Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: House of Lords

  • A House of Experts

    Fresh thinking on how to reform the House of Lords

    As a long-time supporter of the idea of citizen’s assemblies, I have felt conflicted by the current argument about the future of the House of Lords.  While the present structure of the Lords is clearly untenable, we must be wary of replacing it with something that might turn out not a whole lot better.  For a continuous second chamber, I suggest we need to think from scratch what would be the best option rather than trying to squeeze an existing concept into the same hole.

    The organisation Assemble want a House of the People (presumably an anti-political entity).  Others have suggested an elected house based on a form of proportional representation, or a house representing the regions in some form, or a random body of people like a jury.  My concern would be how much are they bringing to the table? It’s all very well to say that ‘politics is broken’, but where does that leave you?  If we want a complementary House of Ex-Lords, surely it should bring in those unrepresented by the Commons?  I don’t mean the underprivileged, who need better representation, which can only come from a better working democracy rather than a replacement body.  My view is that we need greater expertise.

    MPs have to learn about a lot of things on the job. The fact that so few of them have experienced work in “normal” jobs before parliament only makes the situation worse. Also, of course, government and opposition parties will adopt stances based on political criteria rather than objectivity or close study of the issues.  So, to have a body of people on hand who know stuff could only be beneficial.  It would also obviate the activities of lobbyists, as they could be scrutinised at source.

    So the House of Experts I would envisage would be something like up to 500 people who are specialists in their fields.  They would serve for, say, 6 months (on sabbatical?) and being replaced by persons with similar qualifications, to cover those areas where legislation is problematic (probably all of them!).  It would mean that, instead of the current situation where politicians declare their aims of fixing a problem in five years, say, the detail and difficulties and realistic solutions would be in the open debating chamber rather than muttered by people who lack the resource to influence what happens.  

    Since the chosen members would not be parti pris, debate would be a more constructive, Habermasian procedure than the antagonistic Commons (to be fair, the current Lords and proposed citizen’s assemblies also aim to do that).  Selection procedures would be up for debate: one possibility would be choosing by geography (different areas might have different approaches to issues).  It would also be useful to have overlapping knowledge areas debating in the same place (e.g. climate change and farming).

    An obvious question that arises concerns the authority such a chamber may have. Is it purely advisory, or can it legislate, in which case by what right?  My feeling is that it should be essentially advisory, but that the Commons would have to have very good reasons for going against the advice of the Experts.  I would not expect the new House to be able to initiate legislation.

    So where does that leave our cherished citizen’s assemblies?  In a better place, because I believe they are more suitable for specific (and maybe local) issues than as a national body (think of a CA deciding foreign policy).  It was originally felt that their value lay in resolving political impasses, and I would expect there to be a future in that line of business.  This would also, of course, do away with the problem of maintaining such bodies, as they would be entirely ad hoc.  Even better, it would stop complaints that we are trying to take over from the politicians!

    Andrew Hemming

  • Abolishing the House of Lords

    Seminar by the Sortition Foundation to create a ‘House of Citizens’

    June 2024

    We attended a Zoom seminar run by the Sortition Foundation in which they proposed the abolition of the House of Lords and replacing it with something they call a ‘House of Citizens’. They are calling it the ‘858 Project‘ after the year Henry II created juries.

    Trust in the HoL is low among the public at large. The average age is 71, it is mostly white and 71% are men. The majority are ex-politicians and most vote with their party. We are the only country, apart from Iran, where religious people (bishops) have seats in the Lords as of right. Watching a debate is to witness a slow and ponderous process as one after another elderly person totters to their feet to deliver a homily about some arcane subject few outside would be interested in. They are paid a handsome daily attendance fee and there was a scandal some years ago where it was revealed that many signed in and immediately left thus qualifying for their (tax free) attendance allowance but contributed nothing.

    However, Ian Dunt in his recently published book How Westminster Works and Why it Doesn’t puts forward a different view and claims that on the whole, the HoL does good work by correcting and carefully considering shoddy and ill-considered legislation sent up from the Commons. Despite appearances and of course the presence of a number of charlatans and dodgy characters, there is a significant number of members who have solid experience to offer, considerably more than is present in the lower house. Despite whipping, there is a higher degree of independence and willingness not to tow the party line.

    Since we do need a second chamber, how it should be formed needs careful thought. Sortition’s idea of 300 citizens who would serve for a year and paid what an MP is paid might not be the answer. Even informed by experts, their effectiveness might be questionable. For a start, anyone who watches programmes on television with audience participation will note that their ability to ask fundamental questions is generally limited. Vox pops are frequently embarrassing with participants able to say more than they like or dislike various politicians. The assumption that there is this vast pool of wisdom ‘out there’ whereas the HoL and the Commons is populated by fools and knaves is neither fair nor accurate. There are many hard-working and intelligent parliamentarians who work selflessly for the country and their constituents. Unfortunately, they are not usually the ones who regularly turn up to be interviewed on College Green.

    How long will it be before the established parties begin to get their people elected to the House of Citizens? How many will stay the course once the shine has gone off and the need to plough through reports and research becomes part of their duties? And is a year enough? Ministers complain that the frequent moves mean by the time they get to grips with their department, they are moved on often after only a year or so. By the time these citizens have learned the ropes their time will be up. How many people with appropriate skills will be able (or their employers allow) a year to take part in this?

    So an interesting seminar and Sortition are going out to consultation. Saying that the HoL is non-functioning is not altogether true. Booting out the bishops and hereditary peers would be a good first step. There is a risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater however. We need a second chamber composed of people with experience and dedication. I am not convinced that a House of Citizens is the answer although all praise to Sortition for starting this debate and trying to force it into the open.

    Peter Curbishley