than for their own.
The only comparison I can make is with the independent ngo which takes responsibility for UK govt policy on Zimbabwe. It has been so complex over the years with so many twists and turns of policy, that what was one color of the spectrum in our dealings with that country is a completly different one 14 years later. Eventually it was decided to form policy Independently of the Foreign office, but in recent years that policy has indeed been extreme, and very,very far from Independent.
All the government officals and opposition leaders are or have been on that NGO board,
just like …. Hansard society, a veritable cavalcade of independence!
I have talked with a certain number of old hands in the House of commons and one or two now in the second chamber itself and I am only concuring with their opinion, and trying to see the basis for their indifference.
I live and have been acquainted with one particular rural area for many years and the meaning of ‘Independent’ is FAR RIGHT PATERNALIST REACTIONERY!
I hope that helps!
The proof of the electoral pudding is in the good digestion of it.
In this constituency, South Dorset, and we may even have the Lord Knight near at hand to contradict my view, I was surprised to learnthat most people had gone “Independent” before the election took place.
A certain member of the paternalist family Drax took the seat from James Knight with a huge swing, which could not wholly beattributed to JK’s incompetence(if at all)!
The nomenclature “Independent” is a familiar one in rural politics, and has nothing whatsoever to do with political parties. It generally means
“Mind your own ****ing business, and I’ll mind mine….Politics!”
Deference voters who voted grudgingly for labour at the previous two elections then came out to a man to vote TORY, in other words to express the “independence” of their lords and masters!
There are all sorts ofother
“cranacker nackers” as they sing in the old folk tune, of the meaning of “Independent”,
but being so is not one of them.
Lord Norton: “The submission from Unlock Democracy was precisely that. Supporters were variously implored to respond to the survey and as far as I am aware those who responded constituted a minority of supporters (unless support for Unlock Democracy has collapsed in recent years). If you contrast it with other surveys recently, it does not suggest any public pressure on the topic.
“What I was drawing attention to was the submissions that individuals took the time and trouble to pen individually and, as far as I am aware, of their own volition.”
Let me state again that 2400+ individuals submitted their own evidence not as part of questionnaire. This was not individuals supporting our submission or endorsing it. In fact some of the submissions take policy positions that are contrary to ours in some cases closer to Lord Norton’s.
We submitted that evidence to the committee in the way we did after conversations with the clerks and have been given assurances that their names will be published as people who submitted evidence.
I am not claiming that the number of people who submitted evidence can be used as indication of public pressure. (Though the fact that thousands of people took the time to participate shows that for some people this is a important issue.) However, since your original point was that only receiving 22 submissions from individuals demonstrated widespread apathy, it would appear that it is you who is playing the numbers game, not me.
I would have thought that rather than criticise Unlock Democracy for emailing our people about the call for evidence that you would instead be encouraging others to do the same.
Finally Lord Norton you have not answered my question what would it take for you to accept their submissions?
To suggest that the majority of intelligent people in Britain willingly accept without question that a branch of Government be either hereditary or appointed is nonsense.
It is an affront to democracy and an insult to the general public that people who are appointed, attain their position through hereditary privilege, or because of religious superstition, are still allowed, in any shape or form, to make up our Parliament.
NMac: Lords reform is, before anything else, a balancing act, and a numbers game. Matters of high principle are of secondary importance. This always has been the case, and always will be the case. Nor do I accept that ‘public perception’ is on your side – there are many members of the Lords who command a great deal of public respect.
Our first concern should be to correct those things (processes/behaviours etc) which ‘devalue the currency’ of House Membership.
Strange this. Over 1400 comments received from individual members of the public, but Norton can see only 22! It turns out either that only 22 were aware of the unwritten requirement that their comments had to be BOTH on paper and in e-mail!
I submitted comments electronically only so Norton claims the right to ignore my comments. 1378 to 1 says we ignore Norton – or do we not live in a democracy?
Dzerjb: May I suggest that you read carefully what I have written. Your observations do not bear on the point I was making.
Sorry, Lord Norton, you are very wrong. I have read the Lords of the Blogs for a long time and have even made several comments. I have also submitted comments to government consultations on various topics from time to time. All my comments are of my own volition, not at the request of some campaigning group, although I do belong to one or two on issues I care most about.
In this particular case, I took at face value the arrangement that Unlock Democracy had made with the clerks to convey my written and carefully thought out comments. I realised that I had to answer their questionnaire as the price of using their facility but my comments do not agree with their campaign policy in many key aspects.
I was very surprised to hear that so few people had added their own comments that you had only received 22! If my comments are somehow being treated by the committee members as of a different “type” or “status” from other people who have supplied written comments, or are being less seriously and carefully considered by the committee then I will be asking how I complain about the functioning of a House of Lords committee. Is a judicial review available?
