- Swiss Parliament
When I was in Switzerland, I had the opportunity to visit the national Parliament and see their second chamber. Having a bicameral legislature is one of the few features of the constitutional system that Switzerland has in common with the UK. Otherwise, we are at different ends of the constitutional spectrum.
Switzerland, as I think is widely known, is a confederation, with power held primarily by its 26 cantons. Many decisions on public policy are taken by referendum. Switzerland is the world leader in their use. Their employment shows some of the limitations, including low turnouts (usually less than 50 per cent) and some less-than-liberal decisions. Only in 1971 were women given the right to vote in federal elections.
Each canton has its own parliament. What struck me was how many MPs there are. The canton of Basel City, for example, which has a population of 180,000, has 100 MPs. Also noteworthy is the number of civil servants: someone pointed out that Basel City has more civil servants than the EU.
At federal level, the first chamber of Parliament (the National Council) has 200 seats, the seats distributed on the basis of population. Again this is a large number for a country with a population the same as Greater London. The second chamber (the Council of States) has 46 seats, with 20 cantons each electing two members and six each electing one member. The reason for having two chambers is clear in a federal or a confederal system, but what is notable about the two chambers in Switzerland is that they perform identical functions, including in respect of the budget. They also elect not only the government but also judges.
The fact that power is dispersed among the cantons may also explain why the federal parliament does not have an extensive annual programme. It meets only for four three-week sessions each year, though committee meetings can be held in between sessions. As a result, membership is not a full-time job, members devoting 60 per cent of their working hours to parliamentary duties.
This similarity between the members of both chambers and the identical functions does raise the question of what value is added by the second chamber. As I say, I can see why there are two chambers but not why they work in the way they do. I much favour our own system – but I suspect many readers will already have seen that conclusion coming!
Wow. I didn’t realise that, but I guess the Swiss Confederal system must be immensely expensive, which must be saying a lot for a country which is already quite affluent and expensive to live in.
So when you say the two chambers of the national parliament do the same thing, do you mean coequal powers? Say, in dismantling the government by voting down the Budget?
I can see the trouble that can cause, particulaly the crisis over the Australian Budget in 1975 – something in which I am inclined to believe Sir John Kerr acted constitutionally.
I am also amazed at Switzerland’s Presidential Council also acts as the collective Head of State.
As you say, I’m also not a fan of the Swiss system – it gives very illiberal decisions – but then it’s in accord with Swiss culture and traditions. I’d no sooner push our system on them as anybody should push an elected Lords on us.
Adrian Kidney: I certainly wasn’t suggesting that the Swiss should adopt our system. Theirs, as you say, is the product of their own history and culture; the country has always comprised a loose array of very different areas, with four different languages recognised. The existence of a seven-person excecutive, drawn from different parties, is a remarkable feature, and raises in my mind questions about accountability. The extent to which the system is designed to hold together different groupings within the country is something that was of especial interest to the Iraq committee.
What is interesting is the extent to which the politics, language and geography influence not only the composition of the executive but also the courts. Judges are selected on the basis of party politics, language and geography (which cantons they come from) and are elected by the parliament. This was explained in some detail; it was only when prompted by a question that it was mentioned that they also had to have legal qualifications. We had former chief justices from three countries in attendance and I think they were a little surprised by the criteria that were employed.
Yes, the two chambers of the parliament are co-equal is every respect. Bear in mind that it is a confederal system, so they have limited areas of responsibility and, as I mention, are in session only for twelve weeks each year.
In respect of Australia, you are correct in that Sir John Kerr as Governor General acted in a way that was obviously politically contentious but was nonetheless constitutionally valid.
How marvellous it would be if the UK Parliament were in session for only twelve weeks a year. It would help concentrate minds and perhaps save us from the excess of legislation we seem to suffer from.
Howridiculous.
howridiculous: Sitting for fewer days may reduce the volume of legislation but also let the Government off the hook by reducing opportunities for MPs and peers to call it to account. The emphasis should be less on how long we sit but rather on what we do.
Reminds me of: work smarter, not harder (says the man who’s procrastinating on Lords of the Blog, instead of doing work!).
Lord Norton is right, if government were to sit for a shorter time they would put through the same quality of legislation, but with less time for review by MPs and peers.
Orthogonal to this, the wife and I went to Ottawa and on an excellent guided tour of the parliament buildings there. They’re also in recess, so we were able to visit the Commons and Senate.
It’s interesting to see how similar the Canadian system is the English, right down to the mace that gives parliament the right to govern. It also seems that no matter what house you’re a part of, there’s always a statue or bust of Queen Victoria watching over you, not sure if that does anything for the quality of legislation however.
The Senate is a bit different from the Lords. Senators are appointed by the PM, but all represent different provinces of Canada. It’s like a hybrid between the US’ system and the UK’s.
