Memorandum by Dr Meg Russell, Reader in
British and Comparative Politics, Constitution Unit, Department
of Political Science, University College London
The Information Committee has invited evidence
on "how the House of Lords, in the context of Parliament,
could relate better to the public". This is a wide-ranging
and complex question. The committee seeks input on detailed matters
of how the House could, for example, better manage its outreach
and media activities. These questions are worthwhile and important.
But there are limits to what can be achieved through such activities
if larger strategic questions are not tackled. This submission
therefore focuses solely on a single more strategic question about
the Lords' public and media image. But it does not concern itself
with Lords reform (at least in the conventional sense). It instead
argues that perceptions of change can be as important as change
itself and that, whilst the Lords has undergone significant change
in recent years, its public image has not. Until this is tackled
it will remain a misunderstood institution, whatever the quality
of outreach and media work. In order to achieve a significant
change in its public image the House of Lords needs what I call
(using a term that has been widely applied in other contexts)
a "Clause IV moment".
This submission is structured in three parts. The
first makes some observations about the House of Lords, how it
has changed in recent years, and how it is viewed by the media
and the public—largely based on our own research. The second
part explains what is meant by a "Clause IV moment",
with reference to the original moment in the Labour Party's history
from which this term derives. The third part asks how the Lords
could experience such a moment of its own.
THE CONTEMPORARY
HOUSE OF
LORDS AND
THE PUBLIC
The House of Lords Act 1999, which removed the
rights of most hereditary peers to sit in the chamber, was a very
significant change. It was, of course, presented as the first
stage of a two-stage reform and no second stage has yet followed.
Understandably therefore the chamber is widely regarded as "unreformed",
or at most "semi-reformed". Yet all earlier reforms
in the 20th century (in 1911, 1949, 1958 and 1963) were also at
the time considered small and incomplete. The chamber has thus
existed for a least a century in what is seen as, at best, a "semi-reformed"
state. Given the lack of progress over the last 10 years it may
continue to do so for some time yet. However the 1999 Act was
(arguably like the 1958 Act and others) transformative. It had
three key results, here listed probably in reverse order to their
importance: making the chamber smaller, ending the least defensible
means by which its members arrived, and fundamentally changing
its party balance to one of "no overall control". As
a consequence it was possible, post-1999, to ask "Is the
House of Lords Already Reformed?".[29]
The 1999 reform changed not only the mechanics of
membership of the House of Lords, but also crucial aspects of
its culture. The government promised that reform would make the
chamber `more legitimate', and our research has shown that the
great majority of peers believe this to have been the case, as
do a majority of MPs.[30]
Consequently members of the chamber have felt more confident to
challenge government policy, which helps account for the large
number of government defeats since 1999. The new party balance,
meaning the Liberal Democrats can use their position in the chamber
to challenge policy and force concessions, is also very important.
Although Conservative numbers declined following reform, it seems
that the power of both opposition parties, as well as the Crossbenchers,
was boosted. If the Conservatives return to government Labour
will be able—for the first time—to easily inflict
defeat in the Lords in coalition with other forces. This is a
major change. Our work shows that many Lords defeats go on to
have a lasting impact on policy.[31]
Yet the chamber's impact is greater than this: more policy gains
are probably made through negotiation than through defeat, and
one of the most important changes is how government has altered
its own internal procedures to anticipate the views of the Lords.[32]
Thus new members arriving in the House now come with very different
expectations in terms of attendance, voting and likely impact
on policy. Both the parties and the House of Lords Appointments
Commission now encourage more active membership. And almost 300
members, making up nearly 40% of the House, have been appointed
since reform took place. As new members enter, the chamber's culture
is continually changing further.
In many respects, therefore, we now have a "new"
House of Lords, very different to that which existed pre-1999.
This is out of step with the chamber's "unreformed"
image. This image persists in part thanks to the continuing debates
about the second stage of reform. The government, despite having
brought about a very important change, does not draw attention
to its significance, partly since it fears being accused of giving
up on the second stage of reform. But it has also suited the government
to maintain a myth of the "same old" House of Lords,
as this encourages belief that the chamber's intervention in policy
is unjustified. Meanwhile reformers need to maintain the image
of the "unreformed" House in order to pursue their agenda.
