Christopher Hartigan
Introduction
1. I am a member of the public with an interest
in constitutional matters and Lords Reform in particular. I hope
that my views will be considered by the committee and be found
useful.
Representation of the people
2. In a modern democracy it is important that
those who make the laws of the land should be the best people
for the job. The principle that those who exercise power over
our lives must be directly elected, some say, is a good principle.
However I think such things should be taken case by case. Elected
Mayor, Judges, police commissioners and now elected peers! Ministers
of the Crown are not directly elected to exercise power but can
still claim legitimacy and peers can also have that status without
being directly elected.
3. The House of Lords performs its work well
because of its makeup and independence but the government says
it lacks sufficient elective democratic authority. The House of
Lords and its existing members have served the country with distinction.
Reform of the House of Lords has been on the agenda for more than
100 years it is said. But, considerable progress has been made
in that time and nothing better has been found to replace it which
remains true. The Government should be committed to cooperating
with progress on these issues so that the House of Lords may be
strengthened and may better serve and reflect the wider nation
as a whole.
Elected/Appointed Peers / Patronage
4. I have watched with interest recent debates
in the Lords on the purpose and reform of the House of Lords and
it became clear that direct elections would destroy the foundations
and valued functions of the House and that there was nothing better
being proposed that could effectively take over its functions.
An elected Senate is a very different institution and would probably
need its function to be codified, a task which many believe would
be almost impossible. Evolutionary reform allows the house and
its functioning to continue to work. An elected house would cost
many millions of pounds and would not produce the quality of service
we receive from our present arrangements. I and many other people
believe that an elected or partially elected House of Lords is
not the best way to serve the British people or our Constitution.
5. Appointed peers allow a degree of party representation
and a working availability together with a treasure of expertise
and experience to be at the service of the nation. Threat of appointment
of peers was used to force the 1911 Parliament act through. Today
the government is appointing large numbers of peers under the
name of rebalancing party numbers making the house more party
centred. Such numbers are exacerbating the need for reform and
it is more likely to cause the capsize rather than the rebalancing
of the house. Patronage is seen by many as the executive influencing
the legislature. It is already a part of the systems we have to
live with. A person who even stands for election is subject to
it. It is a concern in an appointed House. Most of it is clear
and above board. The situation may be improved and safeguarded
by such measures as Lord Steele's much needed proposal for the
creation of a statutory appointments commission.
Complementing the House of Commons
6. The House of Lords works and makes an essential
contribution to our way of life. Continuity and change are
the hallmarks of the successful elements of the British Constitution.
7. The House of Commons is rightly the primary
chamber because it is directly elected. The Queens ministers in
a Government are not elected but are legitimate when supported
numerically by the elected House Commons. This Might Change if
there were two elected houses. Others hold power and are legitimate
by appointment by proper authority like judges and peers etc.
To increase peers legitimacy without challenging the primary authority
it is necessary only to make them better reflect the will of the
people expressed at the general election. Peers and MPs have differing
functions and should complement each other not be in conflict.
The House of Lords works well and should be enhanced not be abolished
in favour untried and unbalancing theories. I do not believe that
an elected or partially elected House of Lords is in the best
interests of our British Constitution or the British people. It
is also clear that this is the view of 80% (approx} of members
of that house.
Effects of Draft Lords Reform Bill
8. This, in reality, is a draft bill for abolition
of the House of Lords and its replacement by a Senate and this
does not reflect the will of either House or the people and will
only happen by party whipping and the use of the Parliament act
of 1911. Is this really how the mother of parliaments should act?
Major reform has not been successful in the past because it may
well destroy the effectiveness of the House of Lords and make
it a party political house subject the pressures that are already
on the members of the Commons. The 'Possible Implications of House
of Lords Reform' were accurately set out in Lords Library Note
of 25th June 2010.
9. The draft bill will change the House of Lords
from a place where it was desired that no one party will have
a majority to one that is dominated by party politics as is the
commons and where whips hold sway. Directly elected Senators would
rightly claim direct representation from the people and rightly
demand proportionate power. They might well be elected upon a
manifesto the same as the commons, if so how can they freely scrutinise
and revise what they have been elected on. If not their mandate
puts them in legitimate opposition to commons members in overlapping
constituencies. This is a recipe for conflict or subservience.
Senators would have constituents to represent. (to whom they will
not accountable by the ballot box) This put them in conflict with
MP's who also represent them and are accountable. It might be
argued that this conflict has not happened with MEP's but who
know who they are or what they do! Constituencies for Senators
are merely a convenience to elect individuals using PR and has
no other real practical value but has many drawbacks.
Who would Senators be
10. Who would new Senators be? It is thought
second rate professional politicians, possibly with ambitions
to go to the commons or wanting to make a name for themselves
but very different from current peers. Most current peers are
ideal for their scrutiny and revising role, even those who were
professional politicians before already have a track record of
valued public service. These are not people who are seeking career
opportunities or people who can be manipulated by the powers that
be but those with wisdom and experience that are already highly
valued. Very few would want to start a new career as a, 'greasy
pole', Senator. These people would be lost to the nation and our
constitution badly damaged.
