Letter from Lord Elton
The electorate's perception of this House is
part of their perception of Parliament as a whole. Their perception
of the House of Commons affects their perception of the Lords
and the two need to be considered together. While the conduct
of Ministers in the other place is far outside the scope of your
Committee's terms of reference it needs, therefore, to be aware
of it as part of the context within which those terms confine
it.
Since the late 70s and early 80s there has been a
change, less dramatic and rapid than that brought about by current
revelations of financial misconduct, but at least as important
to the Public's perception of, and engagement with, Parliament.
It has been the release from its control of the publication of
Government policies. As it is the exception for Ministers, particularly
Cabinet Ministers, to be members of this House the evidence for
this process is mostly to be found in the Commons.
Well into the 80s any Commons Minister who,
intentionally or otherwise, made public a Government policy or
initiative before he had announced it in the chamber, was in breach
of an important convention; he was hauled in by the Speaker and
had to account for himself to the House. The result was that it
was there that all important announcements were made. It was therefore
there that journalists had to come to hear the hottest political
news; and they could not hear it without also hearing the opinions
of MPs including, crucially, those of opposition MPs and dissident
backbenchers. This was the news, and these were the views, that
were reported to the public, who maintained a lively interest
in what was going on there. Parliament, as a consequence, was
a focus of national interest.
Since then the habit of trailing announcements
on air on in the press, and making them at press conferences has
grown rapidly. My subjective impression is that efforts by successive
Speakers to inhibit this have grown steadily weaker and less frequent.
Today virtually all Government policy initiatives are announced
at press conferences from which MPs including, crucially, opposition
MPs and dissident government back benchers are excluded. The reaction
of MPs in the Chamber, however critical or hostile, is of less
news value or none at all and goes unreported.
As a result of this process the House of Lords
is perceived not just as a sideshow, but as a sideshow of a sideshow.
While the Committee is not in a position to
influence what happens in another place, it is in a position to
influence what happens in our own House. I would suggest that
it should consider whether, in its report, it should either itself
reinforce the convention that Lords Ministers making the first
announcement of any new government policy or initiative should
only do so in the chamber, or refer the to the Procedure Committee
question of whether that convention should be in some way formalised
or endorsed.
2 April 2009
|