Have you been to Parliament Hill, Lord Norton?
Dear Lord Norton,
My post was done slightly tongue-in-cheek and I take your, and Liam’s, point about accountability. In the same spirit I think sitting for a week a month would be adequate amount of time in which to hold the Government to acccount!
More seriously, I live in hope of seeing a generation of politicians self-discplined enough to break Governments’ mania for passing legislation.
Howridiculous.
Hi Lord Norton,
When you were there did you speak to anyone about their experiences of Weekend Voting?
Replying to the Govts consulation now and as Switzerland is the only country that vote over both days I wondered how their parliamentarians, media and public viewed it.
Trust you are well…
The Suisse had a big influence in my early life especially the German spoken ones. I remember with fondness a chap called Otto, God rest him, who would relate to me his time living in Basel. Basel is a German pronunciation whilst Basle is French.
He once amazed me by saying that he had to keep a rifle in his house just in case he ever got the call to arms as part of their civil defence. I also observed that some had the ability to never admit they were wrong whilst patently being so.
He would insist that the Suisse had a navy. I don’t know to this day whether they have one but I did know when my leg was being pulled. He would also relate how on some special days a lake free of ice would immediately freeze over if one threw a stone into the water.
It made me a big fan of the TV series William Tell starring Conrad Phillips:
http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/tell.htm
To this day whenever the Suisse become involved with something controversial I always blame it on the influence of an Austrian somewhere in the process. Thankfully lots of things have changed for the better in the intervening years especially with the Austrians.
Thanks for all the responses.
Liam: The Canadian Parliament is, as you say, based largely on the British, not least in terms of structures and procedures, and the Senate is often linked with the House of Lords in discussion of appointed second chambers. The Canadian Senate, though, does not match the Lords in reputation, in part because it lacks the experience and expertise of the Lords as well as the independent element: it is essentially a chamber of patronage. I have, indeed, been to Parliament Hill and have spoken there. Just over twenty years ago, the Canadian House of Commons set up a committee to examine parliamentary reform (the McGrath Committee), which came to the UK to take evidence from me and two former parliamentarians. The following year I was invited to Ottawa to give a talk in the Parliament. By an amazing coincidence, the then Speaker of the House of Commons is now a student of mine (taking the MA in Legislative Studies Online). Though the McGrath Committee endorsed my approach, rather enthusiastically, I am not sure it managed to dent the culture of the Canadian House, which is much more highly disciplined than the British House of Commons.
Senex: I visited Basel city in order to be briefed in the cantonal government there. There are two Basel cantons: one for the city and one for the outlying area. (They used to comprise one canton until they had a fight and the outlying area achieved its independence.) The Swiss are certainly very proud of their system, even though it does involve rather a large number of governmental structures. Though do at least have an army, though there was debate at one point as to whether they needed one.
Matthew Oliver: Weekend voting was not something we examined. I am not sure how much we could read from Swiss experience, not least given their propensity to hold elections and referendums. Frequency and culture are likely to be independent variables affecting turnout.
Howridiculous: I hope we may be able to move towards achieving fewer but more high quality Bills. The progress that is being made on post-legislative scrutiny may have some beneficial effect in this regard. I have been gratified by the advances achieved over the past few months and it should not be too long before we start seeing the effects of reviews of Acts of Parliaments three to five years after their enactment.
That’s a huge shame about the Canadian Parliament – anything that can be done to rectify it?
I’m guessing that a lot of controversy is nullified by the lack of a contentious name – ‘Senate’ sounds more egalitarian than ‘House of Lords’. I wonder if the creation of the Appointments Commission here and the subsequent loss of the Prime Minister’s powers of appointment to the Lords will influence Canadian Senate reform at all?
No doubt if Canada were to abolish their Senate and replace it with a, um, Senate, people would use it as an excuse to clamour for ours to follow suit…
Adrian Kidney: Proposals for an elected second chamber are very much on the political agenda in Canada. The Senate does not have a high reputation and is vulnerable to the pressure. The present minority government is pushing the issue hard. If Canada does go down that route, I fear your last paragraph will prove to be prescient.
Although to counter you both somewhat, Harper is on the verge of announcing a general election.
Like Lords reform in Britain, a change in government could mean all this will be forgotten about.
You are correct, Lord Norton, that the senate is not well regarded in Canada. Things would be better if the selection process operated more like Britain’s second chamber, in my opinion. Interestingly the tour guide brought up most of the same reasons you did for having an un-elected upper chamber: expertise over popularity, better representation of all groups, etc.
Thank you for the interesting response on the Canadian parliament, Lord Norton. You are a jet-setting, globe-trotting Lord indeed! 🙂
Liam: Thanks for the comments. I don’t mind globe-trotting. I would prefer I didn’t do it by jet-setting, but when needs must…