You should have realised by now Graham, that the Lords doesn’t do democracy. They aren’t in favour of the plebs getting any say over an issue.
So what is it then?
It’s dictatorship.
The plus side, is that you are absolved of any responsibility from sorting out their mess.
To be clear asking Turkeys to form a committee and comment on Christmas lunch was always going to cause a struggle.
Spot on James. They will put up all sorts of artificial hurdles.
This country is full of bureaucratic nonsense… and untruths!!!
Ultimately people want MP’s and Lords who are accountable and that means they have to be elected.
Let me give you an example of pompous bureaucratic nonsense, that most of the Western World probably believes this country is full of a bunch of regressive deluded pompous twits.
Take Parliament, when they have to refer to the House of Lords, as “The Other Place…” Jeez! An MP cannot be accused of lying in the chamber, even when they have blatantly done so, terms such as “untruths,” have to be used and they still have to be addressed as the honourable gentleman or lady.
Neither, in reality, do I see much in the way of honour – in Parliament or the House of Lords…
When are we going to grow up and mature as a society? From what I gather House of Lords reform has been discussed, but rarely implemented for over a century! I genuinely believe in many respects, we are the laughing stock of the world – certainly Europe.
If you are implying that only 22 people have represented those who care about this crucial subject… as I stated, people care enough from what I gather, to have been discussing and campaigning Lords reform for over a hundred years.
This situation should never have been allowed to continue so long in any democracy, let alone one of the oldest in the world.
I think Lord Norton you are on the wrong side of history here.
Or we axe the Lords completely. Lots of countries don’t need a second chamber and the record of the Lords shows that its just an expensive quango to house has been politicians.
Parliament, when they have to refer to the House of Lords, as “The Other Place…” Jeez! An MP cannot be accused of lying in the chamber, even when they have blatantly done so, terms such as “untruths,” have to be used and they still have to be addressed as the honourable gentleman or lady.
Neither, in reality, do I see much in the way of honour – in Parliament or the House of
Lords
I feel (Jesus) I must spring sometimes to the defence of parliamentary traditions in so far as they are convenient wordsmith work tools.
1) Saying “House of this; house of that” all day long can become very tedious. Like God pushing, the best ones don’t mention him at all, but in hushed terms! Perhaps the pushing of the second chamber should be excluded from hushed terms in future!
2) The “Liar” exclusion seemd to be lifted
during the Blair tenure of office since his name is/was so similar Bliar Liar,but it may well have been re-introduced more recently.
THe WMD deception re Iran/Iraq was a notable example of a calculated, provocative government lie.
Again the word Liar is just about the most common word in a court of law so any other euphemism may be a useful one.
With regard to “honourable” a working wordsmith tool to refer to the existing or former status of those working in government in the chambers of parliament.
I have been taken to task before now for refering to parliamentary chambers as such, and not calling them “committee rooms”, which indeed they are.
Lord Norton will certainly agree that some of the traditions of the place have good value.
The Australian Order of the Mateship would not be suitable for the UK Houses of Parliament, however much it is used by Cockneys in their daily parlance(trilbies).
Gottit Mate?
The bureaucracy is often there, to retain the truth from the public, and often prevent meaningful progress.
The truth will out.
Lords Must be Elected.a third each year.NO Jobs for life, Citizens pay too much tax as it is,EU £20 billion cash annually,£12 bilion in Overseas aid,is too much.
Get real,this is WORST Recession since 1936
The number of artificial hurdles the Establishment place in the way of ordinary people who desperately want urgent reform to our undemocratic Parliament never ceases to amaze me.
Lord Norton,
What nonsensical game are you playing?
Can you count above 20?
Over 2,400 people separately wrote their own submission to the Joint Committee , entirely in their own words. after the Unlock Democracy campaign last year.
It is contemptible that a person in your position should play fast and loose with the democratic process in this way; it just confirms the entrenched attitude of your vested interest.
The relevant Unlock Democracy site page:
“To: Rt Hon David Cameron MP
In 1911, Parliament committed itself to replacing the House of Lords with “a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis”. 100 years later, it is long past time this happened.
We therefore call on Her Majesty’s Government to enact legislation for a wholly or mainly elected upper house, within the lifetime of this Parliament, using a system of proportional representation.”
http://action.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/page/signup/elect-the-lords-petition
This clearly asks members to petition the Prime Minister rather than to submit a response to the Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill.
What response have you had from the Prime Minister?
Lies lies and even more damned lies. Politicians. I used to believe that they were working in the best interests of the people. Now they are worse than second hand car dealers estate agents and middle managers.
