Frank Field MP and Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
A Representative House of Lords
1. The House of Lords Pre-Legislative Committee is
considering the bill presented to it by the government. The Bill
aims to make a fundamental change in the workings of our two chamber
democracy.
2. The consideration of the Bill so far has been
restricted to how to make the Lords in Bagehot's terms a more
effective part of the constitution by a method of direct election.
We believe this to be an immensely important consideration: but
we also believe that direct election is not the only means of
achieving representative legitimacy. For Parliament to restrict
its consideration only to the form of direct election will result
in the loss of a once in a lifetime opportunity also to consider
a more fundamental issue that is implicit in Lords reform.
3. The British system of democracy rests, in part,
on how the idea of representation underpins our freedoms. We believe
that their Lordships should therefore also consider how the idea
of representation might be made effective in a reformed House
of Lords.
4. Much of the last government's time was spent on
reforming our constitution. In none of the background papers,
or in the subsequent debate, did any Minister set out what the
principles are which underpin British democracy and how the proposed
reforms would strengthen our democratic institutions. Yet much
of our constitution has over the past decade been remodelled out
of all recognition. Reforming the House of Lords offers the last
opportunity to reform part of our constitution by principle rather
than by mere fashion.
5. One of the most persuasive reflections on the
operation of British democracy takes the twin principles of Representative
and Responsibility as the operational axis to how freedom is operated
and safeguarded in our system of Government. The operation of
these twin principles have proved dynamic and politicians and
theorists have given over time four working definitions to the
idea of representation.
6. First, the term representative is used of someone
who had been freely elected on the universal franchise and is
dependent on his or her constituents for re-election. Second,
the term representative can be viewed as an agent or delegate.
Third, the term representatives signifies that a person is typical
of the group that has elected them by mirroring the main characteristics
and the views of the group that elects them.
7. There is a fourth meaning given to the term representative.
From earliest times membership of the Commons was based on the
idea of group representation, i.e. the individual in the Commons
represented the whole of their area, and not just the very small
number of people who had the vote. Indeed, the first squires called
to Parliament were chosen on the basis that they would be able
to speak for their whole area and, because of this, be able to
enforce locally any taxation Parliament agreed. Members of the
House of Commons were not therefore representing individual interests,
in theory at least, nor simply the interest of the majority of
voters. The representative of a whole area becomes effective when
a constituency is engulfed in crisis. The local MP in such circumstances
is expected to defend his or her patch, even if it means defying
their government.
8. It could be argued that, while the members of
the House of Commons came increasingly to be chosen by popular
suffrage on a progressively wider franchise, and thus to be more
democratically representative, the House of Lords continued to
represent the great economic and social interests in society:
the Church, the law and the landed and agricultural owners who
for centuries exercised great economic and social power and influence.
9. The representation of groups is almost as old
in our constitution as the representation of particular areas.
And the idea of group representation continued to play one of
the effective representative roles in our constitution right up
to the sleaze crisis that engulfed the Major government when individual
MPs were found to have taken money to represent outside interests
the Commons. Following the goading by the Nolan Report the Commons,
instead of expelling the offending Members, barred the professional
representation of interests within its walls. This move was a
violent assault on the richness that has been attached to the
meaning of representation in our democracy. That is where the
debate in the Commons rests for the moment.
10.The work of the Commons over the centuries had
been deeply enriched by the group knowledge that has been brought
to its proceedings, be they specialisms from doctors, trade unionists,
teachers, lawyers, nurses and so on. Indeed it was not until after
World War II that the universities of Oxford and Cambridge ceased
to elect their own representatives to the House of Commons. All
individuals who belong to such groups are now careful to the point
of inaction not to represent their group interests. Not so in
the House of Lords where such specialist knowledge is treasured.
Given that the Commons has stripped out this form of representation
from its proceedings, might not we strengthen it in our Parliamentary
system and to do so by group elections, rather on the model of
the old university seats, instead of what will become individual
elections with the candidates chosen by the party whips? Might
not this idea of group representation be the starting point for
Lords reforms rather than trying to impose a form of election
on the Lords which is most appropriate to the Commons?
11.A radical Lords reform could be based on seeking
the representation of all the major legitimate interest groups
in our society and of using the idea of the Big Society as a means
of strengthening how representation works in our democracy. There
would be a need to establish a reform commission with the duty
to make recommendations for mapping out which group interests
should gain representation, and at what strength. So, for example,
the commission would put forward proposals on which groups would
have how many seats to represent (for example) local authorities
and voluntary interests, to represent women's organisations and
interests, the interest of trade unions, employers, industrialists
and businesses, and the cultural interest of writers and composers
as well as the interests of the professions including, those involved
in health and learning. The representation specifically of local
authority associations would ensure that the different regions
of the country would have voices in the upper chamber. And so
the list would go on with the seats for Anglican bishops shared
with other denominations and faiths.
12.The commission's second task would be to approve
the means by which each group elects or selects its own representatives.
The commission should be encouraged to approve a diversity of
forms of election. Some groups already elect their group representatives.
Other groups might wish to adopt a form of indirect election.
The commission's task should not be to impose a bog standard form
of election.
13.The numbers of those to be elected as group representatives
would be determined as a maximum proportion of the size of the
whole House. If the maximum size of the House was set at 600 members—the
same size as the new House of Commons—up to 400 might be
elected as group representatives, thus allowing for up to 100
independent cross-bench members to be chosen by the commission
as at present and up to 100 appointed by the Prime Minister. Each
of the group representatives would be required to declare whether
he or she would take a party whip or would sit as an independent
cross-bench member. The Prime Minister's quota would provide a
mechanism for adjusting the balance of the party political representation
in the House, as well as for appointing former senior public servants
such as Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Services and Permanent Secretaries.
14. Reform of the House of Lords along these lines
offers this Parliament a last chance to rebuild within our system
one of the key meanings that has until recently been given to
the term representative. It would be a reform that resulted in
giving legislative power to the Big Society which has historically
acted as a bulwark against a too powerful state. The House of
Commons would retain the primacy which it now enjoys, and which
could be buttressed by conventions of the kind that already exist
for that purpose. Thus the reform would strengthen our democracy
without setting the Commons and Lords into a state of near permanent
political warfare at Westminster and in the constituencies. And
it would be a reform that might, for the first time, enthuse the
electorate with the politics of constitutional change.
6 February 2012
| 
