Today the House of Lords Appointments Commission published measures to strengthen the criteria for appointment to the House.
In future instead of vaguely agreeing to attend, future nominees have to commit the time necessary to make an effective contribution: they must be resident in the UK for tax purposes and they have to confirm that they are politically independent and have every intention of remaining so.
Now I guess this might provoke comment about elections to the House and I don’t want to mount a case for the defence here and now. What I do think is that these strengthened criteria can do nothing but good. To my mind it is disgraceful for nominees to accept a peerage and then rarely bother to turn up. Of course many hold down tough jobs but they know that when they agree to accept a peerage!
These are incremental changes but such changes not only have marked effects but clear the path for yet more incremental changes – an evolutionary process.
Baroness: “To my mind it is disgraceful for nominees to accept a peerage and then rarely bother to turn up.” Was this a life sentence? Always time to turn up but never at the right time?
Not entirely sure I get this somewhat cryptic comment? Not a life sentence but a reasonable and honest commitment to take part in the legislative process? That’s what potential peers are asked to do, after all.
I have some concerns over those who might reasonably be caught by double taxation via being deemed resident in two countries. However some tidying up is long overdue especially on attendance. My issue I alluded to previously is with the paucity of ambition of the LAC. In a number of interviews I’ve heard now the sense that comes across is rather too complacent about the breadth of their nominations. I felt that too many were exactly the sort of people who would have been appointed under the old system.
To give a deliberately exaggerated and non identifiable example, I do feel like the extent of the commission’s ambition is replacing a middle class, late middle age, lawyer/academic, selectively educated south east of England resident white male with a someone essentially the same as above but a minority/female etc. My objection is not to either group whose increased representation is a good thing and long overdue but to all the rest of the identifiers in the ‘middle class, middle age…’ quote. Increased minority or female representation ought to be a bare minimum expected start point not the end point. I rather hoped that the LAC would actively reach outside a slightly cosy bubble of elites of one form or another that have tended to provide peers or quango members. It would be a good thing if there were some appointees that caused disagreement or public comment as it would – whether the decision was right or wrong – suggest the LAC’s independence and boldness in trying to shake things up and bring a genuinely wider pools of expertise, experience and opinion.
(Gulp! I hope I haven’t trodden on any feet, because this is not about any individual)
Baroness: As you know part of the reason why the life peerage was created was to bring back vitality to the house. The aristocracy had lost faith in the place and attendance was lack lustre at best. Perhaps some research at a personal level into why some are able to attend more than others?
The life sentence is about duty; for some its 24/7, never ending, the only way out being a wooden box. The reality of duty often arrives after the appointment. Some can hide from it others cannot, some grow to hate it whilst others thrive on it. This it would seem is the lot of a peer in the House of Lords.
I am rather taken with Croft’s idea of a truly contentious appointment although it would be diffiuclt to visualise what that might be? What about a Nine Elms (Covent Garden) porter or wholesaler who could say a lot about the way in which the supermarkets squeeze prices down?
However what you call LAC and I call HOLAC needs to appoint not only those who have a needed expertise in the House but who can also contribute effectively to a range of other issues.
At the moment I would like to lobby for appointments covering at least three areas: journalisim, media management and free speech issues; polices on all aspects of nursing and lastly an expert on the built environment.
I agree wholeheartedly with Senex’s research suggestion and, as it so happens, have just commissioned a short study on what contribution the crossbenchers make to legislation and the extent to which their individual areas of expertise feed into legislation.
Watch this space.
Hmm, think I tick quite a few of Croft’s boxes, yet I detest box-ticking. That should qualify me by itself.
I rather deliberately didn’t give examples as the argument tends to move onto the suggestions rather than the principle. Considering how many peers from global business we have had trying to choose instead, as you suggest, more with a background in (the) small(est) businesses – the backbone of the economy – seems a good aim. If it isn’t possible to find a few people who raise an eyebrow and can still properly contribute then perhaps the HOLAC needs a membership change!
The fourth estate needs more influence? Certainly local journalism which is in meltdown at the moment could benefit from a voice, I’m less convinced about editors or leader writers from any major paper.
Off the top of my head, I haven’t had a cuppa yet today, I would have thought the lords lack experts in sustainable development/green power and most especially hard IT experience. There are a few major contributors – Lord Errol stands out – but as a proportion of the house compared to other policy areas those with real expertise rather than a later life interest are dreadfully thin on the ground. Indeed it is one of those ironies that as the ’99 reforms raised the average age of the Lords by 5 years or so removal of the 92 HPs would remove almost all of the hard IT knowledge. Time for HOLAC to get busy and fix that if peers want Lord’s reform.
