There are many articles advocating Parliamentary reform and there are many points in them which I agree with. However all of them have called for the House of Lords to be replaced with an elected second chamber. While I agree that it requires significant reforms, I think that replacing it would be a huge mistake.
However it is set up, a system with two elected chambers inevitably ends with a power struggle between them, of which the Italian and US Senates are some of the best examples. Legislation is used for pointscoring or outright blocked, not due to flaws or voter opposition, but because of conflicting electoral agendas.
The Lords, as an appointed body, can bring some of the most skilled and accomplished members of the British public into the legislative process which is of huge benefit to the legislative system. Many of these people, such as Lord Winston and the judges, would never have entered politics otherwise.
I do not support the inclusion of party political peers, hereditary peers or Church of England Bishops. As Tim Farron has argued, the system should not give precedence to one religious group over the others.
A better system for appointments would be a politically independent panel comprised of the most effective crossbench peers to appoint those whom it is felt have contributed most to society from various fields. There should only be one block on appointments: those appointed must never have been elected to the House of Commons, devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, or as a directly elected Mayor.
The strength of an appointed revision chamber is the people who are appointed to it. With the appointment decisions open to public scrutiny, cronyism, chamber packing, cash for honours and other scandals would be prevented. Members of the public appointed for their deeds have a great deal of experience that would be so invaluable to the legislative process, and if members were appointed for 25 year terms with the option to retire they would also have a defined end to their responsibilities. Tying the number of peers to the number of MPs would also keep the chamber a defined size.
With former politicians barred from the Lords, political agendas would be confined to the Commons with the Lords using their experience to make the laws the elected politicians decide to enact as thorough and effective as possible. Remaining an unelected revising chamber prevents battles which are so damaging to the democratic and governmental process.
With this broad mix of experience and opinions, skewing the system in favour of past affiliations should prove difficult. With politicians barred, diversity on the appointments panel, a power of expulsion for peers guilty of accepting lobbying, and forced retirement for persistent non-attendance, the chamber would have many safeguards to ensure its integrity.
Without having to look over their shoulders at electioneering the peers would be free to debate controversial topics that require legislative discussion but are politically difficult.
The present system envisions the Lords largely scrutinising and improving legislation delivered by the Commons, though it can also introduce legislation for the Commons to consider; a power that I would advocate be retained. Rather than radical change, these reforms would simply formalise the existing chamber’s current duties, making the Lords closer to what it currently aspires to be.
The House of Lords, though in need of serious reform, is one of the most effective and (ironically) potentially egalitarian parts of the British political process. New democratic institutions are not always successful. The police and crime commissioners and John Prescott’s regional assembly referendum are valuable examples of when democracy for democracy’s sake fails miserably. This is perhaps another of those situations. With its present aspirations formalised and properly reformed to conduct its business freely and fairly, the Lords could continue its unique role in the British political system, becoming more effective and far more valuable to the political process than just another elected chamber to squabble with the Commons.
* James Cole is a member of the Liberal Democrats in the South East Region
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Reform inadvertently lose their majority
The Major Oak is dead and Phil Harding has discovered another ancient site near Stonehenge
Reform own goals
Trumps' White House thuggery appals the world including most Americans
cim
expats
Mick Taylor
Mary Reid
19 Comments
@James Cole
Hi James,
While I disagree with you, I’m delighted you’ve put up this post. Too often, people with minority view keep silent. Sometimes, when we look back, we realise they were right.
We need a culture which positively encourages folk like you to challenge the consensus, and question our assumptions.
On your specific point, I’m afraid I think it’s impossible for experts to be independent.
Experts work well when they are following terms of reference set by elected politicians. So I think the Bank of England and the Low Pay Commission have done a good job.
However, the Lord’s role will, and should, involve a lot of political decisions. Experts aren’t impartial, their views will be just as political as anyone else’s. The difference with your proposals is, whoever chooses them will have enormous political power. I think that power should rest with the electorate.
The proposals Nick put forward in the last parliament, and proposals in previous parliaments, have been designed to reduce the political authority to reduce the deadlock you are worried about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_House_of_Lords#The_Conservative_.E2.80.93_Liberal_Democrat_Coalition_government
I pretty much agree with what you’ve posted here James.
The Upper House would be better as a sort of ‘database’ of experienced and knowledgeable people, with a core of actually sitting Lords.
BTW, the Bishops don’t sit in the Lords because they are religious leaders. When the Lords was first created, it was composed of major land owners; the Church was one of the biggest.
And who picks those who pick who sits in the lords?
>> James Cole:
>> The Lords, as an appointed body, can bring some of the most skilled and
>> accomplished members of the British public into the legislative process
>> which is of huge benefit to the legislative system.
> George Kendall
> Experts aren’t impartial, their views will be just as political as
> anyone else’s… whoever chooses them will have enormous political power. I
> think that power should rest with the electorate.
It’s interesting that this is usually presented as an either-or choice, but it’s not unheard of for legislatures to have non-voting members, and indeed a mix of appointed expertise and a vote of equals is the backbone of the criminal justice system.
So perhaps we should be open minded about having analogous arrangements for an upper house, vesting legislative power in elected members only, but also having cross-partisan appointees who participate fully in deliberations.
Gosh. Immediately abolish stop. Replace with elected body stop. Nothing else will do stop.
