A Submission by The Rt Hon Frank Field MP DL and Lord Armstrong of Ilminster

Transcription

1 A Representative House of Lords A Submission by The Rt Hon Frank Field MP DL and Lord Armstrong of Ilminster 1. The House of Lords Pre-Legislative Committee is considering the bill presented to it by the government. The Bill aims to make a fundamental change in the workings of our two chamber democracy. 2. The consideration of the Bill so far has been restricted to how to make the Lords in Bagehot s terms a more effective part of the constitution by a method of direct election. We believe this to be an immensely important consideration: but we also believe that direct election is not the only means of achieving representative legitimacy. For Parliament to restrict its consideration only to the form of direct election will result in the loss of a once in a lifetime opportunity also to consider a more fundamental issue that is implicit in Lords reform. 3. The British system of democracy rests, in part, on how the idea of representation underpins our freedoms. We believe that their Lordships should therefore also consider how the idea of representation might be made effective in a reformed House of Lords. 4. Much of the last government s time was spent on reforming our constitution. In none of the background papers, or in the subsequent debate, did any Minister set out what the principles are which underpin British democracy and how the proposed reforms would strengthen our democratic institutions. Yet much of our constitution has over the past decade been remodelled out of all recognition. Reforming the House of Lords offers the last opportunity to reform part of our constitution by principle rather than by mere fashion. 5. One of the most persuasive reflections on the operation of British democracy takes the twin principles of Representative and Responsibility as the operational axis to how freedom is operated and safeguarded in our system of Government. The operation of these twin 1

2 principles have proved dynamic and politicians and theorists have given over time four working definitions to the idea of representation. 6. First, the term representative is used of someone who had been freely elected on the universal franchise and is dependent on his or her constituents for re-election. Second, the term representative can be viewed as an agent or delegate. Third, the term representatives signifies that a person is typical of the group that has elected them by mirroring the main characteristics and the views of the group that elects them. 7. There is a fourth meaning given to the term representative. From earliest times membership of the Commons was based on the idea of group representation, i.e. the individual in the Commons represented the whole of their area, and not just the very small number of people who had the vote. Indeed, the first squires called to Parliament were chosen on the basis that they would be able to speak for their whole area and, because of this, be able to enforce locally any taxation Parliament agreed. Members of the House of Commons were not therefore representing individual interests, in theory at least, nor simply the interest of the majority of voters. The representative of a whole area becomes effective when a constituency is engulfed in crisis. The local MP in such circumstances is expected to defend his or her patch, even if it means defying their government. 8. It could be argued that, while the members of the House of Commons came increasingly to be chosen by popular suffrage on a progressively wider franchise, and thus to be more democratically representative, the House of Lords continued to represent the great economic and social interests in society: the Church, the law and the landed and agricultural owners who for centuries exercised great economic and social power and influence. 9. The representation of groups is almost as old in our constitution as the representation of particular areas. And the idea of group representation continued to play one of the effective representative roles in our 2

3 constitution right up to the sleaze crisis that engulfed the Major government when individual MPs were found to have taken money to represent outside interests the Commons. Following the goading by the Nolan Report the Commons, instead of expelling the offending Members, barred the professional representation of interests within its walls. This move was a violent assault on the richness that has been attached to the meaning of representation in our democracy. That is where the debate in the Commons rests for the moment. 10. The work of the Commons over the centuries had been deeply enriched by the group knowledge that has been brought to its proceedings, be they specialisms from doctors, trade unionists, teachers, lawyers, nurses and so on. Indeed it was not until after World War II that the universities of Oxford and Cambridge ceased to elect their own representatives to the House of Commons. All individuals who belong to such groups are now careful to the point of inaction not to represent their group interests. Not so in the House of Lords where such specialist knowledge is treasured. Given that the Commons has stripped out this form of representation from its proceedings, might not we strengthen it in our Parliamentary system and to do so by group elections, rather on the model of the old university seats, instead of what will become individual elections with the candidates chosen by the party whips? Might not this idea of group representation be the starting point for Lords reforms rather than trying to impose a form of election on the Lords which is most appropriate to the Commons? 11. A radical Lords reform could be based on seeking the representation of all the major legitimate interest groups in our society and of using the idea of the Big Society as a means of strengthening how representation works in our democracy. There would be a need to establish a reform commission with the duty to make recommendations for mapping out which group interests should gain representation, and at what strength. So, for example, the commission would put forward proposals on which groups would have how many seats to represent (for example) local authorities and voluntary interests, to represent women s organisations 3

4 and interests, the interest of trade unions, employers, industrialists and businesses, and the cultural interest of writers and composers as well as the interests of the professions including, those involved in health and learning. The representation specifically of local authority associations would ensure that the different regions of the country would have voices in the upper chamber. And so the list would go on with the seats for Anglican bishops shared with other denominations and faiths. 12. The commission s second task would be to approve the means by which each group elects or selects its own representatives. The commission should be encouraged to approve a diversity of forms of election. Some groups already elect their group representatives. Other groups might wish to adopt a form of indirect election. The commission s task should not be to impose a bog standard form of election. 13. The numbers of those to be elected as group reprfesentatives would be determined as a maximum proportion of the size of the whole House. If the maximum size of the House was set at 600 members the same size as the new House of Commons up to 400 might be elected as group representatives, thus allowing for up to 100 independent cross-bench members to be chosen by the commission as at present and up to 100 appointed by the Prime Minister. Each of the group representatives would be required to declare whether he or she would take a party whip or would sit as an independent cross-bench member. The Prime Minister s quota would provide a mechanism for adjusting the balance of the party political representation in the House, as well as for appointing former senior public servants such as Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Services and Permanent Secretaries. 14. Reform of the House of Lords along these lines offers this Parliament a last chance to rebuild within our system one of the key meanings that has until recently been given to the term representative. It would be a reform that resulted in giving legislative power to the Big Society which has historically acted as a bulwark against a too powerful state. The 4

5 House of Commons would retain the primacy which it now enjoys, and which could be buttressed by conventions of the kind that already exist for that purpose. Thus the reform would strengthen our democracy without setting the Commons and Lords into a state of near permanent political warfare at Westminster and in the constituencies. And it would be a reform that might, for the first time, enthuse the electorate with the politics of constitutional change. 5