Really useful suggestions from Croft – I will pass them on. Hope you have by now had a cuppa!
Croft: “I would have thought the lords lack experts in sustainable development/green power and most especially hard IT experience.” This is not only a limitation in our second house but I suspect lots of others. I know there is considerable wastage in IT systems used by government agencies because my sources tell me so. The tories smell blood and are onto this.
I back posted to Lord Norton on data integrity but requested that he refer the content before publishing. To my knowledge the content is still not published.
I am concerned at NHS and HMRC systems. Not so much by the quality of their content but by the straight jacket imposed by using them. Call me old fashioned but when things need to change quickly a well organised army of people is infinitely more flexible than behemoths with ‘gears and cogs’.
@ladytizzy: I fill some of that list myself 😉 The last thing I want is appointments *just* because they meet/fail a specific number of ticks.
baronessdsouza: The world is for a least a few minutes after I have a cuppa a more beautiful place where the sun shines and all is well. Then the phone rings 😀
More seriously, I know the Lord’s Information Office has produced some work showing for instance the % of peers who were ex-MPs/MEPs but I wonder if they have tried to break down the chamber on a much more detailed basis by profession, background, age (etc) and cross referenced that against say attendance. Even the most active peer must only be able to know so many members of the house and have a view in the round. HOLAC (I think it sounds too much like a medication!) can’t be hindered by having the best data when considering over/under-representation in the chamber.
I don’t think there is any comprehensive study of profession/background/expertise which is why we (the crossbenchers) are doing a pilot study.
You probably already know that the best information on all aspects of Parliament including its membership is held by the Constitution Unit at University College, London.
Thank you, Croft, for ‘getting’ me! At times, my word count may be on the short side, but there is always a message. 🙂
You seem like a decent person who should be considered, given the amount of positive ideas you have. I’m guessing you, too, are a business owner? Good luck with the application – me, I’d frighten the horses too much, and would have to be renditioned to part-live in London.
wonder how a lottery for membership would work? to be chosen from people who left school at 16 – whether or not they later studied further – Perhaps this is a very experienced set of people. Or have a ten year only membership, so that ten percent of the members are replaced every year.
mmmmmm – The Government’s White Paper on House of Lords Reform – published last July – suggests that elected peers (or senators) have a 15 year stint with no opportunity for re-election!
Senex: Government IT projects do not have a good track record and I’d agree with much you say. Governments of various parties have been in thrall to large vendors selling all singing and dancing propriety solutions that are expensive to buy, maintain and catastrophic when they fail on security or design. Due to vendor lock-in even when they do the government can find it next to impossible to turn to anyone but the vendor to fix the solution. While there have been some suggestions the government is now moving to a more open source procurement policy – which can be a cheaper solution and has few of the lock-ins, we’ll see how that translates to the real world.
ladytizzy: I’m far from London as well but it’s moot I simply wouldn’t meet my own criteria for picking people with more regional/ethnic/religious diversity and spread of views and experiences and in the Lords! I wholeheartedly agree about the number of peers whose whole life experience is in big public or corporate entities and the need to better represent the small business.
Sadly even quite large groups can suffer this problem of being forgotten and ignored. Unlike France we give pitiful representation to our crown/dependant territories even though parliament decides many issues affecting them.
baronessdsouza: What sort of funding do you have available for such efforts. If the crossbenchers were a party they would in terms of their size have a proper claim for access to funds in the manner of the opposition. Do you (collectively and perhaps the convenor individually) need to be put on a more formal/proper funding system to take into account the work you do and the lack of a party machine to do those administrative/research tasks, things other peers can potentially get from their subsidised party machine?
I know I said I wasn’t going to mention individuals but as I was stuck in traffic passing parliament in the early hours of a cold and windy Saturday morning I did try to think of someone who would be controversial but still meet any reasonable test of competence and ability to do the work or add a new viewpoint. I struggled to think of someone really controversial who could contribute in many areas but I could think of some on the milder end. I know nothing of their personal or potential party politics which may disqualify them under the HOLAC criteria but my best efforts were Colin Blakemore and Richard Dawkins. I know I’ve failed the old white men test! I fear there must be many better choices who would meet a wider diversity criteria and achieve the same impact but my knowledge isn’t good enough to know who they are. 🙁
Aaarrgggh! Not Blakemore. I’ll say no more.
ladytizzy: As I was trying for a controversial but qualified candidate you may just have validated the choice! I don’t think you have to agree with people to think they are useful to the process, some yin and yang in the chamber on as many issues as possible seems the best chance of a the widest possible debate and the best means to establish a considered viewpoint.