I would suggest Graham that it would be a vote of the entire House of Lords as this is the way the House of Commons currently selects its committee chairs. I am open to suggestions though.
James Cole | Sun 27th September 2015 – 1:25 pm
Hi James, Are you free on 10/11/2015?
The AGM in Tunbridge Wells has a guest speaker who is an expert on this subject.
http://www.libdems.org.uk/alison_suttie
Would it be deeply cynical of the Tories to propose an ideal that they know will not pass?
Or should we be looking for progress, such as not appointing new life peers, but using term limits?
Can we also reform the Commons, such as bringing in more experts to give evidence to committees?
Hi Richard, yes I believe I am free then.
As the Tories would be the major opposition I don’t think they can introduce anything and then survive the fall out if it fails to pass. I would be to cynical for them to risk it in the press. I think term limits is a big first step as is forced retirement for non attendance.
I would be very supportive of more experts giving evidence to the committees in the House of Commons as well.
Good article, James, and I agree with you on many points but the House of Lords, as you suggest, still needs serious reform,
Completely agree with this article. It would be pointless having an elected second chamber if such a chamber had no significant powers – that way lies deadlock and chaos. George Kendall says that we can avoid the deadlock by “reducing the political authority” of the chamber, but if the chamber has its authority reduced to the point where it can no longer stand up to the Commons, then why does it matter if it’s elected or not?
This is a conundrum that the pro-reformers have put very little effort in to solving, preferring to resort to platitudes and generalities. Why should we want a second chamber with real power, rather than making do with one? If the answer to that question is that the second chamber should not have real power, then why should I care if it’s elected? Those who want an elected HoL need to answer questions such as these instead of resorting to a lazy refrain of “but it’s obvious, isn’t it?”
Thank you Gillian, I know I don’t have all of the answers but as Stuart says the calls for reform that I have heard do seem to be removing all of the unique benefits of the Lords whist just exchanging its problems for a different set.
> James Cole:
>
> I would suggest Graham that it would be a vote of the entire House of Lords as this is the way the House of
> Commons currently selects its committee chairs. I am open to suggestions though.
I think your starting point of the Lords electing its own new members could work well with goodwill and restraint, however it could also be seen as self-reinforcing, especially if the internal vote is majoritarian (as final committee chair votes currently are).
Another suggestion? Perhaps getting elected MPs to make appointments by cross-partisan subscription. You might require appointees to be endorsed by seven MPs from at least two different parties, for example. This could open the door to backbenchers deciding appointments independently of their parties, and if the MPs themselves were elected proportionally, the appointments would be effectively proportional too.
Why oh why are articles on the House of Lords so often illustrated by photos taken at the State Opening of Parliament with the peers in their robes, when we know from the Parliamentary channel that their usual dress code is lounge suits (or suitable equivalent for women and bishops). If you only use ‘illustrative’ pictures taken on ceremonial occasions you could produce similar pics of many local councils.
Gillian Douglass 27th Sep ’15 – 7:24pm What reforms do you propose?
A good article which if developed further could result in a number of focused practical measures that could be introduced as Private Members Bills in this government and like David Steels bill in the last government gain all party support and hence get on to the statute…
Disagree. I think George Kendall (above) puts it very well. My main objection to this is that the House of Lords has enormous political power and as such, the electorate should decide who sits in it, not some unaccountable appointments committee, however independent they might think they are. A second objection is why exclude those who have previously been politicians? People who go into politics often have passion, dedication and may have spent a lot more time than the average person thinking about the implications of political decisions – so why exclude these very people? I’m not suggesting other people don’t and I agree with you that it would be good to ensure that independent non-political people are able to be elected. A better solution may be to have periodic STV elections (unlike party list elections, STV is good for electing independents too), longer terms of office for Lords compared to MPs, plus perhaps a limit on one or two terms, to retain the independence of thought that we have in the Lords.
This proposal has the merit of being capable of being implemented unlike demands for an elected Second Chamber which have been debated for years and are unlikely to be happen without a major upheaval in the composition of the House of Commons – maybe something like a huge majority for Mr Corbyn or a Liberal Democrat majority. The trouble is that even then the winners will see all sorts of reasons why the present arrangements, the membership modified to suit their requirements, are just what they want to get their legislation through.
Who would actually be elected to a Second Chamber ? Most probably those who had failed to get into the House of Commons. The Conservatives and Labour are unlikely to agree to proportional representation so smaller parties like the Liberal Democrats, Greens etc would have virtually no representation. The idea that distinguished experts would get in even under STV is just fantasy – it will not happen.
Adrian I think that that system of selection has merit. Although I would suggest 8 MPs from at least 4 different parties to try and keep them independent rather than beholden to 6 labour MPs and 1 Tory rebel for example. I must admit to preferring an STV MP electoral system rather than a proportional one though.
Thank you Roland, if it does that would be amazing and far beyond my expectations when writing this (though not my hopes!)
Julian I am afraid I have to agree with nvelope. I don’t think that the independence of thought and the broad mix of backgrounds can be maintained even with STV elections. I think it would become just another group of people who have little experience of life outside of professional politics.
I would allow county and other councillors to be appointed though as those are not posts that can be fulfilled as a full time job as their salarys will not support them so the councillors also have jobs outside politics.
Also my view has always been that as long as the Lords is subordinate to the elected House of Commons it is controlled by the electorate whether it is directly elected or not.