A new Government, a new Parliament, even perhaps a new way of governing. All this is to the good, the wider public is engaged and the challenge will be to keep it engaged. But I’m not sure this will be achieved by obsessive focus on tired old problems – like HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.
We, all of us as well as all of you out there, have been here too many times before. However, in a nutshell here is my current (as of Sunday afternoon) view: The HoL is largely irrelevant to the politicians who run the country – few really understand what it actually does but only tend to give it attention when it is successful in thwarting Government business or when it can be traded as a political tool. A ‘democratically elected Upper House’ sounds good but has anyone truly thought through the consquences. A genuinely PR voting system, given that the BNP managed something like half a million votes in the North West, could result in replacing say Martin Rees, distinguished scientist, President of the Royal Society, with someone like Nick Griffin.
The point, made non-stop by many others, is that elections will not necessarily make for a more democratic, or certainly more expert, House. And why does this matter? Because the task of the HoL is to revise and scrutinise legislation and in doing so the more genuine, on the ground, expertise available the better. If the former head of M15 and a former Chief of Metropolitan Police say that in their experience there was no justification for increasing the pre-charge detention period to 42 days, people including the Government listen to them.
I wonder why it is not possible to have a statutory commission that takes note of the gaps in expertise in the House and appoints accordingly? Would this not in the end make the HoL more fit for purpose than an election system in which the ‘experts’ are unlikely to put themselves forward and therefore ending up with would be politicians who have not quite managed to make it to the House of Commons?
Excellent commentary, Baroness D’Souza. More power to you!
At best, well-meaning reformers of the House of Lords will cripple what makes that institution such a vital component of the political system and, once fiddled with beyond recognition, it will be difficult—if not impossible—of restoration.
What I like about the HoL not being elected is that there are far fewer (at least, as far as I can tell) professional politicians. Or rather, that there seems to be more and more of them in the Commons.
Being a professional politician does not necessarily make someone a bad politician, but frankly, I want my rulers to have more than just an NVQ in ministerial studies.
I agree that HoL reform is not of great importance. It has also become more obvious with this most recent election that FPTP has soem serious shortcomings. But I belive that getting the number of MPs to more closely reflect the nu,mber of votes cast for them is a red herring. What is really needed is a HoC that more closely reflects the country as a whole and to made individuals feel that what they believe matters. Having a government, as we did from 2005, which at best met with the approval of about 1 in 5 of the electorate was disastrous for democracy in this country. Regardless of party politics, anyone believing in democracy must be happier with the current state of affairs where over 60% of the electorate approves of the government. Lets hope they live up to our expectations! Lets also hope that any changes to the electoratl system with enhance this not reduce it in future.
More to the point, the creation of an elected House of Lords would be one of the biggest power shifts in the history of British history. It would be the first time in over a hundred years that power flowed TO the Lords from the Commons. Even if there is no immediate change in its responsibilities, it would be given something far more powerful: Democratic legitimacy. A PR elected Lords would have at least as much (and in the minds of some PR advocates, more) legitimacy than the Commons. Would the PM remain head of government based on support solely within the Commons? What would happen if you ended up with one Party with a majority in the Commons but not in the Lords (as seems likely if the Commons is FPTP, where 43% can get you a large majority, but would leave you far short in PR). Would the Government then be able to Govern? If there were a showdown between the two, who would have legitimacy? Electing the Lords would likely turn Britain from essentially a Unicameral government into a Bicameral one. The consequences for Government would be substantial, and in my view negative.
It should be noted that the coalition agreement does not finally commit to a wholly elected upper house.
The situation you describe of Martin Rees replaced by Nick Griffin is a stark one. I’m opposed to an elected House of Lords, especially one elected along party lines. But if we must have an elected House, it’s essential that a portion of it – at least a quarter – remains appointed, and that the appointed part should almost entirely comprise crossbenchers.
Let the career politicians and party hacks fight it out, and leave the experts to continue their good work.
I completely, utterly agree. Please: do not elect the Lords. It would be absolutely disastrous for this country.
“HoL is largely irrelevant to the politicians who run the country”
As one interested in govt but never served in Cabinet, it is fairly obvious that the one use of the Lords front benches is appointment to cabinet and thoroughly hard working government office of those who are NOT in the HofC.
European delegated legislation scrutiny (horrible word) is another use, but that could be done by at most a hundred commited, accountable, and paid, peers.
Lord Norton’s emphasis on by-elections for the Hereditary peers makes an elected second chamber sensible. ALL the rest, save the electoral college of the Hereditaries, could be elected.
That would conserve the old, and bring in the new.
What annoys me a great deal is that much time is spent on discussing proposals for the composition of the HoL without actually settling the question of its purpose. It seems to me that its purpose should come first.
We are fast reducing the place to the status of the world’s most expensive rubber stamp.
I find David Cameron’s first few days in his new role most unsettling. What with 55% weighted votes for dissolution and the creation of innumerable new peers, he seems to me to be dedicating himself to the destruction, or at very least the reduction, of the normal checks and balances on Government.
This, I think, is the great disadvantage of our so-called unwritten constitution.
