Lord Rowe-Beddoe
I have some points for consideration by your Committee.
Like some colleagues in the House, I was appointed upon the recommendation
of the Appointments Commission under the "People's Peers"
scheme, i.e. not upon the recommendation of any political party.
Should future legislation produce a 100% elected Upper House,
then clearly Independent Crossbenchers like me would be excluded
from seeking election for reason of insufficient financial and
organisational support.
A fully appointed House (but with reduced numbers)
may be considered undemocratic but it certainly is legitimate—as
has been the case for some 900 years. Surely the question to be
considered is: "Does the House fulfil its function effectively
in the governance of our country?"
A hybrid House cannot be a solution since the vote
of an elected person would be perceived to be worth more than
that of someone appointed; and a conflict will surely arise on
the overriding issue of Commons supremacy. I do not believe that
the actual effects of a partially or fully elected chamber are
wanted by the House of Commons. There is no "settled view".
Many MPs known to me have expressed strong opinions to the contrary.
To quote Professor Vernon Bogdanor in The Times (18 August
2011),· not only will "the primacy of the Commons ...
come under challenge", but "the draft Bill by contrast
would transform the Lords from a revising to an opposing chamber."
Statements that have been made in regard to manifesto
commitments in support of the draft Bill are incorrect, despite
Coalition claims. For example, the manifesto of the main Opposition
party specifically referred to a referendum being held following
wide consultation on their proposed staged changes.
In conclusion, if abolition is truly desired (as
the draft Bill infers) by the House of Commons (certainly I am
totally unaware of any movement for reform from the electorate),
then I respectfully submit that you would not, so to speak, start
from here.
Since my schooldays I have had impressed upon me
the virtues of an unwritten constitution. However, continuous
changes to it (both minor and major) are increasingly made, with
the majority of people blissfully unaware of them. Perhaps we
should focus instead on the creation of a written constitution
which will be a matter for extensive consultation, communication
and public awareness, and referendum (one or more). The outcome
of this would mean all members of the executive and legislature
becoming transparently accountable to the people we represent,
either directly or indirectly.
31 October 2011
| 
