Unlock Democracys briefing on the House of Lords Reform Bill

About Us Unlock Democracy is the UKs leading campaign for democracy, rights and freedoms. A grassroots movement, we are owned and run by our members. In particular, we campaign for fair, open and honest elections, a stronger Parliament and accountable government, and a written constitution. We want to bring power closer to the people and create a culture of informed political interest and responsibility. Unlock Democracy runs the Elect the Lords campaign, for an elected second chamber. For more information about Unlock Democracy please see www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk Summary Unlock Democracy very much welcomes the House of Lords Reform Bill and in particular that 101 years after Parliament first stated its intention to move to an elected second chamber, a Bill is at last being debated in the House of Commons. This is a significant step forward in its own right and we urge MPs to debate these proposals in that spirit. Unlock Democracy is supportive of the proposals in the Bill. We are pleased that the government is moving ahead with plans for an elected second chamber, selected on a different basis from the House of Commons and that they are ending the link between the peerage and membership of the legislature. We also agree that the second chamber should be significantly smaller than it is at present. Many of the proposals in this Bill have been put forward either by the last Labour government or by cross party groups of MPs. We have no desire to see our, or indeed anyones, perfect model of reform preventing the implementation of an elected second chamber. However there are some areas where we believe that the Bill could be improved and we have set these out below. Specifically we propose four main changes to the Bill: There should not be reserved seats for faith representatives and if there are to be appointed ministers, they should only be members of the second chamber while they remain in office. 15 year non-renewable terms do not provide for adequate accountability. We suggest that this could be improved by introducing minimum attendance requirements, a system of excluding members for misconduct and recall so that voters can petition to remove elected members of the second chamber. Primacy of the House of Commons should be further reaffirmed by setting up a new Joint Committee to consider the working practices of the two chambers, only allowing ministers to sit in the House of Commons and re-stating the provisions relating to financial privilege. A new clause to allow for a citizens veto referendum, whereby 5% of electors can trigger a referendum on whether to implement the Bill. These proposals are all explored in detail below and we look forward to engaging constructively with MPs and the government as this Bill is debated.

Composition
The Bill proposes an 80% elected second chamber with the remaining appointed peers being nominated by an independent appointments commission and up to 12 seats reserved for Church of England Bishops (clause 1). Unlock Democracy supports a fully elected second chamber, although we recognise that an 80% elected second chamber is a significant improvement on the fully appointed chamber we have at present. If there are to be appointed members of the second chamber, then we agree with the government that these appointments should be made by an independent appointments commission and not on the basis of political patronage. We also support the creation of a parliamentary committee to oversee the work of the appointments commission. Ways to improve the Bill End the reserved seats for the Church of England Unlock Democracy does not support specific places for religious representation in the second chamber. Rather we believe that these views can be represented by - and to - elected members.( While we recognise that the Church of England is an established church and are not seeking to change this, we note that the Church of Scotland does not enjoy a similar privilege while the Church of Wales is excluded altogether; it is therefore inconsistent for a parliament which is intended to represent the United Kingdom as a whole to include this Church of England representation. This continued representation in the legislature is an anomaly that should be rectified. If someone is appointed to the second chamber to serve as a Minister, their membership of the second chamber should end with their ministerial office Clause 4 of the Bill proposes that up to 8 people could be appointed by the Prime Minister to serve as ministers in the government. They would serve for the electoral period that they are appointed and the next two terms - so up to 15 years (subsection 4). Unlock Democracy would prefer Ministers not to be appointed to the second chamber but if this is to happen we support the recommendation of the Joint Committee that members appointed to the House of Lords specifically as Ministers should cease to be Members on the termination of their ministerial appointment. This reflects the special circumstances under which they came to be Members and will ensure that political patronage cannot be reintroduced to the chamber. It is notable that when Gordon Brown appointed policy experts from outside politics to the House of Lords to serve in a government of all talents, they only remained in post for short periods - in most cases serving less than two years. Equally Lord Wei who was appointed to the House of Lords by David Cameron to be an adviser on the Big Society, resigned this unpaid post after less than a year. Yet they all remain as members of the House of Lords. We do not believe that this should be allowed in a reformed chamber.

