House of Lords: Reform

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and the words “dinosaur” and “roadblock to reform” do not appear in my speech. Many compelling arguments have already been put to your Lordships, and I am sure that more such arguments will be advanced during this debate, but there is one with which I should like to deal straightaway. That is the argument put by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, who seemed to say that this place does not suffer a democratic deficit and that, consequently, the proposed reforms are not to the point. She argued that the scale of the House's outreach and its collective wisdom constitute a kind of democratic system. This is to allow a much more flexible definition of democracy than is usual. Democracy is based on direct elections to key institutions. This House is a key institution; it is a legislating body. Without elections, it is simply not democratic.

However, the number and diversity of the arguments already advanced may work to obscure the key question here, which is this: are there areas absolutely central to our national public life where we should act to exclude the most basic principles of democracy? If the answer to this question is yes, as many noble Lords seem to advocate in discussion of reform of this House, then what are sufficient grounds for excluding these basic principles?

We have already heard, and will hear, a large number of well argued grounds advanced in favour of the exclusion of basic democratic principles. We have the issues of the primacy of the Commons, of the size and composition of the House, of the method of election, of the damage of loss of expertise, and of the danger of wrecking a system that has worked and works well. I suppose that there will even be the question of what paid Peers are supposed to do during Recess. There is also the question of orderly transition.

Since this morning, we have had the paper of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, setting out to demonstrate that the proposed reforms would cost £433 million, which I am afraid I have not had the chance to analyse except to be relieved that it does not appear to contain a cost of £250 million for electronic voting machines.

However, these real concerns seem to me not in themselves to present sufficient grounds for overriding basic democratic principles. Arguments over size and composition are surely secondary to arguments over the applicability of the democratic principle of elected representation. The issues of size, composition and length of term can surely be resolved by detailed deliberations over the next nine months or so. The method of election also seems resolvable by looking at what already happens in the devolved nations and in elections to the European Parliament.

I realise that the issue of what paid Peers will do in the Recess is non-trivial in that it will inevitably overlap with the duties and responsibilities of MPs. However, the White Paper allows for regional responsibilities with no direct duplication of Commons constituencies. After all, MEPs already exist alongside MPs, as do AMs, MSPs and MLAs.

Many of your Lordships have advanced the argument that the Government’s proposals would result in what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, has called “an act of folly of heroic proportions” in the loss of the accumulated wisdom and expertise in appointed Members. But is this a powerful enough argument for overriding the most basic principle of a democratic system? As my noble friend Lord Tyler pointed out, this wisdom is easily available elsewhere and is not then restricted by the essentially capricious and limited nature of appointments. It seems disproportionate to deny the essentials of democracy simply to preserve in the Chamber what is readily accessed outside it.

There is then the argument that says, essentially, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. This might frame the discussion in an unhelpful and misleading way. It seems entirely possible, and even reasonable, to argue that while the House performs well, as it does, it suffers from an obvious and correctable lack of legitimacy. It seems wrong, on the face of it, to oppose democratic change simply out of satisfaction with an undemocratic system and a belief, perhaps, that change necessarily means worse.

There is then the issue of the primacy of the Commons. Would an elected or mostly elected upper House affect the relationship with the Commons? The answer is surely that it would. An elected upper Chamber would have a legitimacy that is clearly lacking today—indeed, that is to my mind the clearest argument for an elected upper House. This legitimacy would strengthen the voice of this House in debate and deliberation.

The question is whether this new relationship would be likely to damage the fundamental operations of our democracy. Would a democratically elected upper Chamber damage the whole democratic apparatus of government, scrutiny, debate and revision? There are two strong reasons, at least, for supposing that it would not. First, there is the genius of an unwritten constitution that allows for flexibility and organic development. There is no necessity now for us to be prescriptive in any detailed sense about the future relationship between the two Houses. This relationship has changed fairly frequently and very fundamentally over the centuries as circumstances have changed. There are strong grounds for allowing adjustments to happen to accommodate changing circumstances.

Secondly, it is certainly within the power of the Commons, if it chooses, to reassert its primacy in whatever Bill is presented to Parliament in a way that makes it unequivocally clear that ultimate authority lies, and continues to lie, with the other place.

What is at issue here is essentially the application of what is surely a fundamental democratic principle—that the people must be able to choose those who legislate on their behalf. Legitimacy is based on representation and consent; neither applies to the House as it is currently constituted. Nearly 400 years ago, Thomas Rainsborough put it well. He said:

“I think it is clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought firstly by his own consent put him under that government”.

It is true, of course, that Rainsborough’s colleagues later went on to abolish the House of Lords. I do not think that we should go that far. Election, I feel strongly, is a better option.