Lord Goodhart QC
ELECTION OF MEMBERS
Those who object to the election of members to the
House of Lords—whether 100 per cent, 80 per cent or some
other figure—face a problem which has hardly been mentioned
in debates, let alone argued. This problem is the allocation of
seats to political parties.
The allocation of seats is, and for a long time has
been, a matter for the Queen, acting on the recommendation of
the Prime Minister. Until 1997, this was very much under the control
of the Prime Minister. Mrs. Thatcher was notorious for her reluctance
to appoint anyone other than Conservatives.
On winning the election in 1997, Tony Blair announced
that the two main parties should have broadly equal numbers of
members of the Lords, while the third party should have a "proportionate"
share (a statement of some uncertainty). That principle has been
accepted by the subsequent prime ministers, but there is absolutely
nothing to prevent a future prime minister from going back to
pre-1997 practices and giving priority to the appointment of members
of the government party. This will be more tempting because of
the increase in the political activity of the House since the
House of Lords Act 1999 was enacted.
I believe, therefore, that it would be unacceptable
to continue with the present system.
This does not, however, mean that all or any of the
political members of the Lords must be elected. It would be possible
to link the allocation of new political seats to the voting (not
to the number of seats won) at the previous general election,
either in the UK as a whole or, preferably, in each of the regions
used for Euro elections. The allocation would therefore be determined
by voting by the people, but the choice of the individual new
members would be decided by the separate political parties, not
by the people.
This seems to me to be a reasonable alternative to
the system proposed in the draft Reform Bill, and one which will
be more acceptable to the present membership of the Lords. It
also reduces the argument that the Lords will become a challenge
to the Commons, since the individual members will not have been
elected by the voters.
TERMINATION OF SERVICE
It has long been my belief that membership of the
Lords should have a time limit. A term of 15 years seems reasonable.
The present right to life membership is a hold-over from the time
of hereditary peers, who were entitled as of right to membership,
and there is now no constitutional reason why life membership
should be retained. Time limits are desirable for a number of
reasons. These include:
i) Membership of the Lords is usually awarded
to men and women who have either finished, or are well-advanced
in their main careers. This gives them valuable knowledge and
experience, but these have "use by" dates, and have
reduced value as time goes on.
ii) By contrast, membership of the Lords is occasionally
awarded to younger people. As matters now stand, a person aged
35 at the date of appointment could remain for 50 years or more,
which is excessive.
iii) The need for reducing the membership of
the Lords makes it desirable to reduce this length of service.
There is, of course, the question of limit to the
service of present members. Serving members were, of course,
removed in 1999 in large quantities. I do not think existing members
should retain office for life, but I think that existing members
should be entitled to remain until they have achieved 15 years
of service, and probably longer in a few cases. (The actual date
of departure should be the end of the session in which 15 years
is reached).
I see no reason for the limitation of service of
members appointed under Clause 21 of the Bill to less than 15
years in full. Why not allow replacement appointments to continue
for 15 years, irrespective of general elections?
BISHOPS
The Church of England is of course the established
church of England, though not of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
But why on earth should establishment give Anglican Bishops and
Archbishops a special right to vote in the House of Lords? Religious
faith should not give members of any particular faith a right
which is not extended to other people. If there continue to be
appointments of cross-benchers, appointments could continue to
allow individuals who are, or have been, office-holders in major
faiths to be nominated for service in the House of Lords.
15 September 2011
| 