Accountability
11. One of the reasons put forward for having
an elected house is accountability. With a single fifteen year
term they will never face the electorate again. Senators would
not be accountable at all except perhaps to the much more powerful
whips and the various enticements they use to get there business
through in an increasingly party focused house. Were electoral
terms to be changed there remains the problem of how they would
remain independent of party electoral influences and how they
could be really be accountable to the people in such enormous
constituencies etc.
Why a Draft Lords Reform Bill
12. There are those in the past who on principal
wanted to see the Lords Abolished like Michael Foot and those
who didn't want any change like Enoch Powel who together talked
out reform in the commons in the 1970's and as in the past, have
prevented radical reform. However this draft bill is the product
of political expedience by those with a, reform for reform sake,
agenda and have a desperate PR political agenda too. These proposals
will not improve, in fact it, will worsen the quality of law making
in our parliament. These reforms are also said to be a part of
the 'clean up politics' agenda, but are, in fact, a desperate
attempt to be seen to be doing something, a blatant attempt to
find grounds for actions that are groundless. One would probably
not invent what we have but it is ours and it has evolved to fit
us and can continue to do. Why would we want to change it for
a nice sounding, ill fitting, political 'spirit of the age' proposal
that will destroy our constitutional heritage of checks and balances
and can not work in the way that has been fruitful for us.
No Call for Lords Reform
13. This Draft bill, in this form, will not pass
without using the Parliament Act 1911 and to use it would be supreme
folly. I fear that the Salisbury Convention would not hold either.
14. However very valuable evolutionary change
has already take place. Today there is no real clamour for Lords
reform. In past decades the lords has become quite popular because
of its stance of individual freedom and its wisdom in rejecting
knee jerk reactions, political dogma and expedience. It is esteemed
and thought to do a good job by parliamentarians and the people.
The government are afraid even to let the lords own self reform
bill pass, the Steele bill, as the fig leaf of their reforms demand
would probably blow away.
Manifestos
15. The fact that elections were mentioned in
the three manifestoes does not mean it is the settled view of
a party, it is not, or the majority of members of a party agree
with it or that the electorate want it either. It can be said
that the fact that it was in three manifestos makes it clear that
the people had no choice. It should also be remembered all three
parties LOST the election. The Conservative proposal being the
weakest of the three. There is no valid argument for an elected
House of Lord from the manifestoes. If the government believe
this is the will of the people then it should proceed on a free
vote of their representatives or hold a constitutional referendum
before such important changes are made.
Steel Bill
16. A majority of Lords recognise that there
does need to be evolutionary reform even though they may each
have a varying view of what might be done. The House of Lords
has also tried to implement reforms itself as in the instance
of Lord Steele bill, currently before the house, but government
has not fully cooperated as might have been expected
17. The motion passed by the House of Lords in
June 2010 should proceed full reform or at least be integrated
into it: The motion that the House to approve or disapprove-
(a) a scheme to enable Members of the House to retire,
(b) the abolition of by-elections for hereditary
Peers,
(c) the removal of Members convicted of serious criminal
offices, and
(d) the creation of a statutory appointments commission.
Aim of Draft Bill
18. What is it that the Government draft bill
seeks to achieve; continued stable conventions and working relationship
between both houses? An electoral legitimate relationship that
has proportional relationship with electors, a smaller house,
a younger membership and possibly the retention of the wisdom
and knowledge for which the house is rightly renowned. Lastly
a house that works at least as well as the present one. This draft
bill, as it stands, is not a vehicle that can deliver this and
it needs fundamental revision of its first principle if it is
to deliver any of these aims.
19. Below is my own view of what needs to be
in the bill for a revitalised ongoing House of Lords that delivers
most of the outcomes desired by the government. It does genuinely
keep the relationship with commons unchanged. It gives voting
power to 300 existing peers, The concept of voting and non voting
peers is not new it was passed by the House of Lords in the seventies
with regard to hereditary peers though opposed from the commons
famously by the combined efforts of Michael Foot and Enoch Powel.
This proposal allows all others life peers to remain and influence
by speaking thus crossbencher expertise would remain unaltered.
It uses the votes cast at ongoing General Elections for the Commons
to be translated into a proportionally representative House of
Lords reflecting all registered voters nationwide. This does not
challenge or alter the relationship with the directly elected
commons. With crossbench representation, it should fulfil the
desire that no one party will dominate the House of Lords. It
does not interfere in the relationship of MP's to their constituents.
It increases the constitutional principle on the 'Separation of
Powers'. It modernise the chamber placing electoral legislative
power in a smaller representative body of relatively younger life
peers. It produces a voting body made up exclusively of Legislators
while maintaining its lack of party pressures in the house. It
maintains the existing working relationship between the two chambers
and even reduce the overall cost of the second chamber.
20. This genuinely enhances electoral legitimacy
that the government say the house must have. Such a proposal taken
as a whole can deliver most of what the government wants without
destroying our constitutional checks and balances. I believe it
is a better way forward as it gives the government almost all
that it wants and stands a better chance of forming the consensus
than the existing proposal. But the government can't have it and
direct elections too they are incompatible as are the draft bills
aims with direct elections.
