Memorandum by the Country Land and Business
Association (LR 28)
RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT WHITE PAPER ON REFORM
OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS (PHASE TWO)
A House of Lords to Represent the Villages, Towns
and Cities of the United Kingdom
A House of Lords to Give a Long Term and Broad
View of Britain's Interests
A House of Lords to Contribute Independent Expertise
to the Improvement of Draft Legislation
INTRODUCTION
The CLA represents 46,000 rural businesses:
encompassing 180,000 individuals and their families; managing
60 per cent of the rural area of England and Wales; employing
many thousands more in rural areas; generating profits and incomes
in the countryside; providing land, capital and buildings for
productive use.
Rural businesses help to sustain the economy,
environment and communities of the countryside. Rural areas play
an essential role in the life of the nation, accounting for nearly
a quarter of its population, 30 per cent of its employment, 30
per cent of its GDP, and 80 per cent of its landscape.
The countryside, with its contribution to our
national life, has much to offer in a reformed House of Lords.
By supporting the economy, environment and social fabric of rural
areas local communities keep the countryside going. In doing so
they also enrich the culture, heritage and spirit of the whole
nation. In addition, the needs and aspirations of all those who
live and work in the countryside are as legitimate as those of
the urban majority. The future of rural and urban Britain is inseparable.
The nation benefits from a healthy countryside and so the needs,
experience and concerns of rural areas justify recognition in
a reformed House.
The CLA has extensive experience in working
with Members from a range of political parties in both Houses
of Parliament, and with cross-bench Peers. The CLA provides advice
and information on the state of the countryside and how legislation
would affect rural businesses and communities, and suggests alternative
approaches and solutions. The CLA, recognises that the departure
of the remaining 92 hereditary Peers is likely to form part of
the reform to create a Second Chamber relevant to the 21st Century,
whilst still appreciating their valuable contribution. We urge
that the composition of the new Chamber includes those who possess
the considerable knowledge and expertise often brought to the
work of the House of Lords by the outgoing Peers. Timely changes
must not result in a reduction in quality.
The CLAs submission covers the role, functions,
powers and composition of a reformed House, in response to the
Government's White Paper—"The House of Lords—Completing
the Reform".
The CLA warmly welcomes the Government's initiative
to complete this reform in a coherent and timely fashion—as
was strongly urged in the CLA submission to the Royal Commission
Consultation Paper in 1999. Indeed we are pleased to see many
of the points the CLA raised in this document have been taken
on board, firstly by the Commission, and are now receiving Government
endorsement in this White Paper. However, there remain areas of
concern which shall be highlighted in the following response,
the most important is the lack of specifically rural representation
in the proposals for the new House of Lords. To sanction such
an arrangement would be to ignore the legitimate needs of a quarter
of the population and to undermine the Lord Chancellor's pledge
that the new house "will be more representative of the
country as a whole".
It must be ensured that the 120 seats allocated
for the regions and nations adequately provide a voice for the
countryside.
The most important points in a reform of the
House of Lords, in the CLA's view, may be highlighted. The reformed
House should:
— retain the ability to scrutinise
and revise draft legislation with technical expertise;
— also retain the expertise to initiate
in-depth study and debate of longer term or broader issues, such
as developing policy in the European Union; and
— ensure representation for the rural
constituency of the United Kingdom and its particular character.
A rural voice in policy and legislative scrutiny, particularly
on matters where the rural angle is not always recognised, such
as the need for economically viable land use, cannot be guaranteed
in the Commons, where the majority of members represent urban
constituencies.
The CLA would be pleased to discuss its submission
or related issues with interested parties.
THE PRE-EMINENCE
OF THE
HOUSE OF
COMMONS (PAGES
9-10)
The CLA fully agrees with the Government that
the House of Commons should retain its pre-eminence over the House
of Lords.
THE ROLE
OF THE
HOUSE OF
LORDS (PAGE
11)
Advantages of a Second Chamber:
(i) It can incorporate more technical expertise
into the scrutiny of legislation than is possible in the House
of Commons. The improvements to the Countryside and Rights of
Way Act 2000, are good examples of this.
(ii) It can ensure that the concerns of
particular non geographical constituencies within the UK, eg rural
communities, women, peripheral regions, the ethnic minorities,
are given a voice in the scrutiny of Government policy and legislation,
and in longer term political thinking.
(iii) It can take a longer term and broader
view of Britain's interests than is possible in a House of Commons
strongly influenced by the 4-5 year electoral cycle.
(iv) As a less overtly Party political forum
it can balance the tendency in the Commons for issues and legislation
to be seen mainly in Party terms, but this must be without frustrating
the ultimate predominance of the Commons.
The CLA sees the scrutinising role of the House
of Lords as very important, particularly as a forum for examining
how Bills will affect particular interest groups or industries
or other policies, and commends the Government for recognising
this value. This type of scrutiny is often not possible in the
House of Commons committee structure which is usually whipped,
often guillotined, and where amendments may not be called if the
Chairman does not consider them to be sufficiently relevant or
different from previously debated points. It would be desirable
to preserve the ability of the House to debate issues in a less
Party charged atmosphere than is possible in the Commons.
Given the potential greater technical expertise
available in the House of Lords, there is a case for greater use
of the Special Bill Procedure, in which interested parties make
representations, including technical representations at an early
part of the legislative cycle. Such representations might be better
received in the Lords, but the Select Committee structure in the
Commons already does give the opportunity for pre-legislative
scrutiny, involving interested parties.
The CLA agrees strongly that the role of the
Select and ad hoc Committees of the House to produce high
quality reports should be maintained.
This legislative role of the Lords requires
technical expertise, unwhipped, from walks of life not always
drawn to political activity. As environmental, agricultural, financial
and other matters become ever more complicated and technical,
so the need for technical expertise increases.
