Matt asks how I would change the processes of scrutiny of a Bill in the Lords. First of course I would hope it arrived in better shape from the Commons but all the Bills I’ve watched go through the Commons get almost nothing except ‘tabloid’ type scrutiny of the overtly controversial clauses or those that have the most organisations protesting about them.
But some major government policy initiatives written up as ‘draft bills’ have ‘pre-legislative scrutiny’ where a joint committee with representatives from all political sides of both Houses of Parliament consider evidence assembled for them by experts in the field and submitted to them on request. I sat on just such a committee for the mental health bill and found its deliberations were of real quality. During the course of the Committee I changed my mind on a number of issues. I would like to see such scrutiny of all bills. It increased my respect for the MPs on that committee too…I could see where they were coming from at last.
We could use many more small committees and working groups to explore individual issues in a bill, so many of them are hybrid.
We also need to have legal advisors available to the whole House while it sits. The Government has its bill team, which sits ‘in the Box’ near the Throne during the debates and delivers notes of advice to Ministers as questions come up in the course of discussion. The rest of us have to rely on legal advisors from organisations we are associated with and who are not necessarily available when you need them. But I’m a relative newcomer; perhaps my colleagues have some better ideas?
And let me be even more controversial, I think we should ditch ministerial question time altogether. That’s the 5 minutes of knock-about repartee on 4 individual topics tabled daily by peers lucky enough to get a slot. The whole process seems designed for show-offs. A peer listed leaps up and says “I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the order paper”, the Minister responding utters a few platitudes, then the peer makes his two points (but they must be couched as questions such as ‘Would the Minister agree that…’), the Minister responds again then it’s every man for himself, with peers from all sides of the House witha burning desire to ask a 15 second question. The truth is I ask questions when I’m asked to but I have considerable scepticism about their usefulness. And I hate leaping up and pushing in. I am sure there must be a more fruitful way for ministers to engage with ordinary backbenchers and their concerns.
On question time, I also frequently spot that some questions are clearly very personal to the peer – for example, about roadworks at a specific junction of a motorway (no doubt that bothered her/him on their way to London!).
Then again, without ministerial question time, how would ministers be effectively scrutinised and held to account on their non-legislative activity?
Make the Lords History..
No, not my views, and Yes, Off-topic.. but thought you might want a ‘right of reply’..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/24/lords.houseofcommons
‘Lords is essential as a revising chamber’ [Letters]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/25/houseofcommons.lords
I get the impression that the best way of improving scrutiny is to reduce the number of bills passing through the houses of parliament.
Richard Reeves (http://www.richard-reeves.com/about.asp) recently wrote in the Guardian, advocating turning the Lords into a pretty vase:
‘…But if democracy needs “checks and balances”, these should be built into the principal democratic body, not bolted on to it.
We probably don’t need to abolish the Lords, any more than the monarchy. It can just be permitted to wither away as a constitutional force, with its delaying powers withdrawn bit by bit. This process would result in the Lords, like the crown, becoming an ornamental rather than instrumental part of our constitution.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/24/lords.houseofcommons
The comments following the article are worth a read, eg:
‘we cant do without a ‘check and balance’ chamber.
An elected second chamber leaves them open to the coercive forces of whips. Unelected means they are unrepresentative. If they are in place for too long, they may become out of touch. If in place for not long enough and they dont have time to take a longterm view of the effects of legislature (short termism being a failing of the first chamber). Too old and theyre fuddy duddies, too young and they know nowt about nowt…’
Also, Philip Hunt, Ministry of Justice, replies:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/25/houseofcommons.lords
Many thanks – that’s very interesting.
An essential difference between the two Houses is the perception of privilege.
With few exceptions I would say that appointed peers have come from ordinary backgrounds. Their careers have often taken them to the top and recognition of this has been an offer of a peerage.
This is not to say that hereditary peers have not undergone similar career paths. However, they may have started life with the privilege of a large millstone hung around their necks in terms of estates.
If one uses the Maslow hierarchy to profile both the houses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
The Lords represents self-esteem and self-actualisation with no particular dependency on Parliament for the lower levels of safety and the physiological.
This contrasts with the Commons where most MP’s are very much dependant on Parliament for all four of these needs. This makes them vulnerable to decision making that protects these needs.
Another difference is that by accepting a peerage the individual may not have done so for political reasons but simply as recognition of their career success. MPs on the other hand are entirely political wanting to be at the core of decision-making and power. Some have even been known to ditch their hereditary legacy just to be an MP.
MP’s have to persuade and cajole people to gain power, dangling carrots before a reluctant electorate. Peers are appointed; they can act in good faith whenever their whips allow it.
MPs on government executives often come from top universities. Indeed one’s political career as an MP can be constrained by the lack of this. Not so in the Lords, peers are appointed by recognition of what they have achieved or what they are.
Function point analysis of the two could go on for a long time but it would essentially come down to two Houses of Parliament for two differing jobs.
The real question though, is do the peers now in place want to be part of a politically empowered House of Lords? I suspect not, they are just happy with the way things are.
I’ve not sat on a joint committe, but I remember the National Lottery bill – where there was cross-party support – and the sudden, surprising quality of Commons scrutiny. Give MPs the right environment and they do a superb job of it.
As for questions – I don’t think it hurts to give peers 30 minutes at the beginning of the day when we’re all there, rather than atomised into our interest groups. Agreed it does not often achieve anything – it takes a succession of questions on the same subject to make an impact. The one I remember best was ‘What plans does HMG have to celebrate the 50th anninversary of the battle of El Alamein?’, the answer being ‘None – it’s the Germans’ turn to run celebrations this year’. With the house stuffed with veterans, this answer was not left to lie: after three more rounds of humiliation the government gave in.
Baroness Murphy,
Any chance of returning to the topic of ‘Polyclinics’ ??
I really don’t see how allowing a private business/public limited company run by Beardie Branson, is going to help improve our NHS.
They will just want to increase profits by reducing care, and ‘gaming’ the system as they do with ‘Virgin’ trains, to extract the maximum subsidy from the taxpayer with the minimum ‘acceptable’ level of service, defined by them in close ‘consultation’ with the ‘regulator’.
This will be a disaster for pensioners who will have to traipse to one of these clinics, where they will just be a number, and possibly have to see a different doctor every time. Many just will not bother to make the effort, with possibly catastrophic results.
And what about people like me, who have gone to a great deal of time and effort to ensure the Department of Health granted me an opt-out from having my records put on the ‘Spine’ Central Care Record database [where it could be viewed by hundreds of thousands of people] ?? I want my records to stay with my GP, thank you, and not be siphoned off to a private company whose ability to handle my data securely I wouldn’t trust from here to next Tuesday.
The unions aren’t happy with this – and I suspect that in the current climate of distrust of this Government, many will be supportive of any industrial action which is taken to prevent NHS GP clinics going the way of so many rural post offices in the next round of culling..
This is a very important topic, and I think the independent and impartial view of Lords, Ladies, Baronesses and other experts would be a useful addition to the debate. I may sound like I’ve made my mind up already, but I am persuadable and willing to listen to a good case – it is just that the ‘burden of proof’ lies with those who want to tinker around with what, for me, as a perfectly adequate system.
And if it ain’t broke..