Accountability
One of the key arguments for a democratic second chamber is that those who make our laws should be accountable. As currently drafted however, this Bill does not deliver on that promise. While non2
Unlock Democracy 37 Grays Inn Road London WC1X 8PQ www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk

renewable terms of office encourage independence they do limit the possibilities for holding those in office to account. In our evidence to the Joint Committee, Unlock Democracy recommended 10 year terms of office that could be renewed once. However we recognise that there is consensus around longer nonrenewable terms and that accountability will need to be built into the new chamber in other ways. One of the simplest and most effective ways of addressing this is introduce a system of recall. Although the government did initially talk about introducing recall for elected members of the second chamber, they have not included this in the Bill. We believe that this is a fundamental weakness. Ways to improve the Bill Introduce a minimum attendance requirement Unlock Democracy believes that it is right to expect elected members to pay a full role in the second chamber. We therefore support the recommendation of the Joint Committee that elected members should have to stand for re-election at the next general election if they fail to attend over 50 per cent of sitting days in a session, without good reason. A decision to force a member to stand for reelection on these grounds would have to be agreed to by the House, on a report from the Privileges and Conduct Committee, to ensure that members with extenuating circumstances were not penalised inappropriately. Include provision for a review of the issue of non-renewable terms once the chamber has been fully established Unlock Democracy believes that 10 year terms that can be renewed once would be a better system for the second chamber. However we recognise that this is not the consensus view at the moment and that a term of 15 years is a considerable improvement on appointment for life. However we believe that this is something that should be reviewed once the chamber is established. Introduce a system of recall for elected members Whilst we recognise that the government is planning to bring forward a separate recall bill that would apply to the House of Commons as well as a reformed second chamber, Unlock Democracy believes that it is important that recall provisions are set out in this bill. We support a model of recall in which, if 5% of the voters in an electoral district calls for it, a recall ballot must be held on the same day as the next second chamber election. Only members of the second chamber not facing re-election in this election could be recalled in this way. Petitioners must give a reason for recalling the member, but it could be for any reason - not restricted to parliament having already disciplined the member. If 50% of those who vote support recalling the individual, that member will be excluded from the chamber. The number of members to be elected for that constituency in the subsequent election will then be increased by one. We believe this model would ensure accountability throughout the term of office of members of the second chamber without adding an unnecessary administrative burden or disadvantaging minority
3
Unlock Democracy 37 Grays Inn Road London WC1X 8PQ www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk

candidates. The system of increasing the number of members to be elected for that particular constituency could also be used to fill casual vacancies at the next opportunity.

Primacy of the House of Commons

Unlock Democracy does not believe that an elected second chamber would inevitably undermine the supremacy of the House of Commons - which is based on its powers and functions, not just its method of selection. However we welcome the governments inclusion of Clause 2 which formally states that the Parliament Acts would apply to the reformed chamber. This is undoubtedly an improvement on the draft Bill which made no mention of the powers of the second chamber. The Fixed Terms Parliament Act has also re-affirmed the primacy of the House of Commons as the only chamber that can provide confidence to the government of the day. However we believe that the Bill could go further to allay concerns about the relationship between the House of Commons and the new elected chamber. Ways to improve the Bill Ministers should only be allowed to sit in the House of Commons. One of the key elements of the primacy of the House of Commons is that the government of the day can only remain in office as long as it has the confidence of the House of Commons. This principle has been reaffirmed in the Fixed Term Parliament Act. Unlock Democracy believes that government ministers should sit only in the House of Commons. Set up a Joint Committee to agree new working practices Unlock Democracy agrees with the Joint Committee that it is simply not practicable to seek to codify the conventions that currently govern the relationship between the two chambers. However it will be necessary and desirable for the two chambers to establish a means of defining and agreeing the conventions governing the relationship between the two Houses, and thereafter keeping them under review. Unlock Democracy believes that the establishment of this arrangement should be included in the Bill. We support the Joint Committees recommendation that any new conventions or modifications of existing conventions should be promulgated by the adoption of a "concordat" in the form of parallel, identical resolutions prepared by a Joint Committee and adopted in each House. We would expect that this would include establishing a permanent mechanism, such as a Joint Committee, to deal with any disagreement there may be between the two chambers. Whilst we have set out our views on how this could be done in our evidence on the draft Bill, it is important that it is negotiated and agreed between the two chambers. Formally state that the House of Commons has financial primacy Financial privilege is fundamental to the primacy of the House of Commons and at a time of crisis must not be called into question. The resolutions regarding financial primacy of the House of Commons date back to 1671 and 1678; this may a good opportunity for restating them. This could be done very simply by adding a new clause that schedule x shall have effect and repeating the original seventeenth century wording in the schedule.