At the same time, the wider implications of
legislation, and the practicalities also need to be understood.
There must also be experience in the House from the real world
outside politics.
In the CLA's view, Government Ministers should
continue to be members of the House of Lords and we are in agreement
with the White Paper that this is a critical factor in enabling
the House of Lords to hold the Government (through the individual
Ministers) to account.
THE POWERS
OF THE
HOUSE OF
LORDS (PAGES
13-15)
The CLA fully endorses the Government's proposals
in the White Paper on the powers of the House of Lords.
Secondary Legislation (31-33)
The CLA agrees with the proposal to reduce the
Lords' current power to throw out Statutory Instruments to one
of delay for three months.
COMPOSITION
Composition—Rural Representation
The introduction of a new Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has been a welcome addition to
Government. Indeed it might be taken to represent recognition
by Government of the need for specific representation for the
countryside and its individual nature. If this is, even in part,
the rationale then the failure to ensure rural representation
in the new Second Chamber betrays a lack of "joined-up thinking"
and results in incoherent policy. Over the years the Commons has
tended to become increasingly urban in outlook. The current frequency
of debate on rural issues is welcome, and perhaps reflects the
contribution of Labour rural MPs to the Government's overall numbers.
However, there is no guarantee that this interest will continue,
and for the greater period, the House of Lords has served a valuable
purpose as at a rural counterbalance in Parliament.
The particular voice of rural areas needs to
be given positive expression in a reformed House in view of the
contribution of rural areas to the life of the nation, because
this derives from the complex mixture of economic, environmental
and social activity pursued by myriad rural communities and businesses;
and of the reality that in rural areas there are particular circumstances
of remoteness, small scale, age profile, predominance of small
businesses, pockets of poverty, and a greater proportion of self-employed.
The second House should ensure explicit rural representation.
A rural voice in policy and legislative scrutiny, particularly
on matters where the rural angle is not always recognised, such
as the need for economically viable land use, cannot be guaranteed
in the Commons, where the majority of members represent urban
constituencies. This is an inescapable outcome of the principle
that the geographical extent of a Parliamentary constituency is
determined by its population. The CLA does not argue with this
demographic fact of life, but it does mean that the decision making
process cannot ensure that the full importance of the particular
concerns of rural communities will be properly heard.
Composition—General
The CLA agrees that the House should display
in particular a greater independence from political parties than
the Commons; that it should enable non-partisan approaches; that
there should be recognised expertise in a number of areas; there
should be a breadth of experience; a long term perspective; and
knowledge of the EU.
The CLA agrees with the Government that there
should be no upper age limit.
Independent Members
The CLA agrees it is of the utmost importance
to retain a strong independent element in the House. We suggest
the proportion/number of independent members (currently proposed
as 20 per cent/120) should be kept under review.
Political Balance
The CLA is pleased to see Government agrees
with the point we raised in response to the Royal Commission that
the Government could be ensured a majority over the largest opposition
party, but to ensure a majority over all parties could give the
House greater importance than the Commons, and could subordinate
the value of the House in making progress through the force of
argument and debate.
The Peerage (78-80)
The CLA agrees with the proposals to cut the
link between the peerage and membership of the House of Lords.
Judicial Members of the House (81-82)
The CLA is in agreement with the Government.
Religious Representation (83-85)
The CLA is pleased the Government has acknowledged
the Bishops bring a valuable non Party expertise to the House,
and reflect the views of all the geographical corners of, at least,
England. The Church of England is striking in having a presence
in every parish in the country, and this helps to ensure that
the rural voice is heard in the House.
Although in the submission to the Royal Commission
the CLA argued there was a case for finding supplementary arrangements
to represent other major religious denominations, Christian or
otherwise, and other parts of the UK, we accept the practical
constraints which face the Government. We would hope however that
this lack of a formal commitment does not prevent the inclusion
of those representing minority sectors.
ISSUES FOR
CONSIDERATION—THE
CLA VIEW
1. Balance of the Membership of the new House
of Lords
The CLA is not qualified to comment on the proposed
make-up of the new House of Lords. However, as mentioned earlier
in this submission, we do believe that there must be a proportionate
rural representation if the House is to reflect contemporary society,
as is the Government's wish.
2. Elections for Regional Members
In the CLA submission to the Royal Commission
we recommended adoption of an electoral system along similar lines
to that adopted for the Welsh Assembly (ie a regional top up,
based on proportional representation) as it provides a basis for
rural representation. The Welsh system also has the valuable advantage
of maintaining a link between Member and constituents. The regions
for the European Parliament elections in the UK were specifically
rejected by the CLA, as we believe these would be too big to express
the rural interest. The Welsh system also enables voters to choose
an individual name on the ballot paper, whereas under the system
adopted for the European Parliamentary Elections voters are unable
to select the particular candidate of their choice. The result
of the system used for the European elections is that not a single
MEP can legitimately claim that he or she was the first choice
of the constituency he or she is to represent. As a result representative
and represented feel alienated from each other. When the CLA made
these points in 1999 it did not realise that this alienation would
be expressed so clearly by such a low turnout in the subsequent
European election, hardly a good model for participative democracy.
3. Term of Membership
The CLA is not qualified to comment authoritatively
on the proposals for the proposed term of membership. We would
however suggest that it is important to ensure a term is long
enough to enable members to be able to make a significant contribution.
4. Rules for Disqualifying Members
The CLA is not qualified to comment on this
issue.
5. System of Remuneration
The CLA sees value in Peers having occupations
outside the House, through which experience and expertise may
be gained. However we share the Government's concern that the
absence of payment may act as a barrier to broadening the representativeness
of the Lords.
December 2001
| 