You should be ashamed of yourselves but why would you care about what I say. I’m just a member of the electorate.
However, I say remember this; when you are finally made accountable for your dispicable selve serving behaviour you will not keep your place. You will be sacked!
22 comments! Lies lies and more damned lies!!
Why not axe them completely?
The don’t add anything. The number of amendments originating in the Lords (not via ministers) that get passed is so small as to be laughable.
Lets save the 2,700 a day, for each Lord, that they cost us.
The money can go on people who need it, the disabled.
Perhaps the House of Lords should recognise the internet now exists where interested people can and will research particular issues, when they find a particular subject they can and will use the tools available to make their views known, it is called democracy.
Excuse me, Lord Norton, but you are badly mistaken about the number of submissions to the draft reform bill. You are either not paying attention or being deliberately disingeneous. Please ask your clerks to count again and amend your blog. And just in case you are in any doubt about this citizen’s wishes: there should be no unelected members of any institution that claims to represent the people, especially one with the influence of a second chamber of parliament. It’s a disgrace and hugely undemocratic, and the UK has been dragging it’s feet for far too long, whilst at the same time lecturing other countries in the most hypocritical fashion.
Simon O’Hara: I am quite well aware of citizens’ views. We had a very good paper summarising the data, drawn from representative polling samples.
As one of the 22? who submitted comments on lords reform, I am extremely surprised at the low number of comments. I suggest that Lord Norton revisits the submissions. If that does not suffice then I would recommend a course in GCSE mathematics!
Nigel: My count was as correct as my language was specific.
I regret to observe that this thread has become far too ill-tempered (apathy or abusiveness, surely there must be a middle way?!).
Simon O’Hana – You are simply wrong in the second part of your paragraph. Peers have never claimed to represent the country. Some of them would say that they ‘reflect’ various aspects of the country, in a sense, but that’s as far as it goes. ….
There is also a very fine line to be drawn between that which is ‘un-democratic’ (or ‘anti-democratic),, and that which is ‘non-democratic’ (or ‘democratic’ only in a very rough and indirect way). … Here me out: I am not playing with words ~ Democracy (‘the least worst’ system) does not protect itself against ignorance, abuse, corruption, disregard for liberties or traditions, mass manipulation and short-term populism. It therefore needs something which is ‘non-democratic’ to act as a brake upon itself. That’s our starting point, when examining the need, function, shape, utility etc of a seocnd chamber.
If all these unelected people do is to “reflect various aspects of the country”, they have no right whatever to sit in this country’s parliament. Lots of far more representative organisations do just that, but get little attention from Parliament.
Roll on the revolution. I may be retired, but come the next set of riots I’ll be there supporting the rioters – it is all that our corrupt and dishonest politicians understand, and the only way we’ll get any meaningful change.
NMac: You say, “Lots of far more representative organisations do just that, but get little attention from Parliament”… (I’m overlooking your call for revolution after that, for now).
You may not be aware of Lord Low of Dalston’s suggestion of occupational constituencies: “It may not be easy to devise a system which achieves universal suffrage. I would favour a system based on electoral colleges representing the different branches of civil society”.
Government by lobby.
I think can spot the flaw there
Lord Blagger: I was responding specifically to NMac’s complaint about certain representative organisations not having a place or a voice. It is to Lord Low’s credit that he put forward a constructive alternative route forward. It’s not my blueprint, and every blueprint has its flaws, in any case. What’s your blueprint??
Why should ‘organisations’ get a vote?
That is to the exclusion of individuals getting a vote.
In otherwords, its putting lobbys in control.
It’s not far off what we have now. We have the unions and the benefit claimants lobby – labour.
We have the Greens wanting all that money for their eco companies from the taxpayer with the libdems and Greens.
We have big business after anyone who will fork over the cash.
Change it so that the electorate have the final say, and it disappears.
For example, lets say you want to increase the benefit cap. You have to get the agreement of the electorate, to increase it and you have to say where the money is coming from.
So if you want, like labour, people to get 172K a year tax free to live in Kensington, you have to say that taxes go up 2%.
Can’t see that working, can you?
Is it Lord Norton who is unpopular or not even the subject matter?
Blagger uses the word “plebs” far too freely.
How could he not refer to referendum, referenda
in his scrawlings?
A “plebiscite” is the word but no; the Lord Norton insists on the proper spelling of the word Referendums, which is wrong.
I am just wondering whether Lord Norton regrets posting the subject at all, by now, or whether he is merely musing on the vast numbers of pen names that he thinks Blagger has invented?
