A real House of Commons

By Daniel Wood

Momentum is currently building in Westminster in relation to how we should reform our second chamber – the House of Lords. However, this momentum has not been matched by even the slightest sign of revolutionary zeal.

Last Tuesday, Nick Clegg launched the broad ambitions of the government. One of the few positives of having the Liberal Democrats in government was supposed to be that they would be a new broom to rid the country of constitutional anachronisms. They have patently failed – suggesting not one new idea about how the Lords could better reflect the country it serves.

It is not just the Liberal Democrats – both Labour and the Conservatives have also failed to demonstrate any originality of thought. The debate has centred solely on whether the Lords should be either 100% elected, 100% appointed, or some combination of the two.

I strongly believe this to be a mistake and the result of Westminster opinion that nothing could be of less importance to people than Lords reform. While other issues, such as the economy, are undoubtedly of greater, immediate concern, people are also interested in issues pertaining to constitutional reform. I think the fact that 35.4% of Londoners turned-out to vote in the AV referendum, despite there being no local elections, is testament to this. Indeed, some commentators predicted turnout as low as 10%.

Despite such interest from the public over AV – and whether it was because of genuine interest in the issue at hand, or because people wanted to give Nick Clegg a ‘kicking’ – I am sure no MP would disagree that people continue to feel the gap between themselves and the political establishment is widening. Therefore, it is vital for our democracy that we take whatever measures we can to challenge this perception and make people feel that they can be part of the decision-making process. Reform of the House of Lords should be our Trojan horse.

This, to date, has not been the case though as many treat constitutional reform as an elitist pastime. I could not disagree more. What could be more important than creating a just and representative basis by which we pass our country’s laws, affecting people’s wallets, children and healthcare?

The reforms I propose aim to highlight the significance with which Lords reform should be considered, while also desiring to throw a spanner in the works of the established mechanisms by which our politics is conducted.

Lord Whitty wrote a fine article in 2008, in which he argued that “composition [of the Lords] is a key issue – law makers need to be representative and accountable to those to whom the law applies.” Being representative is indeed key, but Lord Whitty said to achieve this a 100% elected chamber was vital. I believe there to be another way the desire of a more representative and accountable second chamber can be achieved.

While any new House of Lords will rightly have to incorporate elected members, I would like to see ordinary members of the public sit in there, too. Why not have the single parent and grandmother, the builder, graduate and teacher, the unemployed father and the disabled daughter sitting in the Lords as well?

In my view there are severe problems in having a second chamber comprised solely, or largely, of elected members, as is the government’s wish.

What I fear from a wholly elected second chamber is that the foundation of its mandate would mirror the Commons’. This would serve to undermine the supremacy of the lower House which should be preserved at all costs. Instead, the reformed House of Lords should continue to be a check and balance on the power of the commons but not become a rival to it; something Lord Whitty also argued.

Another concern is that the party structures, which remain ever so strong in the commons, would then also invade the upper house. Despite all the problems with the Lords, it is nonetheless much more independently minded than the commons and I believe this characteristic should also be preserved at all costs.

So if one of our key aims is to protect Lords’ autonomy, having a representative sample of ordinary citizens sitting there would help to ensure this. The grandmother would ask what is best for her grandchildren and pensioners; the builder would ask what policies are best for growth in house building; the teacher would ask how best we may ensure social mobility within our education system; and the graduate could use their experiences to inform how best to make the job market more responsive to the needs of the young.

As a starting point I would suggest that people be selected to sit in the Lords in a similar manner to which people are selected for jury service: randomly, by computer, from the electoral register. This would render impossible any form of political tampering and ensure a cross-section of the community was selected. Furthermore, while the ratio between the elected and citizenry elements would need to be debated, I would initially float the proposal of having it 60% elected, using a fully proportional system (preferably STV), 20% appointed, and 20% citizenry. This, I believe, would satisfy the dual democratic requisites of giving people their right to stand for election and giving the country its right to have representatives with independence of mind.

A popular criticism against this idea will be one that is commonly used against holding referenda: that the ordinary person is not informed enough to make such important decisions. I could not disagree more. People care and, in fact, their non-political backgrounds would offer a new and welcome perspective when forming our laws.

Lastly, this idea may sound like lunacy to some, but they should remember that it worked well for the Ancient Greeks and there is no reason why it should not work well for us. People want a more transparent and engaging political system and this idea satisfies both those requirements.

Nick Clegg, over to you.