Summary of the proposals
Name
21. No change
Size
22. A reformed House of Lords should have 300
(400 might work better) voting members—The draft Bill allows
for remaining non voting life peers as well as 12 Bishops and
Government Ministers sitting as (speaking only/and possibly time
only) members. The remaining hereditary peers will no longer sit
in the House or be speaking only if the Steele formula is followed.
Functions
23. The reformed House of Lords would have the
same functions as the current House. It would continue to scrutinise
and revise legislation, hold the Government to account and conduct
investigations.
Powers
24. No change to the constitutional powers and
privileges of the House once it is reformed,
25. Nor to the fundamental relationship with
the House of Commons, which would remain the primary House of
Parliament. That primacy rests partly in the Parliament Acts and
in the financial privilege of the House of Commons.
Electoral system
26. The 300 voting members of the house shall
be selected from existing members who are Life Peers, under the
retiring age for voting peers and are not ministers of the Crown
or bishops or be hereditary peers. Each party or group may submit
a list of candidates for election in order of preference. Once
selected a member may not be removed from the list or the position
on it except by change of proportion of peers through a general
election, voluntary resignation, reaching the retirement age,
becoming a minister of the crown, failure to carry out duties
by censure of the whole House. Should these events happen the
next peer on the appropriate list should take their place by party
or group?
Separation of Powers
27. It is important to be able to bring people
into office by membership of the House of Lords while in Government
and for the house to be able to hold the government to account.
However the separation of powers is a desirable principle for
a sound constitution and therefore government ministers should
not be voting members and may be time in office members only if
not already a peer. The Law Lords (Supreme Court Judges) should
have right to speak in the House while in office but should be
none voting only.
Proportional Elections
28. Elections will take place through the General
Elections to the House of Commons. It will use the total number
of votes cast for all members of the House of Commons nationwide.
The votes shall be proportionally distributed among the parties
and groups. The resultant proportion shall determine the number
of voting peers from each list of eligible peers. The resulting
number of peers will reflect the registered voters who voted as
a proportion of all register to vote. The resulting distribution
of votes will give the number of peers elected representing the
proportion of voters according to party or group who voted.
29. The number of registered voters who voted
shall then be subtracted from the number registered of all voters
and the resulting number shall determine the proportion of voting
Crossbench Peers and bring the number of voting peers to 300.
Crossbencher peers would represent those registered to vote but
did not vote thus completing the proportional picture.
30. This electoral process will give a reflection
of the whole nation and reflect the political party strengths
in the General Election and allow continuing proportional representation
at each subsequent General Election. It will also be a safeguard
that no single party shall have a majority in the House of Lords.
Retirement
31. An age limit might be set for voting peers
to allow for younger peers to reflect better a modern outlook.
All other non voting peers might follow the recently past House
of Lords motion upon retirement.
Church of England Bishops
32. There would be up to 12 non voting places
for representative bishops of the Church of England.
33. And 12 mixed religious leaders of all faiths
according UK population if a formula can be found that satisfies
those groups.
Salary and Allowances
34. 300 (full time) voting peers) would receive
a bounty and allowances. Members would also be entitled to receive
a pension and the pension fund would be administered by the Independent
Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA).
35. All other peers would receive expenses as
at present but will no longer be eligible upon reaching the age
when a voting peer must retire, except in exceptional circumstances
or due to special responsibilities.
Tax status
36. Members of the House of Lords would continue
to be deemed resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled (ROD)
for tax purposes.
Disqualification
37. Members of the reformed House of Lords would
be subject to a disqualification regime modelled on that in the
House of Commons.
Sovereign
38. I would want to make one further point which
is that 'The Queen in Parliament' must not be undermined in any
way as this is at the heart of our constitution. The rights and
traditions of the Sovereign in the House of Lords are to be respected.
Conclusion
39. It is my hope that the Joint committee will
make wide ranging proposals that are in the best interest of the
nation. The government may well insist upon the democratic facade
without true regard for the best interests of the people. May
I suggest that at least two proposals be made by the join committee
based upon direct and indirect elections and the people be allowed
to choose between them by referendum? That is building in a truly
democratic choice. This is an important Constitutional matter,
unlike FPP V AV; It is a proper use of referendum. The pressure
of government whips should have no part in our constitutional
formation. If a bill is to be introduced it must also proceed
on a free vote in both houses and not subject to the balance of
power of the day. It must be a work of Parliament not Government.
40. The current Draft Lords Reform Bill proposals
would be a revolution tantamount to abolition in favour of new
constitutional arrangements, nothing less, despite transitional
arrangements, while the British way is evolution. Reform must
not be driven by knee jerk reactions, political expedience or
dogmatic despotism if the purpose and functions of the House of
Lords are to work for the good of the people in the future. I
hope that all members of Parliament of both Houses will not allow
the executive to force its will upon them to the detriment of
the Mother of Parliaments and the British people.
8 August 2011
| 