Twm O’r Nant: No, the responses are quite revealing. A friend suggested last night that I stop devoting time to replying to comments that were of the ‘you’re wrong’ nature or simply abusive on the grounds that there is nothing of substance to respond to. I suspect he might have added ‘and it only encourages them’. However, I may still do so. To be fair to Lord Blagger (words I don’t normally use) I think he always posts under his single pseudonym.
A university teacher with long years of experience, you would know.
“To be fair to Lord Blagger (words I don’t normally use)”
Fair or Lord Blagger or all? Heh! Heh!
He does good for the cause!
The reason for the Psuedoname, is that the Lords of the Blog kept rejected posts with my real name.
I wasn’t even one of ‘the 22’ in the end because although I feel quite strongly that HofL reform is long overdue, when I came to think about it I became increasingly less certain of the form this reform should take. Matt’s observation on the vagaries of the democratic system – it’s susceptibility to manipulation ignorance, prejudice etc etc is an important consideration.
Once we were perhaps prepared to believe in the integrity of our social ‘superiors’ and were powerless to have much influence anyway. Those days are long gone (in terms of respect and deference) and in truth were not golden days it was merely the enshrining of social privilege, wealth and power that so commonly (or even nobly) go hand in hand. An elected second chamber does not readily offer an alternative selection process to that we have in the Commons, and the question of ‘constituencies’ is one I have not resolved in my own mind. We have geographical constituencies represented in the Commons already and we have Party ‘constituencies’ represented too. I see no particular merit in duplicating these ‘interest groups’. What is required of a second chamber (it seems to me) is wisdom born of experience across a widest practicable spectrum of interest and activity.
Some members should quite reasonably be expected to come from the political ‘class, but there are many other ‘classes’ of social endeavour and experience and all should be represented. (I agree ‘all’ is rather a tall order)
Hereditary Lords represented the interests of those who literally owned the land by title and deed, but in a modern (democratic) world we all ‘own’ our country, at least in theory, and nine tenths of the population is effectively excluded from the scrutiny of the laws we (democratically) agree to live by. It is nowadays a myth that the Commons are representative of the common people since merely by being in receipt of an MPs salary a member is elevated instantly into the top income decile (albeit nowhere near the top of it).
Current legislation concerning welfare benefits is being discussed exclusively by individuals for whom the level of welfare benefit is immaterial. In the way that the victors write the history, those who are victorious in the struggle of everyday life produce the legislation that governs those who are daily losing that battle, along with those who are getting by. The disconnect is massive. At times it seems to be total. Almost mediaeval. This stratification of society, not just the haves and have-nots, but the dos and do-nots, feels as if it is becoming more polarised. Britain is drifting from democracy towards plutocracy. No good will come of this shift and one way to slow it down and hopefully reverse it is to reinvent the sense that every citizen belongs, and belonging entails ownership and responsibility for the ‘housework’ of running the country.
I don’t know how that is to be achieved, but getting it right on HofL reform so that ordinary people believe that government decisions enacted as legislation are beneficial to the whole of society (and there is very definitely such a thing as society) is an important element.
Good post Corvid!
“was merely the enshrining”
A public convenience?
“nowadays a myth that the Commons are representative of the common people since merely by being in receipt of an MPs salary a member is elevated instantly into the top income decile”
Too true. Labour MPs do not represent people with interests the same as their own, even if they are elected to parliament from the ranks of Union convenors; even that is a career path.
News this morning that Boris has a seat waiting for him back in Parliament makes it sem as though we now have a class of “representatives” who are good at gooning for the public, and popular with intelligent politics too, which is a balancing act.
It is one that the elected mayors of a number of cities could follow. Are there not some elected mayors of Metropolitan counties
to be seen before long?
If they had instant seats in the Lords it would be good…. with no extra wage or expense for being so.
I may be quite out of touch and it is only elected police commissioners who are coming up soon.
Such ‘debate’ is fairly useless. When people can stop lying, being deliberately obstructive and using ‘privelege’ to hide the truth we may get some honest discussion. I particularly despair at the stunning level of untruths peddled by many in politics. Of course, those who reliably offer genuinely honest contributions are frequently ‘encouraged’ to fall by the wayside. Is there any room for people one could really trust at high levels of government?
You have the secrecy on top.
They won’t tell us what they really think. Oh no.
Secret meetings, and then you get a group think result.
Right, have just completed my full submission for the Joint Committee, which I will send off on Monday:
With the encouragement of Lord Norton (see ‘Lords Of The Blog’: ‘Stirring Up Apathy’; where I am ‘Matt’), I submit the following ideas for the consideration of the Joint Committee. I do this as one ordinary member of the public; albeit one who finds the whole history of the Lords quite fascinating.