“What would happen if you ended up with one Party with a majority in the Commons but not in the Lords”
The powers of the place would be unchanged; the accountability of its members would not.
“…has anyone truly thought through the consquences?”
Yes. Obviously. Perhaps Baroness D’Souza doesn’t mingle with the right sort of people nowadays, or maybe she only reads newspapers, but I’ve heard more sophisticated debates about the future of democracy in this country on Facebook (so her reasoning here doesn’t really make a good argument for retaining the HoL as a place for expert debate and scrutiny!)
In a reformed Parliament, the HoC would retain primary legitimacy, with its members being elected by a majoritarian system (AV), to ensure that each constituency elects its most-preferred candidate. Then, the MPs fairly represent the preferences of their constituents. The second chamber’s purpose then would be to represent the distribution of party-preferences (and thus broad policy-preferences) in the country (or regions, depending on how you do it) – you vote for a party, and then the parties can effectively appoint people to the second chamber such that their proportions match the votes. If there’s someone a party really wants in the chamber, they could put them higher up on their list, or otherwise have them as one of their party’s candidates.
The “o noes teh BNP!!1!” argument is a red herring, since you would obviosuly threshold the proportionality so that extremist minority parties don’t end up wielding a disproportionate amount of power (even if, as in the HoL currently, that power is just to delay). Germany set their threshold at 5% – in the 2010 election, this would mean that only the Big Three would have seats. Going by the 2009 Euro Election (perhaps more indicative of the kind of election that we’re talking about), the BNP might have got a member. But I’m sure you’d be hard-pushed to argue that the HoL currently doesn’t contain at least one nutcase.
To reiterate: The HoC would fairly represent the candidate-preferences of people in (smallish) constituencies, and the HoL would fairly represent the party-preferences of larger blocs of people (i.e. the whole country, although things like thresholding and candidates could be done on a regional basis).
Finally: I am very keen for experts to continue to be involved in UK governance, and the HoL currently does quite a good job in this field. But frankly, experts don’t have to be members of a Parliament in order to do that. Parliaments should be representative. If parties want to field “expert” candidates, then so much the better, but I trust that an expert would wield their expert opinion through pressure groups, networking and personal contacts just the same as those currently outside the HoL. It’s not like Martin Rees would suddenly vanish (or become mute or unable to type) if he wasn’t in the HoL.
I reallly am very interested in all these views, some quite unexpected. One suggestion I keep mulling over is that if there is to be more than minor reform of the HoL that is should be put to a referendum?
This would have the double advantage of being democratic but at the same time an opportunity to inform a far wider public on what the House of Lords actually does.
I still wonder why Democratic Legitimacy is the only Legitimacy we recognise. Why should I think an unelected body is less Legitimate than an Elected one?
Personally i think an Elected House is a mistake. I do agree that the House of Lords needs more Legitimacy and more Real Power, but that legitimacy must come from tradition and from tis role. Grant it more power and tell people it doesn’t have a Democratic Legitimacy, it has the Legitimacy of Wisdom and Experience, and balances the Democratic Chamber.
Two purposes:
1) Checking over UK Bills, 3 times if necessary.
2) Checking (scrutinizing)European Delegated Legislation as it affects the people of these islands and about 1/7 of the European Union population; vast quantities of delegated legislation.
Thanks Gareth Howell, a concise job description. But it seems you may be one of the cognoscenti? Apparently in a recent poll carried out by the Constitution Unit only 5% of those polled had any real familiarity with what the Lords do.
I still think that a referendum would be a great opportunity to explain the role of the second chamber.
Finally, I would add holding the Government to account to the job description.
The trouble is, one can see no end to the bickering short of a fully elected second chamber of some form. And the constant bickering must, simply and of itself, be very unfairly disturbing to members of the Upper Chamber, and I would have thought corporately something of a weakness.
But in an election scenario, what becomes of crossbenchers? Their manifesto should fascinatingly contradictory, which, well-handled, might even give it a charm all of its own, but how on earth are they supposed to determine where they go on a crossbenchers’ party list? Names out of a hat?
Are we really in a situation of not whether but when the Lords becomes all-elected? In which case, timing is crucial. As an elector, I would certainly not wish to vote in both houses at the same time, as it would probably give a party, or parties, an undue advantage at that time.
All manner of possibilities present themselves.
Here’s what I’d do.
We’ve got nine English regions, plus Scotland and Wales. Equals eleven. Members of the Lords to be elected by elevenths, the elections to be annually on the first Thursday in May in all years EXCEPT when there’s a Commons election.
So the elections are rotated around the country by region, all members get at least 13, possibly 14 year terms. And each region gets spotlighted periodically, which will be a great novelty in this vastly over-centralised nightmare.
I’m sure a strong argument may be made for splitting London up over more than one year, given the high density of the population there (and also the large numbers), so one might reasonably be talking of, say, 15 year terms.
Two purposes:
1) Checking over UK Bills, 3 times if necessary.
2) Checking (scrutinizing)European Delegated Legislation as it affects the people of these islands and about 1/7 of the European Union population; vast quantities of delegated legislation.