Although I wasn’t involved in Lord Tyler’s question I found it a fascinating exchange and more than a little bit humorous at times! In the end we were rescued by one of the medical/scientific experts in the shape of Lord Winston – who you often see on television talking about children and health matters.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80521-0001.htm#08052171000007
A thought occurred to me when I read this. One of the strengths of the Lords is that it allows great experts to inform policy and scrutinise government policy; if we had a purely elected House then many of these people, quite possibly all of them, would not be present.
Given that all academic and medical fields involve debate amongst experts over which theories are right or wrong, is there a risk that a sole expert, surrounded by non-experts, standing up to contribute in a Lords debate is treated as delivering the final and indisputable word on a subject?
I know nothing about the air quality issue raised in this post, and I am not singling out Lord Winston himself. He is a great expert, and in this instance is most probably absolutely right.
What I am suggesting however is that in a similar context at an academic conference, another expert with equal or superior knowledge might stand up and dispute what has been said.
Is there a risk of false confidence in what expert members of the Lords say on a subject? Are they challenged sufficiently by other experts?
Lord Winston may be an expert on air quality in aircraft but this is more because of his work within parliament than any pre-existing special expertise. But at least he came into the House with a background that enabled him to become an expert in this field. And he took advice and was able to understand and weigh the evidence he was given. (I know because I sent him some.)
The point about the Lords potentially being a House comprised of a range of experts is a good one. The Commons seems to be going in the direction of career politicians with little experience of life outside parliament and that has to be bad. Some professions such as the law seem to be over represented in the Commons compared with, say, medicine. A sensible system would redress the balance in the Lords.
Can we hope for Lord Grumble of Blogspot? Perhaps not. But the principle is a good one.
Stuart
You’re picking up again on my anxiety about experts in the house I’ve aired before–although I’d better be careful because undoubtedly I claim to be one! There are indeed some in the Lords who are rarely challenged because there are not others in the field to do so and as you point out this would not happen at an academic meeting. Someone would be on their feet quoting Bloggins et all 2008 before you sat down. I quite often feel we don’t have a wide spread of opinion on prison policy for example.
But Dr Grumble, we have lots of medics in the Lords of whom I am one of course. We have Murphy, Walton of Detchant, Turnberg, Finlay of Llandaff, Alderdice, Patel, Rea, Winston…and Darzi of course, plus at least 2 dentists, Colwyn and Gardner of Parkes, several trained nurses including Emerton. There are no doubt more that have slipped my mind for the moment. The health professions aren’t badly represented and of course on health policy we hold widely differing views, so that’s quite a bit reassuring.
Me again, How could I forget in my list of medics my old colleague from Guy’s, Lord McColl?
That, Baroness Murphy, is exactly how I think it should be. The House of Lords should have plenty of experts. Although I did not realise that there are quite as many medics as there are in the Lords, the real reason that I took the trouble to post is that it does worry me that one day pressures for a more democratic process might result in the Lords becoming more like the Commons. I think it’s a very good second chamber as it is. But what a shame there’s no room for Lord Grumble!
By the way I do think that your blog is a wonderful way of engaging with the public. I hope you can keep it up.
Good to see that this issue is being aired and considered more fully.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/2044263/Inquiry-into-'poisonous'-cabin-air-launched-by-Government.html
One suspects that initially the airline industry were in denial about this.
http://www.aerotoxic.org/
No doubt exacerbated by the fact that this appears to be a ‘design issue’ which may not be easily rectified.
Luckily once ‘Panorama’ were on the case it was a bit more difficult to maintain an ‘ostrich’ mentality – so it is good to see that pressure groups can make a difference against large vested interests.
at last this issue is being faced!what about other transport modes?[national rail industry theologian]