I shall begin by giving you the text of my alternative ‘draft bill’. I shall then add a few ‘explanatory notes’, which will be chatty and colloquial in style, rather than academic, but will not contain any wild assertions, for all that. By way of introduction, I put it to the Committee that this bill of mine is less ‘ambitious’ than the government bill, but also less ‘turbulent’.
An alternative draft bill (‘House Of Lords Sitting Membership Bill’??) ………
1. “As from 1st January 2014, the total number of sitting members of the House of Lords shall not exceed 600, at any one time.
2. By the 1st June 2013, the clerks of the house will have compiled a list of those life peers who wish to continue sitting in the house from 2014 onwards.
3. By standing orders of the house, there shall also be a prior agreement about the maximum number of sitting members to be allocated for each party grouping. This will be proportionate to their pre-existing share of seats, among all life peers, but it may build in a slight bias in favour of the smallest parties, and shall have due regard for non-affiliated office holders, in this first instance. Crossbenchers shall be considered to be a ‘party grouping’ of their own, for these purposes.
4. It is expected that the total number of seats in the house held by the two largest parties shall be equal, or very close to equal.
5. If and where it is found that the number of peers on the clerk’s list exceeds the allocated maximum for their particular party grouping, then the life peers of that grouping shall hold an election among themselves at the first opportunity, using the alternative vote system, whereby those who poll the fewest votes will be removed from the list.
6. This mechanism, in the first instance, only affects the position and privileges of life peers, and does not concern itself with the place of bishops, hereditary peers, or retired law lords in the house.
7. It is expected that around two thirds of life peers will continue to be sitting members of the house from 2014, by this mechanism.
8. This legislation does not affect the status of any peer in terms of their title and honour, nor is it concerned with any broader questions about the creation of new peers. It does, however, remove the automatic right of a life peer to sit and vote in the Lords, following the precedent set for hereditary peers in 1999.
9. After the January 2014 changes have been put in place, if a vacancy arises in the house, due to the death of a sitting life peer, then anybody who holds a life peerage, but does not have a seat in the house at that point, may put themselves forward to fill that vacancy. Where there is more than one person wishing to do this, the winning candidate shall be chosen by a vote of the whole house. Therefore, these by-elections shall not be determined by party groupings, as such.
10. As from January 2014, the same principle shall apply to any hereditary by-elections: all vacancies from that point onward shall be filled by a vote of the whole house”.
Explanatory Notes: Relating to 10 sections above
1: This puts the Lords ‘ahead of the game’ in slimming down its membership to 600, as the Commons will be of that size, in the next parliament. There is widespread agreement that the second chamber should not be larger than the first, and this is made all the more relevant by this time of cutbacks that we are going through now. 600 is, indeed, quite ‘generous’ in being able to keep on board both the committed frequent-attenders, and the more occasional attenders who are highly valued for what they do have to say, when they say it.
2: A simple matter of any interested peer registering that interest, along with a few basic details. Also provides ample time for each peer to consider the priority that s/he actually gives to the business of the house.
3: Each peer will need to choose what affiliation to be under, when registering. Non-affiliated office holders (eg, Lord Speaker) will be ‘protected’ in this process. As a side comment, the government’s aspiration of making the Lords more ‘reflective’ of the general election vote could, of course, have been brought about by a reduction in numbers, rather than an increase in numbers!
4 and 7: I admit that my statistical methodology and/or maths will be a bit ‘off’ in places, here – but you should be able to follow my general drift about the likely and desired outcome. Using recent data from the Parliament website, this ‘balancing act’ actually works out remarkably neatly.
The grand total membership of the Lords now stands at 826. My bill provides for a reduction in the number of sitting life peers, in order to cap membership at 600. This means – one way or another – the departure of 226 life peers by 2014. I say, ‘one way or another’, because this cuts out the need for any agonising over whether there should be retirement ages, strengthened leaves-of-absences/ disqualifications etc. – The current grand total of life peers is 686. 226 out of 686 comes to about a third. This calls for the ‘voting in’ of two thirds of the current party groupings (‘natural wastage’ being too long-winded a contributing factor to take account of, here).
– 2/3 of Conservative Life Peers (170) = 113; Plus their 48 Hereditaries = CONSERVATIVE (‘POST 2014′) HOLD OF: 161
– 2/3 of Labour Life Peers (235) = 157; Plus their 4 Hereditaries = LABOUR HOLD OF: 161
– … Of Lib Dems L.Peers (87) = 65 (smaller party bias in favour); Plus 4 Hereds = LIB DEM HOLD OF: 69
– … Of Crossbench L.Peers (154) = 103; Plus 33 Hereds = CROSSBENCH HOLD OF: 136
– Leaving approx: 22 ‘OTHERS’ (Preserving all the very small-party people, party-independents and non-affiliated officers; but losing 2 or 3 notably ‘dodgy peers’ who we won’t bother to name here).
