I mentioned the possibility of a referendum on an elected House of Lords at last week’s meeting of Lord Norton’s Reform Group. It was roundly turned down,  very courteously as is always the case in Lords dealings, but firmly nevertheless. The main reason being that no one believed that such a referendum would result in anything but a vote for a fully elected Second Chamber – an outcome few of us think is the best solution. 

I have to say I am not so sure. Part of the reason for putting this idea forward was to  seize the opportunity to educate a wider public about the work of the Lords – I am willing to bet that only a tiny fraction of the 56 about to enter the Lords have any real familiarity with its work – but to judge by some of your comments and those of an increasing number of media spokespeople  the issue is at least worthy of proper debate. A referendum would enable this.

I wonder too how MPs will respond when it becomes clear that an elected House of Lords will inevitably wish to challenge the powers of the Commons?

As Peter Riddell points out in today’s Times it cannot be a question of the Coalition Government needing to secure a majority – it already has one at a whopping 50.  So the answer may be either that both the Conservatives and the LibDems fear (even expect) a fair amount of dissension from their back benches on key policy aspects OR the relentless conventions of governmental processes such as dissolution and/or resignation honours come before all other considerations.

The reality is that (i) there just is no room for more peers, if they choose to contribute as working peers and (ii) there are no mechanisms in place to reduce the current numbers of peers. This is the nub of the problem – the Treasury apparently will not countenance even a small retirement package so the only route is voluntary retirement.  It is entirely understandable that those peers who have faithfully attended the House (if only to doze gently on the backbenches) for perhaps 40 years are unwilling to break the habits of half a lifetime, in the absence of any inducements.

Of course the attrition rate in the HoL is quite high, due to the great age of many of its incumbents but this ‘natural’ thinnning-out is constantly counteracted by the swathes of new peers that appear to keep arriving. The majority,  I hasten to add, are admirable and worthy people but this is not the point. However much they have to offer will count for nothing if they cannot find a seat from which to speak. Already a gentle row is emerging about who can sit on the two front benches on the Spiritual Side of the House traditionally reserved for the Bishops – it has not gone beyond anyone’s notice that the Coalition partners are spreading into this hallowed space.

I think that I  shall have to offer prizes for those who can suggest a system whereby their lordships can step down with grace and dignity without costing the nation further expense. I realise in putting this forward that I possibly invite less than serious responses – but I shall try it anyway.

We are told that there will be a massive influx of new peers arising from the Dissolution list and the new Government’s need to bulk up with whips. The UK has (embarrassingly) at present the largest second chamber in the world at something like 740 members of whom perhaps 450 turn up on any kind of a regular basis. We may get up to 100 more. Meanwhile, despite strenuous efforts by me and others at the end of the last Parliament, there is NO provision for retirement.

There are approximately 189 crossbench peers and if a 100 turn up there is nowhere for at least 30 of them to sit. So they perch themselves on the steps in the gangways or remain below bar from which places no contributions are allowed. If there are 400 peers in the Chamber as a whole – there is hardly breathing room. So why are we having more?

Many of the politicians have been promised peerages as rewards for political loyalty – all well and good.  But without an established and dignified retirement system the House will swell to the extent that it  becomes a legitimate target for yet more bitter media criticism. To my mind this is one more example of a complete lack of co0ordinated thought and action on Lords Reform.

My solution for today is as follows: give peerages to anyone you (or more properly the Government) wishes. However, such an honour should NOT necessarily qualify one to sit in the House of Lords as a working peer. Thus the distinction would be between a Lord (or Lady) and a working peer (or better still a Senator).

I have just returned from a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting in Swaziland where the average size of Second Chambers (whether in Australia, Canada, Kenya, India etc) is about 70.

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?

Our political representation is almost PR as it is. We’re used to minority parties – we’ve had Plaid and Greens and several UKIPs, not to speak of Monster Raving Loonies. They fit in well.

We will want to make sure that the House of Lords which emerges is at least as good and effective as the House of Lords that we have now, but given that the reform process is taking place under a friendly government over a decent timescale, and given the sceptical views on election to the Lords  of backbenchers on all sides, we have considerable power to make a mess of the legislation (or of legislation generally) and I am sure that we will find that our views are listened to. Most of Lord Norton’s proposals are workable in an elected house – if we get the Bill right.

This blog will doubtless be full of ideas as to how to achieve this. Here is one from me:

There should be 25% appointed independent members. A coalition government would then have to command two thirds of the party seats in the House of Lords in order to have an absolute majority. I suspect that the five years to come will be a lesson in how the effectiveness of the House of Lords is reduced when the governing party/coalition has voting control.