I’m sure the house has areas of imbalance, recognised and hidden. For example we have the Lords spiritual, various other religions peers and due to their average age more peers with faith so perhaps a need for a fire breathing atheist! Looking at votes on the age of consent and gay rights the house is more small ‘c’ conservative than the commons or society. If Peter Tatchell weren’t a green I’d have suggested him!
I’m sure others reading this can think of similar issues and/or better candidates but as I said at the start it’s not really about any particular individual mentioned but surely about an ethos of appointment that seeks the widest possible breadth of expertise/opinion in the house.
Why can’t there be a Green in the House of Lords?
Actually there was a representative of the Green Party, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, until relatively recently but he unfortunately died.
On money, (Croft), the Tories as the offcial opposition get approximately £450,000 pa, the LibDems approximately £260,000 and the crossbenchers get £61,000 pa, This latter sum covers one full-time and two part-time staff and a few symposiums and other get togethers during the year.
Bearing in mind that there are over 200 crossbenchers many of whom come into the office daily to get information (this office being the only source since we have no party structure to provide grassroots and/or political information) this is not an over-staffed office!
I will at a later date provide a list of the kind of information we provide and perhaps more importantly how we get it.
Baroness D’Souza,
I think you should invite Croft, and some of your other regular contributors to the House of Lords for a proper cuppa and to do some ‘blue sky thinking’…
Although I may be told off by the Cloud Appreciation Society for saying such a thing.
http://cloudappreciationsociety.org/
baronessdsouza: Please correct me but I understood the HOLAC cannot select party political peers only approve those nominated by the party itself. It’s selections are restricted to non-political peers. I believe the Green Party has not nominated, Lord Beaumont of Whitley was already a Liberal LP and swapped party.
The present system in which the PM offers various party leaders a certain number of nominations is open to abuse and allows unfair discrimination against some of the smaller parties. Surely the HOLAC, with membership increased to include a majority of non political members, should be given the authority to offer party leaders a more proportionate number of working peers. As some parties refuse to nominate, in extremis, they ought to be able to appoint people with similar views as the non nominating party. On any reasonable assessment the present chamber badly under represents the Greens, the nationalist parties (Wal/Scot/NI, UKIP and to a much lesser degree the LDs.
On the allowances, I rather assumed it was on a shoe string. It can’t be good for the house or for encouraging the effective deployment of the XB peers if they are so poorly funded. Has this issue been raised since the XB because the second largest grouping? I generally take a dim view of the government spending my money (!) but skimping on what seems a basic requirements for effective scrutiny is barking. I wonder what impact the lack of a facilitating administrative machine has on the attendance and contributions of your flock? I expressed something of the same to Lord Norton when he mentioned that he had drafted the recent Lord’s Reform Bill. That sufficient money isn’t given, or a certain amount of parliamentary counsel’s time officially allocated to the opposition is astonishing.
What or who is the Cloud Appreciation Society?
Not a bad idea! I will, as politicians are prone to say, take advice on this.
Croft – you are of course quite right; the HOLAC appoints non-party peers and vets the party nominees for probity.
In fact there have been a greater number of crossbenchers appointed in the last nine or so years than party political peers and this has given rise to some discontent. The crossbenchers stand as the second largest grouping – although I suspect that will not continue to be the case as we near the election.
Certainly the crossbenches are relatively underfunded and this does affect the degree to which we in this office can provide advance political information. My job is to solicit as much information as I can in order to keep the crossbenchers aware of what is coming up. This I do with the generous help of the party whips who are generous in providing all kinds of political information ranging from how they will vote on a given issue, to assistance on setting up meetings with ministers.
But this is, as you infer, a larger subject and I will tackle it properly when I have a longer moment!
But
I’m sure the combination of a thick election resignation honours list and, presuming a new government, generous additions to their benches will probably reduce the influence of the XBs. I hadn’t heard about any particular discontent about the numbers of XBs – obviously murmurings I’ve missed.
I appreciate you’re probably running to stand still at times! I always look forward to your posts as the XBs is the part of the house we hear the least about in the normal sources.