– POST 2014: ESTIMATED PROPORTIONS (out of 600) in %:
CON: 26.8% … LAB: 26.8% … LIB DEMS: 11.5% … CROSS: 22.67% OTHERS: 3.67%.
5: A life-peer version of the first round of hereditary elections, in effect, with each candidate submitting a 75-word summary etc – and with the same outcome in mind, to wit: it will allow each group to postively identify who the most interesting and interested people are, among their ranks.
As a side comment, much mention has been made of the benefit of the Lords being complementary to the Commons, rather than competitive. At the same time, most people seem to welcome signs of the Lords becoming more assertive! I am of the opinion that a little more competition would be a good thing, insofar as it will not give any government an ‘easy ride’. I suggest that the ‘filtering’ of the life peers in my bill, which would in itself be done in a very publicly transparent way, would give the ‘chosen’ peers a renewed sense of confidence in their handling of legislation.
6 and 10: I cannot see any advantage to our ‘parliamentary life’, in any sense of that term, in undermining the constitutional position of the bishops, retired law lords, or hereditary peers. The bishops exercise their function of providing a broader ‘moral perspective’ with care and responsibility. I would also contend that the house has already lost some of its ‘weightiness’ (in fact, and in the eyes of the public), by no longer having seats for active senior judges, and I would like to see the status of the ‘law lord’ restored, even if it was only for former supreme-court judges (granted this is outside the scope of my bill). Finally, the ‘exempted’ 92 hereditaries are clearly people of high quality, with the particular distinction of making both regular and concise spoken interventions in the chamber. The historic problem of the conservative party being able to ‘bus in’ hundreds of ‘backwoodsmen’ has been dealt with. Entry to the house now requires the ‘second hurdle’ of a by-election. It is a working precedent. Note that my bill would make the whole house the ‘electorate’ for all future by-elections; thereby answering the specific complaint sometimes raised about the vanishingly small sitting-hereditary party-group electorates in the case of Labour and the Lib Dems, at the moment.
8: I suggest that this would represent a significant ‘mind-shift’ in the way a new arrival in the Lords would be regarded. Internally, UCL’s ‘House Full’ report indicated a deepening dissatisfaction with the ‘fractious atmosphere’ created by having too many members in the chamber. Externally, the public perception is that various ‘establishment/in-crowd’ types are routinely gifted a comfy red seat, with all its associated prestige, public-platform influence and perks. The House Of Lords Appointments Commission has done little to dispel this feeling, since it is in itself something of a cosy quango. For all of the outstanding ‘workhorses’ and expert-analysts in the house, the ‘currency’ of the life peerage has been devalued by the numerous examples of the people who have awarded peerages for less-than-noble reasons; and/or by the people who have made little or no effort to engage in the serious business of the house.
In the light of what I have just said, I also have to caution the house at this juncture that striking a self-congratulatory tone about the extent of experience and expertise among the peers does not come across at all well on the television! A quick glance through the back-stories of many peers often reveals that they have tried to enter the Commons, and failed. So there are ‘consolation prizes’ for political-party oldies in there already, and not much would change, in that respect, were the government’s proposals to come to fruition. In any event, experience and expertise are not the be-all and end-all; whatever happened to the broad-minded amateur, or the fresh-thinking youngster??
Prior to the 1999 Act, in what may have seemed like a piece of frivilous obstruction at the time, Viscount Cranborne expressed a concern about a having a house-full of members who, “owed their presence to the living rather than the safely dead”. Those words turned out to have quite a prophetic ring to them when New Labour’s ‘Stage Two’ reform never went ahead, and various murky tales came out about ‘Tony’s Cronies’ and ‘Cash For Honours’. My point is that introducing a ‘second hurdle’ for a peer, of having to be ‘elected-into’ the house would remove the ‘sting’ of the power of patronage, in precisely the same way that the hereditary by-elections have removed the sting of the power of birthright. There would be no need to break the link between the house and the peerage. New peers could be created at any time, in much the same way as now ~ but that would have no immediate impact on the capped-membership house. Therefore, no big influxes from a new government’s favoured people, nor from the outgoing government’s dissolution list.
