In my Stevenson Lecture at the University of Glasgow in January, I addressed the claim that election of a second chamber necessarily constitutes the ‘democratic’ option.  This is often advanced by proponents of an elected second chamber as if it were self-evidently correct.   I argued that it is not necessarily the democratic option, a point to which I returned in the debate in the House in June on the White Paper on Lords’ reform. 

I thought it would be appropriate to solicit the views of a political theorist and so approached a colleague, Dr Colin Tyler, who specialises in democratic theory.   Here is his response:

“You asked me to send you my thoughts about whether or not having an elected second chamber would help British democracy.

The conceptual points seem straightforward (even if often overlooked by the pro-reformers).  Parliament is democratic to the extent that its pronouncements and actions (crudely, the laws it makes and the policies it pursues) are determined by the electorate through the decisions of the representatives they chose at properly-constituted and authorised elections.  To the extent that such a process of determination is not reflected in Parliament’s subsequent pronouncements and actions, then Parliament fails to be fully democratic.  The crucial point in the context of Lords reform is that what matters is that the outputs of Parliament can be traced to the will of the electorate as expressed through their representatives (as just described).  Where these outputs enact something different to that will – or where they do not enact what the electorate will – then Parliament is not acting democratically.

To the extent that Lords reform will give the Lords parity with the Commons, it will divide sovereignty within Parliament, thereby making it harder for Parliament to act at all.  (Witness the recent and on-going problems with the US budget).  Consequently, democratising one part of Parliament (the Lords) will reduce the democratic character of the whole (Parliament).  And ultimately it is the democratic character of Parliament that matters, not the democratic character of its constituent parts considered in isolation from each other.

Obviously, it depends on how one thinks of Parliament.  Yet, as you can infer, I have very great concerns that, as with any complex institution, it is easy to focus on the parts while forgetting the whole from which they gain their function and worth

I am often struck by the fact that many who support Lords reform seem to wish to address these problems.  However, always the solutions they propose are palpably inadequate, often smacking of a desperate wish that ‘democracy’ meant something different.

Of course, another option would be to abolish the Lords completely.  The resulting unicameral system would be more democratic than the present system, but very possibly recklessly so.  After all, how much more havoc could both Thatcher and Blair (and many others) have reaped had they not been held in check to some degree by the Lords?”

However, a precedent has been set in relation to the way the House behaves.  Just wait until a House of Lords Reform Bill makes its appearance, and today’s filibuster will seem like a minor affair!

The signs are that it will be a few hours yet and I suspect the quality of debate may suffer.

It is a shame that the Government didn’t want to do a deal on this bill to avoid this extraordinary stand off that is resulting in Lords being kept up all night tonight and maybe tomorrow and beyond.  It doesn’t do any of us any good or aid the reputation of the House.  Many peers appear a little bad tempered and the normal politeness and camaraderie is showing signs of strain.

Meanwhile I am left wondering whether officially in the Lords it is still Monday even though in Greenwich it is clearly now Tuesday.

• Fully appointed: 81
• Hybrid: 48
• Abolition: 26
• Fully elected: 8

Congratulations to the team from the Robert Clack School in Dagenham who argued the case for a fully appointed House. 

The debate will be shown on the BBC Parliament Channel on 17 December at 4.00 p.m.

Baroness Massey with her team

Yesterday (Friday) the House met and debated reform of the House.  Next Friday, the chamber will also be used to debate the same subject – but this time the debaters will not be peers but pupils from a number of state schools.  There will be teams from four schools, each advancing the case for one of the four proposals for reform (retention of an appointed House, partially elected, wholly elected, and abolition).  Each team has been been mentored by a peer.  The picture shows Lady Massey with her team.  I have mentored the team from Robert Clack School in Dagenham which will be making the case for an all-appointed chamber. 

Further details are on the Parliament website here.  The debate will be broadcast on BBC Parliament on 17 December at 4.00 p.m.  If the team from the Robert Clack School is anything to go by – the pupils are both enthusiastic and able – it will be well worth watching.

The feel of the Chamber as a grand waiting room  is also because we haven’t got stuck into any new bills yet; none are yet tabled to start in the Lords. The Local Government Bill and the Terrorist Asset Freezing Bill were just finishing off from last session. Perhaps it will feel more like normal when we get immersed in new bills as they come from the Commons.

Lady Deech mentioned the rumours that are flying around in one of her blogs so I thought I’d keep you up to date about what’s happening. During a debate on reform of the House of Lords, on Tuesday 29 June, Lord Strathclyde announced he would be setting up a Leaders’ Group to investigate the options for Members to permanently leave the House of Lords. A Leader’s Group meets informally and does not have the powers of a Select Committee but can make recommendations for consideration.

At present neither life peers nor elected hereditary peers are able to retire or disclaim their seat in the House; only the Bishops and Archbishops retire at a fixed age of 70. The new Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 allows for peers who are not deemed to be resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled (ROD) to terminate their membership of the House of Lords if they wish to maintain their non resident status

The group, chaired by Lord Hunt of Wirral and including representation from all sides of the Lords, will identify options that would allow Members to leave or retire from the House of Lords. I am the crossbench member of the group, which has begun its work. We will be meeting during recess so as to produce some options for the House to consider in the autumn.

Members can at present take Leave of Absence for the remainder of the Parliament, some do when they are ill or too frail to attend. Many others simply do not turn up. Out of nearly 800 members now perhaps half are not regular attendees and perhaps 100 or so never appear (they’re cheap though!) The average age of peers is 68, meaning that we are an aged house and some would say too aged. But a compulsory retirement age is being phased out for the rest of society; it would seem strange to introduce one in the Lords.

There have been many attempts to introduce a retirement possibility recently, notably via David Steel’s recurrent Private Members Bills on constitutional reform, which by the way garnered massive support from backbenchers of all sides of the House.

All ideas gratefully received but no jokes please, I’ve heard them all already.

I’ve always had a soft spot for David Hunt, who as a junior minister in the department of local governemnt back in 89-90 and was the poor minister responsible for trying to find ways to make the Poll Tax more palatable. A colleague and I working in mental health were delighted when he accepted our arguments that people with serious long term mental health problems like dementia should not pay poll tax on the basis thay could not properly exercise choice about how it was to be spent. To our surprise (and I suspect to the deep irritation of the Department of Health, who feared it would be unworkable), I suspect he was keen on anything that made the  tax look more human, he accepted our arguments and while the Poll Tax died, the exemptions live on in a number of different kinds of exemptions from council tax . So people with mental health problems who are exempt from council tax have cause to be grateful to Lord Hunt.

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.