Sarah Sackman - Evidence in Review
On 4 October the Commission met with Sarah Sackman as it continues to develop its discussions around reform of the second chamber. Sarah Sackman is a public interest barrister and a community campaigner who is part of the Labour Party’s constitutional review led by Gordon Brown.
It was identified that the UK is in a constitutional moment where there is a grassroots desire to change things at the top. In a deeply unequal country, centralisation at Westminster is a significant part of the problem. It was recognised that radical reform of the centre and devolving power to the regions could be an important route to solving this.
The Commission considered the purpose of the UK and particularly its second chamber, and discussed the idea of minimum rights it should be guaranteeing to its citizens. The status quo is an anachronism, with large numbers of hereditary peers and a dubious appointments process. Polling suggests over 70 percent of the electorate would support reform of the House of Lords.
Discussion turned to what could replace the second chamber, and it was considered that a reformed chamber could exercise new powers which safeguard the UK’s constitution. The new chamber could be a strong check on the executive in exercising these constitutional safeguarding powers. Its role would be to protect the constitutional balance of power between the Commons and the devolved parliaments. It could have a form of veto on constitutional statutes such as the Parliament Act or the Human Rights Act. Constitutional conventions, like the Sewel convention, could be placed on a statutory footing to give a new second chamber oversight of them. This would not have to be an absolute veto, but it could be sent back to the Commons who could need a two thirds majority to make amendments.
Whilst it was recognised that current scrutiny from the House of Lords of the House of Commons is decidedly a good thing, the second chamber does not reflect the geographic make-up of the country. A new chamber would therefore provide better representation for the regions and nations of the UK, as opposed to the presently south-eastern dominated Lords. Addressing national and regional imbalances would be a good step towards remedying other inequalities in our democratic set up.
It was discussed that at present in the Lords, only around 300 peers regularly attend and perform the bulk of the work. The size of the chamber could be reduced to around 300 peers, who could be elected on a different cycle to the Commons. The Commission discussed that these peers could be elected on fixed terms, for instance of seven years, allowing members to take a long-term view but avoiding the atrophy of the current system.
It was discussed that resistance may come from the Commons, who could see a new chamber as a fetter on their power, particularly if it is perceived to have a form of veto. It may also come from the Lords itself, whom the Commission recognised includes many that do an excellent job but who may be sceptical of changing the status quo. It was considered that a new second chamber may lack legitimacy if debates around it did not have a strong participatory element.
It was ultimately recognised, however, that recent issues around the ethics and standards of our politicians has increased the feeling amongst many that Britain isn’t working, and a long-term project for a new second chamber could represent a better future for a more effective and representative state.