Bernard Jenkin MP
The House of Lords currently performs its functions
well
The House of Lords currently performs its functions
of revising and amending legislation well. Introducing a mainly
elected upper house would put this at risk by reducing the expertise
and diverse experience of the House of Lords, attracting political
candidates who are similar to MPs and increasing the role of party
politics. The enhanced role of party politics combined with the
enhanced electoral legitimacy of the House of Lords would be likely
to lead to a more confrontational approach and more clashes and
deadlocks with the House of Commons, rather than constructive
revision, scrutiny and advice. Alternately, where the same party
or parties dominate both Houses, an elected House of Lords, far
from holding the Government to account more effectively, would
be more likely to 'rubber stamp' legislation due to party political
loyalty.
House of Lords reform threatens the primacy of
the House of Commons
The elected House of Commons currently has primacy
over the unelected House of Lords. It can overrule the House of
Lords, if necessary, under the Parliament Act. It is, however,
very rare for the House of Commons to do this because the House
of Lords understands that the House of Commons has primacy and
will allow Government legislation to be passed. An elected House
of Lords will challenge this principle. Given the preference of
the Deputy Prime Minister and other advocates of House of Lords
reform for alternative electoral systems based on proportional
representation, which are included in the draft bill, and their
disapproval of the First Past the Post system used to elect the
House of Commons, some may argue that an elected House of Lords
has greater democratic legitimacy than the House of Commons.
An elected House of Lords will reduce the number
of independent peers
More than a quarter of the current members of the
House of Lords do not take a party whip. This includes the Lords
Spiritual and the much larger number of crossbench peers. They
bring expertise to the chamber without being bound by party political
affiliation. With an elected House of Lords, they would almost
all be replaced by party political peers, and their expertise
and additional perspective would be lost.
Introducing elected peers would be costly
House of Commons Library figures show that the average
Member of Parliament costs the British taxpayer about £257,000
a year, whereas the average unelected appointed peer costs well
under £100,000. Elected full-time peers will require more
office space and staff, with costs more similar to those of Members
of Parliament. The Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that the
cost issue will be addressed by reducing the number of peers to
three hundred. Yet this would represent a significant reduction
in the expertise, experience and diversity of the current House
of Lords.
There is little public demand for House of Lords
reform
There is little evidence of strong public support
for introducing an elected upper house. While opinion polls have
indicated varying levels of support for House of Lords reform,
this is not a priority for the overwhelming majority of voters.
The Alternative Vote referendum indicated a distinct lack of enthusiasm
for major constitutional reform.
The name 'House of Lords' should remain
The House of Lords is an historic part of the British
constitution and reflects the history of the development of the
English and then British Parliament. As the long as the chamber
continues in its role, the name 'House of Lords' should remain.
Alternative suggested names such as 'senate' have little historical
resonance to the UK and are alien to the UK's tradition as a constitutional
monarchy, rather than a federal state or a republic.
The number of Lords Spiritual should not be reduced
The presence of the 26 Lords Spiritual in the House
of Lords reflects the fact that the Church of England is the established
Church and, as such, is an integral part of the constitution.
The draft bill proposes a reduction in the present number to twelve.
This would have very little practical effect on the operation
of the House of Lords, since it is extremely rare for more than
a very few Bishops to be in the House of Lords at any one time.
They operate a roster for attending the House of Lords. They also
specialise in subject areas, so an appropriate subject specialist
will be present at appropriate debates. A reduction in their numbers
would increase the burden of attendance onto far fewer people,
and reduce the ability of Bishops to develop specialist knowledge
in subject areas. It would mean that fewer Bishops benefit from
the experience of their duties in the House of Lords. It is hard
to see any advantage in this, since the Lords Spiritual take great
care not to abuse their collective position in any way. Were the
Church to be disestablished, then there would be every reason
to remove them altogether, but that is not what is proposed.
Proportional representation should not be introduced
in the House of Lords
The Government proposes the use of the Single Transferable
Vote for elections to the House of Lords. This is a much more
complex electoral system than that used for the House of Commons.
The multi-member electoral districts would also be much larger
than parliamentary seats, so there would be little direct connection
between the elector and the elected peer. These multi-member districts
would therefore be likely to give the central headquarters of
political parties, rather than local branches, control over candidates,
strengthening the dominance of party politics in the legislature—hardly
a popular or positive development.
The Alternative Vote referendum showed the level
of public opposition for replacing the First Past the Post electoral
system with a more complex one. The Single Transferable Vote would
represent an even more radical change.
House of Lords reform should be subject to a referendum
It has become accepted that any major constitutional
change in the UK should be subject to a referendum. The
proposal to change the electoral system for the House of Commons
to the Alternative Vote was subject to a referendum, as were the
arrangements for the establishment of devolved institutions in
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It would be perverse for
a wholly different House of Lords to be established, with a new
electoral system, without the electorate of the UK being directly
consulted. Such a major change to the UK constitution, and to
the relationship between electors and Parliament, should be subject
to a referendum. Without a referendum, these reforms will lack
legitimacy. The failure to offer a referendum demonstrates that
the Government has no faith that these reforms would prove popular.
It is highly likely that a referendum would result in a rejection
of the proposed reforms.
27 October 2011
| 