Those wishing to project the image of a "new" House
of Lords are limited in comparison.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the public
image of the Lords does not keep up with the reality. In some
respects the chamber clearly has public support. Our research,
for example, found that in 2007 a majority of those expressing
an opinion agreed that "the House of Lords generally carries
out its policy role well", a similar result to that obtained
for the House of Commons. Amongst those claiming to be "very"
or "fairly" knowledgeable about parliament, the figure
for the Lords was 66%, compared to 57% for the Commons. Nonetheless
only 34% of this latter group felt "the system for choosing
members of the House of Lords is a good one", compared to
65% for the Commons. This is consistent with opinion polls showing
significant support for introduction of elections to the chamber.
Though polls (including some of these same polls) also show strong
support for the presence of experts and members independent of
the parties.
Given that most of the public do not have direct
contact with the House of Lords, its portrayal in the media is
very important to the formation of public opinion. Our research
shows that media portrayals of the Lords have become more positive
since 1999.[33]
In particular the chamber's policy interventions are often welcomed
by the media, with interventions on civil liberties matters able
to unite the right and left wing press in support. Portrayals
of the chamber's deliberative process are also generally positive.
This may be important to public opinion, as our 2007 poll found
that "considering legislation carefully and in detail"
ranked even higher than presence of independent members or experts,
or indeed addition of elected members, amongst factors valued
by the public. Probably unsurprisingly, media portrayals of the
chamber's method of composition are far less positive. It is notable
that the media's positive portrayal of policy interventions and
negative portrayal of composition method mirror the public's attitudes
(as indicated above). Of course, it is difficult to say whether
media opinion drives public opinion or vice versa, and indeed
both are probably true to some extent.
One aspect of media portrayal of the Lords is
particularly striking. Despite all of the above changes (which
also include a far higher proportion of women and ethnic minority
members, plus members at least as youthful as those in the Commons
in many frontbench positions), these are not at all reflected
in pictorial images. Indeed it is difficult to find a picture
accompanying a House of Lords story, in the print or broadcast
media or online, which doesn't show peers in ermine-trimmed robes
gathered en masse for the Queen's speech. Insofar as one can make
out individual members, they are almost invariably elderly, white
and male. This remains the ubiquitous and enduring image of the
Lords, but it portrays an event which happens only once a year.
On a day-to-day basis the members of the Lords look similar to
the members of any other modern legislative chamber. Even after
all the recent changes, the strongest image of the Lords therefore
perpetuates impressions of an ancient institution, out of step
with modern times. I argue in the remainder of this submission
that changing this single image could do more to connect the Lords
with the public than any number of internal reforms.
WHAT IS
A CLAUSE
IV MOMENT?
The term "Clause IV moment" originates
from the changes in the Labour Party in the mid-1990s. It is now
frequently used to describe a major symbolic gesture which can
communicate that an institution has fundamentally changed. For
example, there has been much talk in recent years about whether
David Cameron should have instigated a "Clause IV moment"
to match that by Tony Blair, in order to communicate a new direction
for the Conservative Party.
What actually happened in the Labour Party was that
a whole series of changes were implemented following the party's
disastrous election defeat in 1983. The party had swung to the
left, and there were even fears that it might be wiped out completely
following the establishment of the SDP. Neil Kinnock took over
from Michael Foot as leader in 1983, and began a far-reaching
programme of review and change to both the party's organisation
and its policy positions. Kinnock worked on this programme for
nine years, and won wide respect in the party for rescuing it
from oblivion. Yet after he lost the 1992 election he then himself
stepped down as leader. Following a short interregnum under John
Smith, Tony Blair took over the party leadership in 1994. By this
time most of the key changes had already taken place, but the
party's image lagged behind the reality. Blair was intent on changing
this image, in order to secure the party's electability, and it
was this that inspired him to amend Clause IV. Clause IV (of the
party's constitution) was in effect by then a historical curiosity.
Unchanged since 1918 it was of far more symbolic than substantive
importance, and could not be said to have strongly guided the
party's behaviour in government in the 1960s and 1970s. Indeed,
Hugh Gaitskell had famously tried and failed to change Clause
IV in the 1950s, on the basis that it was already out of date.
Many in the party therefore thought Blair's focus on this issue
was an unwelcome distraction from the key task of getting elected
to government. Nonetheless, it is not the long years of work by
Neil Kinnock that tend to be remembered for the creation of "new"
Labour, but the change to Clause IV under Tony Blair.
What this story tells us is that symbolic change
can be as important, indeed sometimes more important, than substantive
change. Whether one approves or not of the tactics of Tony Blair's
advisers (several of whom since elevated to the Lords), they were
certainly effective in their task of changing public perceptions
of the party. These figures themselves were clear that perceptions
can be more important than reality when seeking to influence public
opinion.[34]
The truth of the Labour Party's history in the 1980s and 1990s
was that it included much continuity, and much gradual change.
