House of Lords Reform

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Shuker]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates the point that I was just about to make. Some people in this country view proportional representation as a more legitimate system of representation, although I and many Members of this House would disagree, so there must be safeguards to prevent the second Chamber taking on the mantle of that legitimacy. In my view, a wholly elected upper House would be the best way to manage that change. Specifically, what would be of most benefit would be to ensure that there was no constituency link between Members of that Chamber and the places they sought to represent.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I am perplexed by the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that we should confer legitimacy on the upper House and then prevent it taking on the mantle of that legitimacy.

[Gavin Shuker]

The hon. Gentleman and I obviously have different opinions on the definition of that legitimacy. There is a type of legitimacy that is very important—the legitimacy of being able to look people in the eye, having stood for election, and hold the mandate of being elected. Equally, there is an issue of accountability. If the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) were here, I am sure he would stand up and say that the most accountability and legitimacy he would have would be with Mrs Bone, because he has a particular one-to-one relationship. [Interruption.] Obviously, I should not speak about him when he is not here. I hold a level of legitimacy and authority with the constituents I represent—100,000 or so—and believe that that would be an unfair level of legitimacy, accountability and authority to bestow on the other place in its new and revised form. I think that that indirect accountability is probably the best way to achieve the balance between having an elected House and not threatening the rights and responsibility of Members in this House to represent their constituents. I think that a party list system would probably be the best way to achieve that. There are many arguments for and against it, and I look forward to the Joint Committee looking at that in more detail.

I want to discuss one other area in relation to which I feel that a 100% elected system would be best: the selection of bishops in the House of Lords. I am a Christian. I am quite overt about that and very proud of my Christian faith. I want to see more Christians and people from other faiths coming into Parliament, but I find it very difficult to defend a system under which we choose a certain group over-represented or to always have a seat in that Chamber. I buy into the liberal idea that there is a round table around which we all get to come together and make our voices heard, and, although I do not feel that that position is always held in this Chamber or in the other place, I believe that that second Chamber could be a place where people go with their own representational legitimacy to make their case, and to make it well, without relying on the fact that they are there simply because of who they are in their own organisations or through right of birth.

The proper way to get more people of faith into our institutions is to encourage more people of faith to stand and make their case for election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

Why are we discussing constitutional matters in this way? Is this how we should talk about our constitution? Is this how we think such matters should be discussed? Have we forgotten what a constitution is? Do we really think that something which constitutes the rules of the game, and which is supposed to protect our citizens against us, is something that we can somehow arrange in darkened rooms on the basis of 22 words out of 20,000 and three-line-whip through on a rainy afternoon? If we are here for the purpose of democracy, let us deal with the issue in a democratic way.

All of us in this House believe that there is a crisis of accountability and democracy. Let us make not only the outcome democratic; let us make the process democratic too. Let us have the confidence to open it up. Let us accept that constitutional issues are not like other laws, and that we cannot push through constitutional change in the same way that we change the treatment of wild animals in circuses. There is a reason for that.

Constitutions have traditionally emerged either from revolutionary fervour or slow historical evolution, yet we now behave as though they can simply be downloaded from the internet and, with a single press of the “replace all” key, be adjusted to any nation. We are going around the world doing that to other people, and now we are going to do it to ourselves. We are sending out British consultants to lecture Kenyans on governance and Egyptians on democracy, and we are writing constitutions for Iraq and holding elections for Afghanistan, and we are about to do it for ourselves with the same lack of success, because we lack the same thing. In all these cases, we fail because we fail to engage with the nation—with its imagination and desires. Instead, we treat this as a technical exercise. All the issues that have been raised today—who should be in that other House, what that House should do, how its Members should be selected, why it should be changed—are important not just because they are technical details, but because they matter for our country. They matter for our citizens, and the citizens should be allowed to speak about them.

The question of who is to be in the other place is not about what we in this House think should be the balance between elected politicians and the people down the other end of the corridor; it is about what the people think. Do they agree with the shadow Minister that our debates are of a far higher quality and that our expertise can be ranged against that of the other place; or if they were to spend some time in both this House and the other place might they think that teachers, policemen, professors and scientists have something to contribute that matters to them—that is valuable and that they appreciate?

What are we trying to create? Who are these senators with their 15-year terms? What will people make of these monsters of pride, with all the disadvantages and all the unaccountability—they will never stand for election again—sitting on their red Benches, swathed in their ermine robes, without the expertise of others, and able to claim a mandate from the people that conveys power without responsibility? Why are we doing this? We are doing it because the public is angry with us. Under the cloak of democracy and legitimacy, we are switching things around. It is as though our constituents had asked us to repair a leak in the school roof, and we have said, “Don’t worry, we’ve repaired a leak in the church.”

Please let us put our democratic principles into the process. Let us have a free vote at least. Ideally, two thirds of this House should vote for a constitutional change. The Labour party gave us a free vote, and I say to the shadow Ministers that they should stick to it. We should have a free vote on constitutional issues.

Finally, let us accept that if no crisis demands it, and if the public is indifferent and the other side is uninterested, then this reform is uncalled for. We should not let unfocused measures detached from urgent needs or our nation drive us towards a decision that will undermine trust, which is the only foundation of our legitimacy.