Baroness D’Souza and Baroness Murphy make some points about the reform process in their posts below. I am in agreement with the points they make. Like Baroness Murphy I have only worn robes on the day I took my seat. Changing traditions often runs into strong opposition. I have heard visitors, especially from overseas, saying that our traditions are very colourful and important. Yet traditions about dress in the Lords make me feel uncomfortable. It does enable the media to present us in a way that questions the seriousness of our work.

Soon after I arrived in the Lords I took a visitor who was going to assist one of the charities I run to lunch in the Peer’s guest room. He was very smartly dressed but as so often nowadays he was not wearing a tie.  I didn’t register this but someone did and shortly after I was quietly reminded that guests should always wear a tie. Only a cold climate nation like Britain could invent an item of clothing that in summer builds up the heat below your collar to boiling point! That is why I am a  strong supporter of Baroness (Lola) Young’s campaign to promote ethnic clothing. Maybe I can’t wear a Sari but I do admire those cool and colourful outfits worn by many Indians and Africans!

Fortunately the House has been taking reform much more seriously in recent times and the changes have made a big difference. I hope we will see changes in the language used soon. Why do we have to refer to senior military officers as noble and gallant when other ranks are not referred to in that way? (I should declare an interest as an ex national serviceman!)  Why do we refer to lawyers as noble and learned when I would happily pay some rather unlearned ones not to represent me?! Why do we refer to Bishops as Right Reverend Prelates? I asked a group of school children once what a prelate was and they didn’t know but they knew what a Bishop was!

I also hope we produce a version of Hansard in edited form soon. With good editing and with pictures it might sell in the shops and provide people with an alternative to the gossipy and trivial news coverage of Parliament in some of the newspapers.

So lets keep reforming – good reform creates  new traditions and gives  future generations an opportunity to argue their case for reform. It’s what keeps society moving and stops it getting stuck in a self perpetuating rut!

Yesterday, The Sunday Times carried an article by Jack Straw (‘Out with the Lords, in with the Senate’) explaining why he now supports an elected second chamber.   

Most of the article is taken up discussing the cross-party group he convened to discuss reform.  Only in the last third does he offer arguments for an elected second chamber.  

His first assertion is that the arguments for maintaining an appointed second chamber “do not pass muster in  a 21st-century democracy”.  Er, that’s it.  He does not mention any of the arguments for appointment, so does not engage with them.   He goes on to say that “it is entirely incongruous that there is no link between the parliamentarians who sit in the Lords and the people who elect the Commons.”  This strange construction contains the seeds of its own refutation.  There is a link through the Commons, which can ensure that ultimately it gets its way on behalf of the people.  That way, we retain the core accountability at the heart of our political system. 

The only other assertion he makes is that there is a link between the present crisis over expenses in the Commons and reform of the Lords.  How so?  Well, as people have found out about what MPs do, they have disapproved, and the more they find out about what the Lords do they will favour change.    What?  

I am reliably informed that in the evidence submitted to the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, those who knew most about the House were more likely to support its retention.  We know from the survey undertaken for the Constitution Unit at University College London that there is popular support for what the House presently does – people have some idea what it is about – and somewhat more think it is doing a good job than those thinking the House of Commons is doing a good job.  Jack Straw seems to believe that greater openness will make it difficult to make a case for the present House.  No it won’t.  The House is open and transparent and working hard at making sure that as many members of the public know about its work.  In my experience, the more people know about it, the more they favour retaining it.

Jack Straw ends by saying that there is no reason why an elected second chamber “will not contain outstanding individuals of all parties and of none.”  “and of none”?  Just like the Commons?  And if this new chamber will contain outstanding people, and not those who would really like to be in the Commons, then why did Mr Straw in his White Paper last year suggest that after service in an elected second chamber, members should be barred for a number of years from seeking election to the Commons?

The article is in a section headed ‘Think Tank’.  Mr Straw appears to have drowned in it.

If letters in the press and blog comments are anything to go by, many members of the  public recognise that the problem lies more with politicians and rules than basic constitutional structures.   They appear to regard the argument for PR as diverting attention from the real problem – it will not obviously produce a better class of politician – and demands for an elected second chamber similarly: there is no obvious enthusiasm for another set of elected politicians.

There is some empirical evidence for this perception.  On Saturday, The Times published a Populus poll (based on interviews conducted 27-28 May) and reported that the poll found that 56% of those questioned favoured PR and 51% supported an elected second chamber.  This was interpreted as a rare piece of good news for constitutional reformers.  Given the scale of popular outrage at the moment, the remarkable finding was not how high the figures were but rather that they did not show a massive increase in support for change.   Surveys in past years have tended to find majorities for electoral reform and an elected second chamber.  Equally significant is the finding, not reported in The Times, that respondents were offered thirteen options for political change.   In terms of the percentage supporting each option, PR came tenth.  An elected House of Lords came in at number twelve.  Only having a fixed number of terms an MP can serve attracted less support (47%).   Coming top of the poll – with 82% support - was having the potential for recall elections.

