Memorandum by Lord Cobbold (LR 42)
Having listened to the two days of debate in
the House of Lords on the White Paper (9 and 10 January) and having
read the Hansard report on the House of Commons debate on 10 January,
I am struck by one important difference.
In the House of Lords debate it was frequently
argued that the larger the elected element in the reformed House,
the greater the threat to the pre-eminence of the House of Commons.
In the Commons debate on the other hand there were no such fears
expressed. Speakers from both sides of the House argued that two
elected chambers could happily work in partnership, if their respective
roles were clearly defined and the systems of election were appropriately
differentiated.
In my contribution to the House of Lords debate
(Col. 649) I argued that if the only source of democratic legitimacy
is through election "then logic requires that the second
chamber should be 100 per cent elected." I ruled out this
option on the grounds that it would pose too great a threat to
the primacy of the House of Commons.
I went on to argue that the process of appointment
can also be legitimate in particular as applied to the scrutiny
role of the second chamber and the benefit that experience, expertise
and independence can contribute to that role—and indeed
do contribute in the existing House. I therefore supported and
continue to support an appointed House.
If however the threat to the House of Commons
from an elected second chamber is discounted and if the process
of appointment can be made more transparent and less subject to
political patronage then the four clear options for reform can
be compared on more equal terms.
Distilling the proposals from the White Paper
and from the debates in both Houses the four options must be:
1. 100 PER CENT
APPOINTED
A House of comparable size to the existing house,
based on a part-time expenses only philosophy, with terms of office
for life or for long periods, perhaps with a fixed retirement
age. Appointment by statutory Appointments Commission from a wide
variety of expertise, experience and background.
Advantages:
— Large pool of expertise, experience
and independence.
— Better representation of minorities.
— Appropriate skills for scrutiny role.
— Low cost part-time expenses only.
— Builds on existing House.
Disadvantages:
— Residual political patronage.
2. 100 PER CENT
ELECTED
A small professional Senate elected for 12 or
15 years—election of one-third of membership each four or
five years—representing counties or regions on open list.
No re-election.
Advantages:
— Less scope for patronage.
— More geographically representational.
Disadvantages:
— Higher cost, salaries, support staff.
— Less scope for minority representation.
— Restricted range of expertise and
experience.
3. MAJORITY APPOINTED
WITH ELECTED
ELEMENT
A largely appointed House with small elected
element representing geographical regions.
Advantages:
— Better regional and minority representation.
— Maintains pool of expertise experience
and independence.
Disadvantages:
— Hybrid House. Two categories of membership.
— Expenses versus salaries.
— Residual political patronage.
4. MAJORITY ELECTED
WITH APPOINTED
ELEMENT
A small professional Senate with an appointed
element.
Advantages:
— Less scope for patronage.
— More geographically representative.
— Maintenance of independent element.
— Better representation of minorities.
Disadvantages:
— Hybrid house. Two categories of membership.
— Higher cost, salaries, support staff.
— Limited range of expertise and experience.
While there are clearly detailed procedural
and structural choices to be made within each option, the points
of principle are clear.
If agreement cannot be reached at this stage
then the task of choosing between the four options should be given
to a joint committee of both Houses.
The overriding concern in making the decision
must be the strengthening of Parliament as a whole in its ability
to call the executive to account.
In conclusion I would like to make one or two
comments of detail that I raised in the debate.
In the event of the establishment of a statutory
Appointments Commission, its make-up will be crucial and I believe
consideration should be given to establishing it as a committee
of the Privy Council.
In the event that a large appointed element
remains, I believe that appointment should be nominally "for
life" but with a statutory retirement age of, say, 75. Given
that many members of the existing House make valuable contributions
well after the age of 75, there should be an "emeritus"
category of membership, whereby at the end of the Parliament in
which a Member reached the retirement age, he or she could put
their name forward for reappointment. It would be up to their
fellow Members to decide whether they should be re-appointed by
secret ballot. Candidates receiving the requisite number of votes
would qualify for continued membership for the next Parliament,
at the end of which the same procedure would be repeated.
Again, in the event that a large appointed element
remains, I believe it would be a mistake to separate membership
from the Life Peerage. I believe it would make membership of the
House less attractive to the broad band of expertise and experience
that now exists amongst the Life Peerage in the House.
This would not apply in the case of a small
independent quota in a largely elected professional Senate. Here
the independent members would have to be paid on the same terms
and appointed for the same periods as the elected members.
Finally, in the event of a small elected element
within a largely appointed House, I believe serious consideration
should be given to a suggestion made by Lord Norton of Louth that
the elected element should be filled by a dual mandate for Members
of the European Parliament. There are currently three MEP's in
the House of Lords. The precedent therefore exists.
This would make the European elections more
significant for the electorate. It would give our MEP's extra
status. It would improve knowledge and working relations between
Westminster and the European Parliament. And given their salaries
as MEP's, they would fit in with an expenses only regime in the
reformed House.
January 2002
| 
