This is the third part of my article on Lords reform and follows from the two below. Read this and then prepare yourself in body and soul for the last terrifying instalment!
This brings me to the critically important issue of the scrutiny of legislation. Select Committees in the Commons do a good job on ministerial departments but on Bills, which become the final laws, the Commons scrutiny is superficial. Most admit that the Lords do an excellent job of subjecting our legislation to detailed analysis – far better than the Commons. Who is going to do this in future if it is not the Lords?
The pressure on MPs is far greater than on Lords. We underestimate just how hard MPs work and how they are torn between conflicting pressures. Many of the amendments made in the Lords are accepted because they improve the legislation and because the Commons want them. If the second chamber is elected are we sure that good scrutiny will still take place? Elected members of a second chamber will have similar pressures to MPs. Would not an elected second chamber become a carbon copy of the Commons?
Only now is the Government beginning to address the question of deadlock between the two Houses. Critics of the present House will say other countries manage without gridlock so why can’t we? Well, we could IF we wrote a constitution – starting virtually from scratch. Consider the implications. You would need to write down the powers and responsibilities of the two Houses. If the Lords is to be only partially elected what is the relationship between elected and unelected members? If wholly elected you would have to remove the unelected Bishops and that means you would have to write a new relationship between church and state and the monarchy. All of this is perfectly possible but is it sensible? Rewriting large parts of our constitution would be a major legislative programme no doubt fought line by line in both Houses. A government that followed that route would find the rest of its legislation grinding to a halt. Any opposition Party worth the name would have a field day. And if the electorate don’t want it and the country doesn’t need it, why do it?
Lord Ashley of Stoke
The House recently lost another doughty member in the form of Lord Ashley of Stoke. Jack Ashley, when he was an MP, lost his hearing. He learned to lip-read and later regained some partial hearing. In the Lords, he had the facility of a machine that transposed what was being said into words on a digital display. He was a renowned and tireless campaigner in the field of disability rights and continued attending the Lords even when wheelchair-bound.
The House has also just lost Baroness Ritchie. She was well known to many peers because of her extensive service in local government and her charity work. She was probably better known to the wider world because she was Guy Ritchie’s stepmother (and hence for a time Madonna’s stepmother-in-law). She joined the Lords in 2010 and joined our office – she had the desk next to mine. Tragically, within a matter of weeks of joining the Lords, she was diagnosed with cancer. She still sought to attend the House but her appearances became rarer. She was a charming individual and will be much missed.
This section deals with another problem associated with the Government draft Bill. It follows on from my post below.
I agreed to go to the Lords in 2005 and I remember going in for the first time and seeing a line of wheel chairs plugged in to charging points – and the debate was on assisted dying! Had I made the mistake of my life? Well, yes I thought I had – but experience has given me a different perspective. For a start those wheel chairs tell you something rather important about how different the Lords is from the Commons. It is far more representative than the Commons of people with major disabilities. Also of ethnic minorities. Tony Blair appointed the first black leader of the House of Lords – Valerie Amos. It is as representative as the Commons for women but less representative on age and geography. One advantage of an appointed chamber is that with the right appointments system you can get representation for groups who would otherwise find it difficult to get heard.
The quality of debates in the Lords is very high. Quality of debate can be very high in the Commons too but it is bound to be more gladiatorial – it is the cockpit of the nation’s politics and you can’t take the strong emotions out of politics. Appointment means you have some real experts in the Lords who would be unlikely to stand for election to the Commons. This is a double edged sword. Experts tend to attend the debates that they are expert in – but the Lords debates the whole range of government policy and general political policy and their expertise is no advantage there. This is one of the arguments that send supporters of an elected chamber straight to the case for election. Who do you represent if you are appointed and why should being an expert in one field allow you to legislate on all other fields? Surely everyone who legislates should be elected?
Well, not necessarily. I don’t rely on the fact that a number of countries have unelected chambers – that’s interesting but doesn’t make the case. It is important to remember that everything the House of Lords does can be overturned in the Commons. The House of Lords cannot legislate without the final approval of the Commons. Quite rightly the elected chamber has a veto. The Lords does of course exercise great influence, but so do civil servants who have far more influence than most of us readily admit.
To be continued…
A terrible tragedy occurred when a lovely young woman collapsed and died towards the end of the London Marathon last weekend. She had entered in order to raise funds for the Samaritans. In consequence, about £700,000 has been donated in her memory by members of the public to this good cause. This is a great benefit to the Samaritans (and, one hopes, a small consolation to her parents), but obviously we would all rather have this young woman alive than any amount of money. A good friend of mine died many years ago on a sponsored cycle ride for a children’s charity. He was a most distinguished paediatrician and his loss left a gap in the medical profession and of course in his family that could never be filled.
So I remain puzzled as to why those who wish to raise money for charity do so by undertaking completely pointless activities, such as running, swimming or trekking long distances overseas. I cannot see why we should give money to charity so that they can do something they want to do anyway, which is of no benefit to anyone else. I prefer to donate direct to the charity, if asked by a friend, and not link my donation to the activity they are undertaking, especially if it is risky to health. I have sometimes suggested that they might prefer to do something useful, like chores for elderly neighbours, if they want sponsorship, (remember bob a job?) but they prefer doing what they enjoy.
Contrast with that the current nomination list for the annual Dods Parliamentary Charity Champion Award – http://www.charitychampionawards.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30&Itemid=16. The nominees have actually undertaken an activity for their favoured charity. The runners and the activists equally have hearts of gold and the best intentions, but how much more sensible to act to make a difference to your chosen charity or your community.
As a newly elected MP in 1979 it seemed obvious to me that we needed to elect the Lords. No question about it! Unelected legislators in the age of democracy – it must be wrong! So like most MPs I took it for granted that Labour’s election manifesto of 1910 must finally be honoured. I now have a memorial mug given to me by Margaret Becket MP with the quotation from that election saying:
TO THE WORKING – CLASS ELECTORS.
You are again being asked to return a majority pledged to remove the House of Lords as a block in the working of our constitution.
Do it, and do it emphatically.
THE LORDS MUST GO!
So why is reform or abolition of the Lords such a persistent and challenging task? All three parties said in their last manifestos that the Lords should be elected but the closer you get to the arguments the more complex and questionable it becomes. The current Governments Draft Bill has exposed the fault lines.
More to follow!
