Memorandum by David Clelland, MP (LR 55)
On the question of House of Lords reform mine
is very much a minority view, but I take comfort in the knowledge
that all good ideas start out as a minority view
The Prime Minister told David Frost that any
reformed second chamber should be different from the House of
Commons.
The PM is right. The House of Commons is not
such a loved institution that people are crying out for another
one. And Members of Parliament are not so popular that the electorate
are eager to go to the polls to elect another 300, 500 or 600
of them.
We are told that there are only three options
for change:
— Complete abolition and a uni-cameral
system,
— a party elected chamber with remainder
appointed by a commission or,
— a wholly elected chamber.
I believe there are other options and I shall
come on to a "fourth way" in a moment. First though,
what of the three proposals above.
The problem with the current debate is that
it was started from the wrong point. The Royal Commission and
most commentators are searching for a new way to decide who should
sit in the second chamber, when what we should first determine
is what it should do? If it is to carry on much as at present
then it is legitimate to ask "do we need a second chamber
at all"? After all, if there were no second chamber then
there would be a lot more time for scrutiny by members in the
Commons. But there can and should be a useful and beneficial role
for a second chamber that is sensibly constituted.
A wholly elected second chamber would divide
on political lines just like the Commons. If it were elected at
the same time as the general election, it would most likely be
dominated by the same political party as the Commons and would
have as its priority maintaining that party in power. Hardly a
recipe for good government, and thorough scrutiny of proposed
legislation. If elected half way through a Parliament it would
likely be dominated by a different political party, which would
give priority to getting the government out, leading to parliamentary
gridlock and bad government. Electing it for a different term
of office, as proposed by the Conservative Party, would not avoid
these two major disadvantages.
A `partly elected' second chamber, as proposed
by the Royal Commission and suggested in the government's `White
Paper', would create two classes of member. Those who considered
themselves mandated by their electorate and others who would be
accountable to no-one. Surely the essence of any democratic chamber
is that all members are of equal status? And a commission responsible
for appointing the unelected members would—as we have seen—merely
appoint people like themselves. Hardly a recipe for a representative
chamber.
A reformed second chamber should be an improvement
on what we have at the moment, not only in the method of producing
its members but also in the quality of its work. It should, as
the PM observed, be different from the Commons. A second chamber
should be able to assist in improving our system of government,
not be there to act as an obstacle to the elected government—like
another opposition. The job of "holding the executive to
account" properly belongs to the back-benches and the opposition
in the House of Commons. We do not need a second chamber to carry
out that function.
If, as I believe, the second chamber is to provide
a forum for informed comment on government bills, to give advice
and to help in the avoidance of pitfalls unforeseen by the Commons
and parliamentary draftsmen, to suggest improvements to legislation
and propose useful amendments, to hold open debates on matters
of national importance from a different perspective than the politically
charged House of Commons—then it has to be constituted differently
from the House of Commons. Yet, to be a legitimate part of the
democratic process, it must be accountable in some way to the
community as a whole.
THE FOURTH
WAY
The House of Commons represents and is accountable
to the people by way of direct election. That is what gives it
its power and its place as the principal decision making forum
in our country. The second chamber should represent and be accountable
to the structure of our society—by indirect election. That
will give it legitimacy and respect but it will remain the "second
chamber".
A "House of Representatives" should
replace the House of Lords, made up of people from the regions
and nations of the UK, via the devolved assemblies,—Local
Government—Business Sector—Trade Unions—Religious
organisations—voluntary sector—Higher Education—Health,
etc.
This would provide a body of experience and
expertise from across the nation and across society. People who
would be accountable to their parent organisations yet not overtly
party political. It would also ensure representation from the
regions and nations—an important and widely accepted necessary
reform.
Members of the House of Representatives (MHRs
perhaps) would have a five year fixed term of office following
which they could be replaced by their organisation or given a
further term. The parent organisation should be obligated to ensure
a proper balance between the genders and proper representation
by ethnic minorities.
Such a second chamber would command the respect
of the people and be widely recognised as being capable of scrutiny
and the detailed examination of proposed legislation. It would
put an end to patronage and enhance the democratic process.
I believe that such a chamber would stand the
test of time and would provide a much better alternative to the
present Lords and to the `dogs dinner' which the White Paper and
various other proposals threaten to foist upon us.
February 2002
| 