Far from the people flocking overwhelmingly to the banner for PR and Lords reform, there is still everything to play for.

There is a House Committee which gives ‘non-executive guidance’ to the ‘Management Board, which is made up solely of senior admintative excutives and chaired by the Clerk to the Parliaments. The House Committee was appointed for the first time at the start of the 2002-03 session of Parliament. It is chaired by the Lord Speaker, and sets the policy framework for the House of Lords administration. The House Committee’s terms of reference include:

“to approve the House’s strategic, business and financial plans; to agree the annual Estimates and Supplementary Estimates; to supervise the arrangements relating to Members’ expenses; and to approve the House of Lords Annual Report.”  So you might think they could make decsions about how we are paid. But no, it seems not. There are the politicians to consider. Quite how political parties feed into these arrangements is a mystery. There are ‘the usual channels’ but lowly backbenchers like me haven’t a clue what they are or how to approach them. Lord Bassam of Brighton, the Chief Governemnt Whip, came to talk to the crossbenchers about ‘the usual channels’ recently.  It reminded me of my comprehension of logarithms at school… they were in my grasp for half an hour and then escaped again.

It may be that the Telegraph and other papers have done us all a favour by highlighting this idiotic system. Maybe at last we can expect 100% agreement that change must happen. And we need the system monitored and audited.  Meanwhile we all sit as legitimate targets for criticism. And before anyone reads it in the papers I claim full allowances for the days I attend.

Last, a suggestion. I work perhaps 2-3 days a month as a board member of Monitor, the NHS Foundation Trust Regulator, for which I receive non-pensionable but taxable remuneration clearly audited, the amount available for you to look at on the web in our annual report. In spite of members living in far flung corners of the country we get travelling expenses only (but before you ask, I don’t claim when the House is sitting because the Lords pays mine to be in London during the week). Now why can’t we get a similar taxable pay system in the Lords, the amount determined by an external body of course. It isn’t difficult for other governmental organisations, it should be easy for us too.

The key for me is transparency. If everybody knows what you are doing for an organisation, how much you are being paid and what the organisation/s are then people including colleagues in the House will make their own judgements on the value of your comments and actions. I also advise those thinking of acting for an organisation to only do so if they have relevant knowledge and experience or a clear agreement or passion for what the organisation stands for or an interest in the subject area. For example I would be unlikely to take a lobbying position for the fashion industry not because it does anything wrong but because I have no great interest in it as my family will confirm!

I have asked the library of the House to prepare a short paper on what rules apply in other Parliaments. In my view it would be a mistake to have no lobbying at all. Good lobbying can be very helpful in achieving good legislation but the transparency rule is important. 

Lobbying is hard to define in a precise way. Is a practising lawyer a lobbyist when they speak on the need to change legislation?The House of Lords would be a very odd place if we said that all the lawyers,doctors, businessmen etc had to give up their paid jobs because they were members of the House.

 Lawyers have a particularly odd position in this respect. They are very adept in both the Lords and Commons at amending legislation which they then use in the courts. Would our legislation be  better  if that wasn’t allowed? I don’t think so but they don’t always state their interest as clearly as they should largely because they take it for granted. Should people who work for the NHS not amend NHS legislation? Again, I think that would be a mistake.

I hope the result of this sad affair will be an expectation of transparency and significant punishments including exclusion from the House where the rules are breached. In the meantime we need to think hard about what other rules we need.

Two final general points. Some comments on these posts query whether governments should be able to appoint ministers who are not members of the Commons and not currently members of the Lords.  I think they should.  All the significant government posts in the US are by appointment. Our system is different because the executive is drawn from the legislature but I don’t think that should mean you can’t have people brought in  from outside. Variety is the spice of life!

I like the point made by my colleague Baroness Murphy in response to Lady Tizzy about slavery but even this has a complex side. The anti slavery group in Parliament supported the illegal activity of the Royal Navy in entering the harbours of other nations and burning the slave boats and intercepting slavers on the high seas – actions that were declared unlawful by a number of courts including the House of Lords. The RN got round this difficulty with an interesting example of spin (Yes, spin has been with us since Cleopatra set her lovers against each other!) they simply redefined slavers as pirates and carried on breaking the law – Alaistair Campbell eat your heart out!