However the impression of change was not sealed in the eyes of
the public until this single symbolic gesture at the end of the
process.
A CLAUSE IV MOMENT
FOR THE
HOUSE OF
LORDS?
The parallel between the Labour Party in the
1990s and the contemporary House of Lords may seem somewhat tenuous.
However, both represent long-established institutions, with an
established public image. Both experienced a decade of changes,
cumulatively amounting to transformation, yet conducted largely
out of the public eye. Despite all Kinnock's reforms the Labour
Party continued to retain a "flat cap" image in the
early 1990s which threatened its public support. In the same way,
I would suggest, the House of Lords retains (far more literally)
an "ermine clad" image which is an obstacle to communicating
its role as a modern, functioning institution. Until this image
is erased from the public mind, or at least consigned to history,
the chamber will struggle to convince the wider world of the important
work that it does.
I am aware that the Lord Speaker, as part of her
important outreach work for the House, has been trying to persuade
journalists to use alternative images of the Lords which better
reflect contemporary reality. The website includes an "image
gallery", including a series of photographs of "Lords
at work"—both in the chamber and in committee. However,
judging by the media coverage since this initiative began I suspect
it has been of limited, if any, effect (it would be interesting
to know the results of any official monitoring exercise). I very
much doubt whether it will be possible to shift journalists' pictorial
presentation of the Lords as long as the picture of assembled
peers in ermine bears any relation at all to the present day.
The image is simply a visual shortcut that communicates "House
of Lords"—making it very valuable to those wishing
to sum up a story in a fast-moving media world. This is something
that the committee might wish to explore with any journalists
that appear before it. But my strong suspicion is that it will
be impossible to move on from this image unless the reality of
peers gathered in their robes actually ends. That is, until peers
(like MPs) start wearing everyday clothing for the Queen's speech.
This small change need have no implications for any other aspect
of the ceremony.
This might, on the face of it, appear to be
a long way from the focus of the committee's inquiry. It might
also appear somewhat superficial to suggest that a reform of the
Queen's speech ceremony is essential to the development of the
House of Lords. It is a tiny change, compared to many of the other
things on the reform agenda such as introducing elected members.
However, the purpose of this submission has been to argue that
it could be symbolically extremely important. Just as a simple
change to a little-used clause of the Labour Party's constitution
helped to communicate a message of a change from "old"
to "new" Labour, a simple change to Queen's speech day
could communicate the arrival of the "new" House of
Lords (which I have argued already exists). If larger-scale reform,
particularly addition of elected members, happens in the future
it is hard to imagine that this element of ritual will continue
in any case. In terms of enhancing public understanding of the
Lords and its work I suggest that there could be disproportionate,
and essential, benefit from instead making this small symbolic
change now.
27 April 2009
29 M Russell, Is the House of Lords Already Reformed?,
Political Quarterly, 74(3): 311-318, 2003. See also M Russell,
Lords Reform: Principles and Prospects, lecture at the
invitation of the Leader of the House of Lords, 13 November 2007
(available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/parliament/house-of-lords.html) Back
30
M Russell and M Sciara, Legitimacy and Bicameral Strength: a Case
Study of the House of Lords, paper to Political Studies Association
specialist group conference on Legislative Studies, University
of Sheffield, 16 June 2006 (available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/parliament/house-of-lords.html) Back
31
M Russell and M Sciara, The Policy Impact of Defeats in the
House of Lords, British Journal of Politics and International
Relations, 10(4): 571-89, 2008. Back
32
M Russell, A Stronger Second Chamber? Assessing the Impact of
House of Lords Reform in 1999, and Lessons for Bicameralism, Political
Studies, forthcoming. Back
33
Russell and Sciara, Legitimacy and Bicameral Strength,
above at note 2. It should be noted that this research followed
media reporting (in the shape of newspaper editorials) in the
period 1997-2006. Our results are therefore somewhat out of date,
and more recent events such as the "cash for peerages"
and "cash for amendments" affairs will inevitably have
changed this picture to some extent. Back
34
See M Russell, Building New Labour: the Politics of Party Organisation,
Palgrave, 2005; S Fielding, The Labour Party: Continuity and Change
in the Making of New Labour, Palgrave, 2003; P Gould, The Unfinished
Revolution: How the Modernisers Saved the Labour Party, Little
Brown and Company, 1998. Back
|
