Lord Judd
A significant part of the public disenchantment with,
and even alienation from, the political process seems to me to
be because, rightly or wrongly, politics has become perceived
as a closed profession with an increasing number of MPs and peers
having too little in depth, prolonged experience in their lives
other than politics. There is a widespread sense that the system
does not relate to life as it is out there. Surely a reality of
an open society is that it comprises a matrix of different interests
and dimensions: professions; skills; religions; trade unions;
industries and commercial services; ethnic communities; N.G.O's;
law and the administration of justice; etc. It is how these interplay
that enables society to function (or not function!)
A relevant parliamentary system should surely include
a place where these different dimensions are represented with
their particular experiences and perspectives. This, I suggest,
should be the role of an advisory "think again" scrutinising
Second Chamber—one that could also initiate debate on issues
not yet featuring in the legislative agenda of the Commons. In
whatever is ultimately proposed it would be tragic if the opportunity
to enrich the relevance and quality of parliament and our democracy
were inadvertently missed. The key challenge is how membership
of such a Second Chamber should be decided. Just to repeat the
method for the Commons with numerical/constituency elected members
would not, in my view, meet the challenge. In saying this, of
course, I take it for granted that the power should be with the
Commons: the Second Chamber should be a consultative and advisory
body. I fear a conventionally elected body in the existing mould
of parliamentary elections would be an own goal.
The name for the Second Chamber matters a great deal.
It would surely be a nonsense to go on calling it the House of
Lords. The whole point is that it should represent the matrix
of society as it is; and it is high time that what the place is
called and how its members are described made clear that it is
a vital working place and not a setting for social elitism. "Lord"
and "Lady" foster ambiguity about it all—or worse.
I raise one more issue. It seems to me to be beyond
comprehension that we can justify going into the future with just
one denomination of just one faith guaranteed representation.
As a practising Anglican I understand the feeling about history
and the anxiety about establishment; but to leave things basically
unchanged would be highly provocative—not least to non-believers
and humanists. Britain is a rich mix of differences. Incidentally,
my wife brought me into the Church of England from my English
nonconformist and Church of Scotland background. The Church of
Scotland is the established church of the land but it has no corporate
representation in parliament either in Edinburgh or in London.
25 September 2011
| 
