House of Lords

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): The Erminegate, kickbacks-to-cronies story brought back an old memory to me, from the days of "sleaze" when cash for questions tainted the Conservative government. This too involved undercover journalists trailing round the most likely suspects until they got some of them drunk, greedy or off-guard enough to agree to a deal. In the process many more were asked. This time, according to the Sunday Times, ten Lords were approached and four agreed. Some of the others refused robustly. Others simply never get back to them with anything they could go on.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): This argument heads Britain in the direction of a presidential system - but without an independent legislature:

Parliamentary rules should be changed to allow Lord Mandelson to be answerable to the House of Commons, MPs have said.

The Commons business and enterprise committee said that following Lord Mandelson's appointment as business secretary there had been no one to come to the despatch box to answer MPs' questions on the brief.

Keith Sutherland (Exeter, Imprint Academic): Imprint Academic’s new book series on political lotteries and citizen juries is launched this week. The series is our response to the growing sense that the institutions of liberal party democracy are damaged beyond repair.

The 1997 election was a watershed as it was quite obvious that Labour was prepared to say anything in order to win power. From then on political parties would no longer ‘represent’ anything other than the whims of a few thousand swing voters in key marginals, leaving everybody else, in effect, disenfranchised.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): In order to get the the Counter-terrorism Bill through the Commons in June, the Government promised a parliamentary vote if it was necessary to extend the detention of terror suspects temporarily for up to 42 days.

That proposal has been systematically taken apart today in a report from the House of Lords Constitution Committee which warns that Parliament is 'institutionally ill-equipped' for the role which is being thrust upon it.

James Graham (Unlock Democracy): The latest Lords reform white paper is both a step forward and a step back.  It is positive in that for first time ever an official government document is unambiguously in favour of second chamber which is either mostly or fully elected.  It also nails the lie about an elected second chamber being a threat to Commons primacy:

The Government welcomes a confident and assertive second chamber. It sees this as further enhancing our democracy and something that is entirely consistent with the primacy of the House of Commons. That primacy rests in the fact that the Government of the day is formed from the party or parties that can command a majority in the House of Commons. It also rests in the Parliament Acts and in the financial privilege of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister and most senior ministers are also drawn from the House of Commons. A more assertive second chamber, operating within its current powers, would not threaten primacy.

Guy Aitchison (Bristol, OK): Is there a democratic case to be made against an elected second chamber? Anthony Barnett has made the case on OK for the Athenian practice of sortition as an alternative and democratic form of citizen engagement that could help renew the second chamber. David Marquand was not convinced.

Now Lord Norton has put the "democratic" case for appointment. In a series of posts in response to the Government's recent White Paper on the Lords, first on Lords of the Blog and now on Conservative Home, the Tory peer has been making the case for an appointed chamber on the basis of "core accountability". The British constitution, claims Norton, has the benefit that there is one body - the Government, chosen through elections to the House of Commons - that is responsible for public policy. If the electorate disapproves of these policies it can vote it out at the next election. To elect other bodies "that can then claim the mandate of the popular vote undermines that core accountability." Come election time the various elected bodies will each be holding the others responsible for policy failures and a confused electorate will not know who to blame. Democracy is undermined.

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): Jack Straw has today published the Government's white paper on reform of the House of Lords.

The proposals call for a chamber which is 80-100 per cent elected, with members serving a single non-renewable 12-15 year term and a third of the chamber retiring at each election

One key point that emerged from Anthony Barnett's discussion with David Marquand below is that the choice of electoral system is likely to be crucial, not just to the future of the second chamber, but to the case for reform of the Commons.The White Paper leaves that issue very much open:

As the Government announces plans for a reformed House of Lords, David Marquand and Anthony Barnett discuss whether a new chamber should be chosen by lottery.