I hope you can see that, though my bill may seem to be ‘tinkering’ in nature compared to the government bill, it is not merely a ‘holding operation’, nor is it coming firmly down on the side of either the pro-government or anti-government voices, on the matter of Lords reform. I regret to observe a certain lack of imagination, in fact, in the way both of those positions are typically advanced. Making a big play of bringing in a similar mode of legitimacy to the Commons on the one hand (pro-Government); or focussing on the primacy of the Commons on the other (anti-Government) both overlook possibly the most crucial reason for having a second chamber at all: Democracy (the ‘least worst’ system) does not protect itself against ignorance, abuse, corruption, disregard for liberties or traditions, mass manipulation and short-term populism. It therefore needs something which is ‘non-democratic’ to act as a brake upon itself. Nonetheless, we need to be doing everything we can to make sure that this ‘non-democratic’ body will be held in high public regard. That is the key to appreciating the healthy developments which my bill would bring about – even though they appear to be fairly ‘gentle’ in nature, and they take care to ‘go with the grain’ of our history.
9. Recall from my notes on 4 and 7 the fair balance of ‘allegiances’ which would result from the life-peer elections, in the first instance. My bill seeks to sustain a sense of the house managing its own affairs; by ‘co-opting’ in the best of the bunch, as vacancies arise. The significant Crossbench presence should help to ensure that party loyalty would not count for all that much in future whole house by-elections.
Imagine for a moment that this bill had already been in effect in 2010; and that a vacancy had arisen, which the likes of Michael Howard, John Prescott, and Paul Boateng were all interested in filling. I’m using three random examples of ‘big hitters’ in British political life here, who have received life peerages, to illustrate the enhanced sense of the ‘winner’ among them being recognised as the most deserving and valued ‘new recruit’. He would have had to made a persuasive case (open for any member of the public to comment on, in advance), in order to secure the privilege of the seat in the Lords. It would no longer be possible for the media to portray him as having just ‘strolled into’ the house; and the very process of these elections would help to focus the minds of all Lords members as to just what their priorities are and should be, in the greater scheme of things.
The Guardian took up the idea of a federation for the UK, although it is a kingdom, is it not?
Correspondent suggested that the second chamber would be a place for members elected to a federal state to represent us.
We’ve been over it so many times, but it may be a fairly new idea for the Guardian, however empty press observations can be.
That members elected from E/S/W/nI should attend the HofL, as “Peers” or “Senators” or whatever.
There are exactly the same number of S/W/nI MPs as there always were, in spite of the plethora of assemblies and legislatures, with which the nationalists are so pleased.
I don’t think that many Welsh people would be pleased with a Welsh legislature,rather than an assembly (taking it a bit far) although that would be an option, if the Scottish vote for an independent Scotland.
Then the HofC would be an exclusively English parliament.
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
That seems so ridiculously easy an answer to
what to do with a superfluous Lords chamber,
that it can’t be a good one, or can it?
Thus you would have regional legislatures in three of the federated “region states”* if so wished. Counties in those three would be closer to redundancy.
In the fourth, as always dominant, group of regions, England, a nine region state, counties might still be considered useful.
* European meaning of the word “region”
* federal meaning of the word “state”.
Actually that terminology might need to be clarified, since they might be described as
“region nations” but then the word nation would be demeaned, as per UN : “nation” and “supernation” (Hang on, where is the mud?)
It would go a very long way to resolving the failed referendum on regional government five or six years ago, and the embryonic regional organizations now mothballed.
Heh! heh!
Countries.
Federation of the Countries of the UK.
(it being unsaid that two or three are merely a single ‘region’ by a Euro definition.)
Seat of the elected federal legislature being the HofL, by any other name, with a substantially reduced membership.
600 is ridiculous; 100-150 is fine, from E/S/W/nI.
Residual responsibilities for 50 or less elected hered peers.
Mi Lord Blagger:
There is nothing inherently wrong with group-think. Group-think is the essence of democracy. The difficulty is in the composition of the group that gets its thinking heard and implemented, and the legitimacy of its power base.
As a person who has some (admittedly not at a very ‘high’ level) experience of the workings of committees of one sort and another it has to be recognised that any committee is led by an individual or group with ‘an agenda’. Take that motive force out of a committee and it will achieve very little, be it a social club or a national government.
One question that occurs to me is the ‘legitimacy’ of this sort of ‘motivating sub-committee’ being allowed to perform at the expense of the public purse whilst pretending to be doing committee business, in an objective and even handed way and endeavouring to do it in private.
Judging by some of the exchanges in this blog there are people who see this as what is happening.
No sort of rules will prevent people coming together to promote a particular policy direction in an area of common interest or concern in order to impose their will on a committee. It is human nature to seek and create alliances. This is acknowledged in politics in the Party system and we all know more or less where we stand with party-politics. Individuals will turn their personal beliefs inside-out and upside-down to back the party line – this is why politicians are so distrusted and often detested.
Increasingly we grant too much authority to government to act without proper consent of parliament. Thatcher and Blair didn’t invent this government-from-No10 but they both increased its hold on our political processes, trumping both cabinet and parliament as the source of law-making.
