Lords' reform - the people's house

The Blair Government's reform of the House of Lords is currently underway.

It has some defenders at present, who cite the following contributions.

It allows independent (of electoral pressures and strong party pressure) evaluation of legislation.
It allows weaknesses in the drafting of legislation to become evident during passage through the Lords.
It gathers the mature reflection of statesmen and women, bishops, national leaders and other life peers not available in the Commons.
It creates a link which sometimes seems more in touch with the country and public opinion than the policies of the party in power.
Although these points are significant, there is widespread agreement that the present House of Lords is substantially archaic and needs reform.

Changes needed

It has only been delayed by Conservative control of government for two decades. Yet, so far there are no clear guiding principles by which reform should be made. In part, it depends on changes in the Commons. Reform of both Houses should cohere.

What are the central points of reference? The main one is representative government. A House of Lords resting on privilege, land ownership and the granting of titles is not representative. Nor is the patronage of life peerages. We suggest that trying to retain any representative function for the House of Lords will fail, nor is it needed, because the Commons, with reform, is an effective House for representative government. The need, therefore, is to establish the principle on which a second Chamber is constituted.

Most conceptions of reform gather round the idea of a Chamber with a permanent membership. This arises because we think in terms of representatives. But if the second House is not representative, it does not need permanent members. Once this is allowed, a second kind of participative democracy can emerge.

Principles behind reform

The principles which shape this kind of reform are crucial. We see the following as significant.

- Government is to be exercised in service of the people, as Jesus frequently taught. To serve involves listening, respect and direct contact. This often happens informally, but here is a chance to build it into the structure of Parliament.

- Government also involves public accountability. Such a forum offers direct accountability to different groups of the public, more regular and open than just five yearly elections.

- Democratic government depends on the principles and convictions of the electorate. In a media dominated culture it is easy for these to become passive and easily swayed by image. This offers a national possibility of participative democracy, which works against this passivity.

- At present, much debate and criticism occurs in contexts distant from Parliament. If political critique is important, and the Judeo-Christian tradition from the time of the prophets affirms it to be so, then better incorporate it in the parliamentary process.

- Finally, the law is for us. The Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Building those for whom the law is made into the process of forming legislation cannot but be good in helping us to own what is for us. This time of reform is an opportunity to open up the principle of a more radical pattern of popular participation.

The proposal

The central proposal is for the abolition of a permanent chamber. In its place should be a variety of contributory patterns of participation.

1. Committees selected from the population to examine legislation. This stage of review could occur before the Second Reading, so that MPs could take into account comments on the Bill in the Commons' Debate and Committee stage. Membership of these Committees would be given to those who had expertise, experience, academic knowledge, interest/pressure group involvement in the area of legislation. This group's job would be to give a report to the Commons reviewing the legislation. This group of, say, 20 people, could be chosen through open appointment procedures drawing in key experts and pressure group personnel. The aim would be to give the best professional and public scrutiny possible in a succinct report. The only power that this Committee would have would be persuasive.

2. It would be possible, too, for new and past legislation to be subject to review. MPs could gather spoken and written evidence from those who suffer from or are directly affected by the legislation. This would allow the evidence of those on whom legislation has its most direct impact to be gathered and used. It would allow the specialised input of those competent in the area, and allow proper engagement with that sector of the public's life. This power to opt for review could be held by a Commons' Committee.

3. A dozen, say, annual state of the nation debates could take place on major areas of national life. The people contributing could come through a variety of routes - sponsorship by certain bodies, those with views commanding popular support, say by petition of x thousand people, those with academic and public interest publications in the area and views with professional backing. The aim would be to encourage views deemed worthy of a greater public airing. This would allow times of public reflection, not tied to a tight legislative process, but focusing the political debate.

4. Petition Days could happen on an ad hoc basis. Views commanding, say, a hundred thousand signatures on a particular issue could be brought to the House and presented for the day. Appropriate government ministers would then be required to attend and respond to the issue at the end of the day. Petitions with, say, half a million signatures, could even be given Private Member's Bill status with a sponsoring MP.

This kind of reform would allow the contribution of thousands to the parliamentary process. It would open politics to the expertise of the best in the land, providing specialised knowledge that many MPs lack. It would vastly increase the professionalism of national politics, fulfilling the best present functions of the Lords, but with real expertise. Of course, the general principle allows many variants. There may be a place for experienced Parliamentarians and other public figures, effectively acting as the present life peers do, to continue in a reviewing role. Different models of relationship between the Commons and the reformed House are possible.

Advantages

An advantage of this model is that it allows interest and pressure groups into the parliamentary process, but explicitly and publicly. Advocacy groups would state their case to MPs and Ministers, but publicly and for all to reflect on. Much tighter rules on processes of representative government could then be in place, protecting the Commons from financial and undue influence.

The move is also right in relation to the technology of the Web, because all the debates, petitions, contributions and arguments could be available on the Web, as well as through normal media outlets, putting people more directly in touch with the political debate.

It also creates a realistic context for popular political participation. Most of us have seen the local MP standing in the High Street trying to gather popular views from passers by. This is scarcely considered political opinion. Creating a forum for national political reflection would be a real, not a token, process of participative democracy.

The professional politician has strengths and weaknesses. There is no substitute for learning politics. But the professional politician misses out on areas of expertise which are important for many areas of legislation and executive action. This reform firmly incorporates this expertise, and offers another route to political training. The model is non-elitist, because it creates no permanent body.

Contributors would be paid expenses, as (or less than) the Lords are at present, but they would remain local people working in other jobs making one or two contributions to the national debate.

Owning the law

Further, it is important that we own the law as our law, not merely as something imposed by the State. Such a process of participation would aid this process, because it would build our participation into its formulation.

The model is probably fairly cheap. You can pay a hundred people £100 expenses for 200 days a year to come to the People's House, the participation of thousands of people annually, for the cost of employing 80 people full-time on £25,000 income.

There are potential weaknesses. One is whether participation could be biased through patterns of selection ruling out some people or groups. Clearly, it needs an open process, allowing a wide selection of views and areas of competence. It should not be beyond the wit of a public body to allow grassroots views to be expressed with processes like petition.

Another is the loss of the statesman and womanly qualities of the Lords' chamber. There is still room for such contributions, but the loss is probably a real one in favour of greater participation.

It is conceivable that this change could encourage populism and demagogues. The people are not always right. Christians remember that a crowd participated in the process of Jesus's crucifixion, and many popular decisions are wrong. But this is not creating populist power, but a responsible forum to which representatives may listen. Demagogues are quickly cut down to size when they rant in proper controlled debate.

On balance, it seems that this conception has much to offer and should be considered, before we trundle on to the appointed permanent chamber model coming out of present discussions.

Conclusion

This reform to the Second House enhances the meaning of participatory democracy. It undermines neither the representative nature of the Commons, nor long-term electoral and party commitments, but strengthens the quality of between-election political debate and legislative process. We suggest that creating the People's House as a national forum for debate and reflection on government business would open up great possibilities for mature, principled and professional politics.

This development is not arbitrary, but principled, incorporating those who are served within the parliamentary process. We suggest rejecting the idea of a second Chamber as a weakened permanent legislative body. Rather, we look to creating an institution of participative democracy, the People's House, where representative democracy is linked directly to contributions from the governed.

Lords' reform - the people's house

An analysis of Labour's reform of the House of Lords

Changes needed

Principles behind reform

The proposal

Advantages

Owning the law

Conclusion

Alan Storkey

Main Articles

Other articles