David Marquand (Oxford): At first sight, the idea of ‘sortition’ for the reformed House of Lords (or Senators or whatever) is attractive. But when you reflect on it it becomes distinctly unattractive.Here’s why:

First (a minor – but still significant – tactical objection), It clearly won’t happen; and it’s a mistake for constitutional reformers to give the impression that whatever the Government proposes they will be against.

Second (and much more serious): The main point of having an elected Second Chamber is to give it democratic legitimacy, so as to make it a stronger check on abuses of power by the elective dictator who controls the Lower House. Whatever may have been true in ancient Athens – not really a democracy, remember, since slaves, women and foreigners couldn’t participate – in today’s world democratic election is the only source of democratic legitimacy. An upper house chosen, in effect, by chance would be less legitimate than the Commons, not more. It would be a permanent focus group, as far removed from true democracy as the Government’s proposed Citizen’s Summit.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): The government will soon publish its plans for the Lords. By all accounts it will go for a wholly elected second chamber doing the same job that the current House of Lords does.

By refusing to make the Commons do a proper job, a second chamber will be needed to clean up the mess, if it can, on an everyday basis. I'm not talking about rejecting proposals like 42 days, which the reform will be designed to prevent. To be democratic it has to have experienced politicians elected to it. Hence it will be a 400 seat chamber elected by some kind of proportional method. Watch out for the party list system. If the Sunday Times is right, Straw will have thought up a nice wheeze to distract everyone by offering voters the powers of recall.

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The Counter Terrorism Bill continues its passage through Parliament today, with its second reading in the House of Lords.

Most of the controversy around the bill has focused on 42-day detention, but there are a number of other provisions that deserve serious scrutiny. Inquest has produced a briefing that focuses on part 6 of the bill, which it calls "a fundamental attack on the independence and transparency of the coronial system in England and Wales."

Patrick Corrigan, (Amnesty Blogs: Belfast and Beyond): Will Northern Ireland's (non-DUP) Lords help restore Northern Ireland's Westminster reputation when the Government's counter-terrorism Bill comes to the upper house tomorrow? When the government won the vote at the Bill's first reading in the Commons by just nine votes, the chamber rang with jeers and furious cries of 'shame' directed at the DUP MPs who had just voted with Brown after an eleventh hour private meeting with the PM.

Caroline Ellis (Our Lives Choices): Tomorrow, a battle will take place in the House of Lords in which the human rights of disabled and older people will be pitted against the forces of Government complacency.

Crossbench peer Baroness (Jane) Campbell of Surbiton will move an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill at Third Reading guaranteeing anyone in receipt of a care package the ability to take it with them when they move. At the moment, if a disabled person has the audacity to relocate - whether for a new job or to be closer to family - they will most likely face months or even years waiting for a new support package to be put in place. Even if their very lives depend on continuity of support, the reality is they will experience a stressful, humiliating, debilitating and often fruitless battle. Little wonder then that many think it simply isn't worth the bother.

Jane Campbell is one of the most respected leaders of the disability movement and one of the most respected experts on social care, independent living and the transformation of public services. Jane does not think it acceptable that she remain effectively a prisoner of her local authority, at risk of life and limb if she should move to a different council. So she has set out to tear down one of the most glaring remnants of the old Poor Law that puts disabled people at the mercy of their parish.

Jon Bright (London, OK): It's been interesting to watch the writing coming out of the House of Lords blog, which is managing to quickly dispel my initial cynicism about the project (as someone naturally inclined to be cynical about people described as "Lords"). Despite the launch of the (admittedly very flash looking) Politics Home, I think it's this very simple Wordpress blog that has been the most interesting recent addition to the British "blogosphere." They're producing a good frequency of posts about a range of topics, from a number of different people, in a personal, open style - even responding seriously to their commenters. And the subject matter - both what Lords think, and what it is like to be one, couldn't be more perfectly suited to the blog format.