The entire debate about the reform of the upper house is skewed by the malfunction of the Commons.
This politicises the upper house in a way which is inimical to its proper function which is to scrutinise proposed legislation to remove bloopers and ensure that the wording of legislation will ensure that it will be fit for purpose and achieve its intended aim. Too much legislation in recent years seems to have been designed as a slalom course for the devious to drive a ‘coach and horses’ through.
Increasingly the upper house seems to be responsible for sanitising, or attempting to, the excesses of political doctrine.
The inevitable conclusion of this line of argument is that before the Commons sets about trying to reform the Upper House it must, literally, put its own House in order.
As an example I would cite the entirely improper way that Mr Blair was able to unilaterally declare war on Iraq without the assent of parliament. Since it is not possible in any practicable sense to un-declare war parliament was faced with a fait accompli.
Current consideration of the proposed welfare reforms actually require the current party-political make-up of the upper house to countervail against an overweening government (with a very doubtful mandate).
None of this is as it should be in a functional democracy. That we have purported to be teaching Democracy to the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq should make us an international laughing stock, or more properly a pariah state.
Ah but there is. We are in the situation we are now in, facing the abyss of debt. 7,000 bn and that doesn’t include bailing out the feckess or the failed politicians with a seat in the lords. That’s on top.
The real debt went up 500 bn last year alone. 150 bn in deficit spending, and 350 bn in pension liabilities.
Take that motive force out of a committee and it will achieve very little, be it a social club or a national government.
Yep, and what I’ve proposed is that they can still do this, but they have to get a majority of the people behind them. If they can’t its not democratic is it? What you are proposing is individuals dictating to the rest, and that’s where its gone wrong.
Judging by some of the exchanges in this blog there are people who see this as what is happening.
It is. That’s why all MPs and Peers trasactions, telephone calls, should be made public. Like wise all meetings, corridors and pubs and clubs broadcast for all to listen into. Just what are they doing wrong to want otherwise?
It is human nature to seek and create alliances.
Yep, and that cannot be imposed on the majority, unlike your system where the group imposes it against the will onto others at their expense and the groups profit.
As for putting the Lords in order, they won’t. In spite of Norton stating that behaviour such as Truscots – selling legistaltion for cash, would be made illegal, it hasn’t. Meanwhile they are still walking through walls evading security to claim their expenses. [There attitude is to blame the Police and security for letting them in without checks, the police state otherwise.]
So lets get rid of them. Completely.
They aren’t a democracy and neither is your suggestion of a super quango.
this line of argument ……….
As an example I would cite the entirely improper way that Mr Blair was able to unilaterally declare war on Iraq without the assent of parliament.
The UK WD(War Department; old acronym pre 1960s) got to work you mean, setting its own agenda?
Please let me start by saying I fall into the category of (normally) silent man on the street (silent, yes because NO ONE IS LISTENING) and my comment is based on my own observations. Sorry if I’m repeating anything but I had to skip a lot of the above due to time constraints.
Maybe if everyone connected to the running of every country was to earn only a national average wage and have all there other gains and gifts made public, the public they serve might start to trust them. As it atands the public don’t trust any of them whether in front or behind the scenes. Lord or Common you all have only your own best interests at heart, not mine, not my families, my comuunities, my countries or any other living thing including this planet we inhabit. As long as you are all right jack, every thing else (that doesn’t serve your needs) can wither and die. You will deny it to me and maybe even to your self but it makes it no less true.
NB, do you think it sad that the people you serve are scared to speak up angainst you in fear of being punished, no maybe you don’t.
John P Clarke, I agree to a considerable extent with the sentiment of your post comment.
The basic salary of an MP puts its recipient into the top decile of earners in this country ( in addition to which all legitimate expenses incurred are covered).Irrespective of that individual’s social roots, being a part of the comfortable top ten percent of earners entirely shifts a person’s perspective on the issues of everyday life which concern, and cause great stress and insecurity to about half the nation. We should not, in a democratic society, be electing a pampered ‘ruling elite’ to govern the affairs of the nation. Though clearly the pampered elite should also be entitled to their (proportional)voice in parliament. The essential work of governance would continue to be done predominantly by an employed executive in the shape of civil servants as happens now. The civil servants would need to be well paid but it shouldn’t be necessary to have to pay exorbitantly.
The principal responsibility of elected members is to keep the executive under control and directed by democratic mandate.
The theory is not difficult to grasp but the execution has eluded us since….forever.
Update: Have not received any response or acknowledgment to my written submission.
Matt: Let me know if you don’t receive an acknowledgement within the next week or so.
Lord Norton: Please note – I have still not received any response or acknowledgement.