Select Committee on Public Administration Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


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:

    —  Less political.

    —  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:

    —  Less "democratic".

    —  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:

    —  More professional.

    —  More "democratic".

    —  Less scope for patronage.

    —  More geographically representational.

Disadvantages:

    —  Higher cost, salaries, support staff.

    —  More political.

    —  Less scope for minority representation.

    —  Less independence.

    —  Restricted range of expertise and experience.

3.  MAJORITY APPOINTED WITH ELECTED ELEMENT

  A largely appointed House with small elected element representing geographical regions.

Advantages:

    —  Less political.

    —  More "democratic".

    —  Better regional and minority representation.

    —  Maintains pool of expertise experience and independence.

Disadvantages:

    —  Hybrid House. Two categories of membership.

    —  Expenses versus salaries.

    —  Electoral tokenism.

    —  Residual political patronage.

4.  MAJORITY ELECTED WITH APPOINTED ELEMENT

  A small professional Senate with an appointed element.

Advantages:

    —  More professional.

    —  More "democratic".

    —  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.

    —  More political.

    —  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



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 25 February 2002