Jon Bright (London, OK): Wouldn't it be a shame if the House of Lords, which has just recently come over all Web 2.0, was swept away before any truly juicy details start to emerge from the blog? Well - probably something we could live with. The Financial Times reports today that cross-party talks on House of Lords reform, which are being led by Jack Straw, are nearing completion (which I came to via Peter Hoskin at the Coffee House). Agreement already exists in a number of areas: the new chamber will have 400 or so members, called "senators," who will be paid a salary (currently Lords can just claim expenses of around £80 a day). The senators will be 80% or 100% elected, on the basis of some sort of STV system, and will serve 12-15 years in three terms. Finally, it seems like existing life peers will be slowly phased out, with new senators elected in their place - whilst hereditary peers may be axed on the spot.

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): It's one of those moments when the peculiarities and contradictions of our current system are truly brought home. A group of peers have started a House of Lords blog which they're calling "Lords of the Blog". It will feature regular contributions from nine peers on the business of the House and their activities in and around the chamber. It is being organised by the Hansard Society with the aim "to help educate, raise awareness and engage with the public on a range of issues relating to the role and business of the House of Lords." They seem to be mostly crossbench or Lib-Dem peers with Lipsey for Labour and Norton for the Tories.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): One of the pleasures of getting the International Herald Tribune delivered every morning is that in addition to reading a real newspaper it carries occasional stories about this country from a refreshing perspective and you can see how strange the UK remains.

Peter Facey (London, Unlock Democracy): 2008 is set to be an important and busy year for democratic reformers, but it will also be a mixed one with some real opportunities, but also great dangers.This contrast is at its clearest in relation to our rights and freedoms: we have the real possibility of making progress on a proper Bill of Rights (which may come in January / February - though this, like all other dates given here, is merely guesswork); but at the same time we have the continued dangers of ID cards, the database state and government plans to extend detention without trial from an already too long 28 days to 42.

Stuart Weir  & Andrew Blick (Cambridge & London, Democratic Audit): Tony Wright MP has given Gordon Brown a great opportunity to act fast and dispel the idea that he is a ditherer. His Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) has just produced a report on cash-for-honours: the report recommends that the Prime Minister should cut the marketable value of a peerage as a political honour, by divorcing it from a seat in the House of Lords. The report also calls for a ban on 'tax exile lords'; measures for greater transparency in the honours list; and a new anti-corruption law. All very worthy. The committee has noted that all of these reforms could be implemented immediately by the Prime Minister without need for parliamentary approval. But therein lies the rub.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Where are the Liberal Democrats? Why are they not fighting for their views across the UK's blogland? Why are they not pushing forward the liberal and democratic agenda? What have they said that is authoritative about, for example, citizens juries and local referendums? Why are they letting the Tories set the pace even on supermarkets? Tell me that I am missing a well informed and vigorous cutting-edge discussion of these things from the party built on principles that oppose the big state and big corporate influence.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): According to a report in today’s Independent by Ben Russell, when John Prescott resigns from the Commons at the next election he is “expected” to “take a seat in the House of Lords”. This, it explains will be because “he wants to stay in his European role”? ‘What role is that’, you may ask? Why, he is the well known British representative on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe... Apart from the absurdity of a non-elected ‘representative’ on this so-called parliamentary body, I thought that Labour is committed to an elected second chamber and will spell this out in its manifesto. Do I detect one of those all too British erosions of such commitments by the steady gatherings of commitments to 'old chaps'? How can a Brown strategy of strengthening democracy and parliament be taken seriously in the face of apparently well-sourced stories such as these? Why not announce an immediate moratorium on all appointments to the Lords in preparation for its abolition? Instead, the same report tell us that a leading contender for John’s safe Labour seat in Hull East is his son David Prescott. It seems that this is the same David once of “Geronimo Communications” who got a dodgy pass giving him access to the Houses of Parliament. I suppose that if he gets the seat it will at least ensure another success for New Labour family life as well as retain the hereditary element in the lower chamber as an insurance against it being modernised away in the upper one. Even the Apaches could congratulate us on the preservation of tribalism.