Memorandum by The Rt Hon Lord Owen (LR
30)
Thank you for your letter on behalf of the Public
Administration Select Committee seeking my views on House of Lords
Reform.
I set out my personal views in the attached
submission.
David Owen
I sit as an independent Social Democrat on the
Crossbenches in the House of Lords. I am not a tremendous attender
and I write that unapologetically, since I did not join the House
of Lords in order to be a regular attender. I attend most debates
on international affairs. I vote extremely rarely because I am
not convinced in my own mind that I have much legitimacy over
voting.
There are two crucial elements in any legislative
chamber—the voice and the vote. I attach great importance
to the vote being exercised by someone elected, the right to speak
granted to an appointed member can have real value and influence
on the voting members.
I am in favour of a bicameral Parliament comprised
of members of the House of Commons and House of Lords with the
prefix MP and ML. Titles can be a matter for individuals to determine
whether they use it or not. The present distribution of powers
is broadly correct. I am in favour of a primary legislative chamber
and under our system that is and should remain the House of Commons
composed entirely of elected members. All major powers should
reside with the House of Commons; the braking mechanism lies in
the second chamber. In terms of the vote the brake should be applied
by elected members only. Appointed members of the House of Lords
should only have the braking power of persuasion in debate with
the elected members in the Chamber of the Lords or in Select Committees.
It was extraordinary that the Royal Commission chaired by Lord
Wakeham concluded that the House of Lords should not be a second
chamber for devolved institutions. How one can argue for scrutiny
by a bicameral Parliament for England, and for Wales while it
is not a fully legislative chamber, over devolved powers and not
for legislative powers devolved to Scotland and Wales is beyond
my comprehension. I have always supported a Scottish legislative
Parliament and also a Northern Ireland Assembly but have felt
they needed the braking mechanism of a second chamber. The Royal
Commission said that there were problems in Cardiff and Edinburgh
when it raised that point. I would have expected that. People
in an unicameral parliament by and large do not want second-guessing
or a brake mechanism. To retain the unity of the United Kingdom,
and the supposed challenge to that unity has always been one of
the biggest arguments against devolution, we need to buttress
in every constitutional way the overall authority of the United
Kingdom.
I believe there will come a time when the House
of Lords, as a second chamber, will be required to have a legislative
brake on the devolved legislatures. It would, however, be very
hard to justify this in the modern world unless the people who
were putting on that brake were elected. The Royal Commission
recommendations for a part elected, part appointed House of Lords
has merit. Personally, I think we need a model D, going up to
261. Elected voting members should be paid a salary. Appointed
speaking members should be paid through the Attendance Allowance
system. The elected members in the House of Lords would follow
the same Code of Conduct and Declaration of Interests as for MPs.
The appointed members should follow the new system to come into
place next year for the House of Lords.
In a book, Face the Future, which was
published in 1981, I first advocated an elected House of Lords
with some additional non-voting membership; Lords who had special
interests and experience, knew about particular professions and
trade unions. It will be argued against non-voting appointed members
that you cannot have two classes of members. But we will have
two classes of members if we have some elected. It is said that
the House of Lords is a club and everybody must be the same, but
we are not the same at the moment. If you are a so-called working
peer, you undertake broadly to follow the party Whip. Obviously
you are not mandated, but you turn up for a fair amount of the
legislation of the House of Lords. I think the House of Lords
votes far too much, but that is jut a personal observation as
I watch it with too much of the ritualised voting that I took
part in for 26 years in the House of Commons. It is necessary
in the House of Commons as part of the delaying power of the Opposition.
It seems to me unnecessary to replicate that in the House of Lords.
The House of Lords does need the legislative power to make the
House of Commons think again as exercised by the vote, and in
very rare cases delaying legislation also retaining the right
to veto an extension of the life of the House of Commons.
I find the Royal Commission's conclusion that
it is an error to suppose that the second chamber's authority
can only stem from democratic elections an ill-advised remark.
Election is the lifeblood of democracy, people with voting powers
in parliament who are not elected do not have a democratic mandate
but their voting reduces the democratic authority of the second
chamber. If the British Parliament at the start of the twenty
first century endorses this wording from the Royal Commission
it could allow people in future to justify all sorts of forms
of governance under the guise of democracy. We have just seen
the House of Lords in their examination of the emergency legislation
on terrorism demonstrate the value of a second chamber. No-one
reading those debates can doubt that some of the expert opinion
expressed influenced the debate and justified their appointment.
But I believe their influence would have been felt on any elected
member and their value to the second chamber would not be diminished
by the fact that they did not have voting power. Also the vote
of elected members would have had a greater legitimacy and authority
in changing the legislation.
December 2001
| 
