Why 200-mile ping-pong for Lords just isn’t cricket
DAFT-SOUNDING House of Lords stories in mid-July would normally go straight into the ‘silly season’ bin. Little is normal nowadays, though, so I’ll accord them at least a modicum of seriousness.
First story: one of England’s statistically least successful Test cricket captains seems about to become a national legislator – possibly as reward for sharing the Prime Minister’s views on Brexit.
Now, I applaud unreservedly Sir Ian Botham’s exceptional cricketing achievements. I never questioned his knighthood – despite personally finding the whole empire-echoing ‘honours’ system anachronistic and repellent.
Nor am I suggesting his qualifications as a national legislator are any less than, say, those of his England cricket captain predecessors – like Lord (David) Sheppard, an Anglican Bishop of Liverpool, or famous Wulfrunian and indisputably successful England captain Baroness (Rachel) Heyhoe Flint.
My objection is simple. To have half a bicameral (two-chamber) national legislature composed of Christian clerics, famous sportspersons, entertainers, academics, businesspersons, charity fundraisers, ex-MPs and other ‘worthies’, arbitrarily and politically appointed, rather than accountably elected and sackable, diminishes both the ‘House of Lords’ itself and our whole political system.
Second story: the Prime Minister proposed recently “establishing a Government hub in York” (no mention of Birmingham), which could temporarily accommodate both the Lords and Commons during the Palace of Westminster’s urgently needed restoration.
It sounds like the latest half-baked BoJo vanity project – another Boris Island Airport in the Thames Estuary, or ‘floating paradise’ Garden Bridge across the Thames. And the chances of anything resulting, especially if those affected ever vote on it, seem remote.
However, constitutionally it’s not the worst such recent rumour. That came in February when Downing Street was reportedly “talking to developers” about moving just the House of Lords to York – all 800-odd members plus staff, apparently.
As the Speaker himself observed this week, our PM behaves ever more presidentially, resenting any and all scrutiny. So, shifting a whole House of potential scrutineers 200 miles away must have seemed genius – constitutional change by stealth. Now only those pesky MPs to dodge. Unfortunately, he’s saddled with the UK having a centuries-old bicameral legislature, with two assemblies sharing power, albeit unequally. Nobody asked us, but it is a democratic choice. Unicameralism is cheaper, which is why considerably more countries prefer it.
In principle, though, bicameralism is good. An effective second chamber
– which need not be over twice the size of the world’s next largest – allows representation of specific territorial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural communities. It should improve scrutiny and provide checks and balances in the legislative process.
But not if, rather than even partially elected, it is largely prime ministerially appointed, and then easily brushed aside for not being representative and accountable.
And, if that happens when the two chambers operate in the same building, how much greater the marginalisation at 200 miles distance.
There is a constitutional term, ‘navette’, for the shuttle process that should be an integral part of legislative dispute resolution between the two chambers in a bicameral legislature.
Possibly because it’s French, Westminster never uses it, preferring – yes, you guessed – ‘‘ping-pong’’. In our case, as in France, Germany, and Ireland, it’s technically ‘navette, with lower house decisive’, particularly on money bills, which the Lords are nowadays prohibited from amending.
So, my conclusions? First, forget moving just the Lords to York. Currently, the Cote d’Ivoire Republic (formerly Ivory Coast) has reputedly the most geographically separated legislature, the Assembly in Abidjan and Senate in Yamoussoukro, 146 miles apart via the A3. York: 202 miles via the A1.
Second, greatest priority by far for the Lords is not to move it, but reform and democratise its membership.
Chris Game, Institute of Local Government Studies, University of
Birmingham