4
Unlock Democracy 37 Grays Inn Road London WC1X 8PQ www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk

Referendum
We recognise that reform of the House of Lords is a significant constitutional change and that some politicians and voters feel there should be a referendum to endorse this change. The UK does not have any constitutional provision that sets out when we should or should not hold referendums which always makes this issue more contentious. For example referendums were not held when the composition of the second chamber was changed in 1958 (the introduction of the life peers) or 1999 (removal of all but 92 of the hereditary peers) but have been held to introduce elected mayors. Unlock Democracy believes there should be a referendum but only if there is public support for it: specifically we think the referendum should be triggered by the public signing a petition calling for one, say by a threshold of 5% of voters. Unlock Democracy recently commissioned a YouGov opinion poll on Lords reform which found that 62% thought the public should be able to trigger a referendum. Ways to improve the Bill Introduce a citizens veto referendum Unlock Democracy is proposing that a rejective referendum, more commonly known as a citizens veto, be added to the House of Lords Reform Bill. This would mean adding a clause to the Bill stating that that once Royal Assent has been granted, opponents of reform would have a limited period of time, usually one year, to collect a specified number signatures, such as 5% of the electorate, to trigger a referendum. The Bill would need to state when the referendum would be held if the petition was successful; the most obvious date for this would be the 2015 general election but it could be combined with other elections. A similar mechanism whereby a petition signed by 5% of electors triggers a referendum on whether or not to have a directly elected mayor, already exists in the Local Government Act 2000. 14 referendums have already been triggered this way. If campaigners in Bedford, Stoke on Trent, Doncaster, Ealing and Salford were able to do this, then opponents of Lords reform should also be able to do so, if there is genuine antipathy to the proposals.

Electoral System
Unlock Democracy welcomes the fact that the government have chosen what is, in effect, an open list system for Great Britain. The system is proportional and allows voters to support either a party or an individual candidate, balancing the need for voter choice with the need for a simple, easy to understand system. This system also facilitates the inclusion of independent candidates which is important; they are in effect treated as individual political parties. In Northern Ireland the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system will be used, the discussion below refers to the list system being proposed for Great Britain. Unlike in partially open list systems, such as the one used in Belgium, people who vote just for the party are not deemed to support the partys list, making it much easier for lower ranked candidates to get elected if they are genuinely popular. A key question about this proposed system is whether the rule which requires candidates to get at least 5% of the party vote to leapfrog (Schedule 3 subsection 6) over the list is set too high or not. We are currently considering other systems around the world to
5
Unlock Democracy 37 Grays Inn Road London WC1X 8PQ www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk

see how this might work in practice and whether the threshold should be set lower or even removed altogether. Political parties may want to think about other ways that they can involve their members in choosing the order that candidates are on the list: parties who fail to place genuinely popular candidates or candidates from sufficiently diverse backgrounds at the top of their lists may find their electoral prospects harmed by internal divisions. They may also want to consider mechanisms such as zipping, whereby male and female candidates are alternated between each other on the party list, to ensure gender balance in the reformed chamber. While in principle Unlock Democracy supports a system that gives voters the opportunity to transfer their support between different candidates and even different parties, we recognise that there is a point at which offering such choice can be confusing to the electorate. An STV style system, for example, quickly becomes impractical when electing more than five candidates at once. If the voter has to choose between dozens of candidates, the level of choice can simply be overwhelming. This is particularly pertinent when considering that voters in the South East will be electing sixteen candidates at each election. Therefore we believe that, unless smaller constituencies are used, the proposed system represents a very good compromise between voter choice and complexity. However in Northern Ireland, where only three candidates are being elected at any one time these problems do not arise and the use of STV is sensible and practical. Ways of improving the Bill Introduce a 5% threshold? Although the electoral system already operates a threshold (for example even in the largest region, to be guaranteed a seat a candidate needs over 6% of the vote), in practice however a candidate could get elected with much less support due to the uneven distribution of the vote. It may be worth stating in the Bill that a party or candidate who receives less than 5% cannot win a seat. This provision already exists for elections to the European Parliament and the Greater London Assembly. Greater proportionality The Bill intends to use the method for counting the ballots that is used in the Netherlands, Argentina and Poland: i.e. at each stage in the count, parties votes will be divided by the number of candidates they have already had elected, plus 1. We recommend using the method adopted in New Zealand, Germany and Denmark: where each partys votes are divided by twice the number of candidates they have had elected plus 1. Both methods give very similar results, but the method included in the Bill generally favours larger parties. To ensure that the second chamber is more independent, we recommend the system which would generally favour smaller parties and independent candidates.

Size
Unlock Democracy welcomes the proposal that at 450 members (or 462 with the Bishops) the reformed second chamber will be considerably smaller than at present. The House of Lords currently has over 800 members and is second in size only to Chinas National Party Congress. Unlock Democracy believes that the second chamber can be even smaller than is proposed in this Bill but we believe that this should be reviewed once the new chamber has been established.
6
Unlock Democracy 37 Grays Inn Road London WC1X 8PQ www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk