House of Review

Never mind Clacton. Never mind Heywood and Middleton. Never mind Rochester and Strood. Another by-election looms. We are in the midst of the farcical process of electing a successor to the late Lord Methuen, one of the elected hereditary peers.

He was a Liberal Democrat. But he occupied one of the 15 seats that are elected by the whole House, meaning that all hereditary peers are eligible to be candidates and that all existing members are eligible to vote.

Anyone who would claim that this only went to prove the superiority of the previous system need look no further than several of those who are currently seeking re-entry to the parliamentary process among, after all, the only members of our second chamber to be elected by anyone.

This election is conducted according to the Alternative Vote, against which many Conservative and Labour peers campaigned vigorously when it was proposed for the House of Commons. Will they now abstain, rather than be party to its use in order to fill a seat in Parliament?

There are 90 elected hereditary peers, with seats reserved for Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Crossbenchers, as well the 15 of whom Lord Methuen was one. Like all peers, they have no constituency responsibilities. The whole point of them is that they are purely national figures.

In any new Senate of the United Kingdom, there would be no reason to change either the reserved representation of our several political traditions and of the principle of political independence, or the freedom of at least some of the second chamber’s members from responsibility for and to anything other than the United Kingdom as a whole. There would be powerful reasons for maintaining those features.

Every six years, each of the 99 lieutenancy areas would elect four Senators, one Labour, one Conservative, one Liberal Democrat, and one Crossbench.

Subject to the statutory requirements for parliamentary service, any registered voter in that area who was a member of the relevant party would be eligible to contest the first three, and any such voter who was not a member of any party would be eligible to contest the fourth. It is now possible to join all three of those parties in Northern Ireland.

Each of us would vote for one candidate in each category, and the highest scoring candidate in each would be elected. Campaigning would be restricted to the statutory free delivery by the Royal Mail. There would be no deposit, and no need to obtain a certain number of nominations.

A further 60 Senators would be elected by party lists in the 12 regions, again from among people living in each of them, and with each of us voting for one party, so that the five highest scoring parties would each secure a seat.

Parties wishing to contest these elections would be barred from contesting subsequent elections to the House of Commons. Plaid Cymru and the SDLP would be unlikely to accept that restriction. The SNP, the DUP and Sinn Féin would certainly not do so. Thus would the space be opened up for alternative voices.

However, the Greens and, after the gigantic reality check of the 2015 General Election, UKIP probably would accept the practical certainty of 12 Senators in place of the occasional possibility of one or two MPs. 

In addition, 10 members of the Labour Party, possibly extended to include the SDLP, would be elected by Labour, and possibly also SDLP, members of the House of Commons. That would be by a secret ballot, with each voting for one candidate, and with the highest scoring 10 elected. By the same means, a further 10 Labour members would be elected by all MPs.

Using this pattern, Conservatives, and possibly also Ulster Unionists, would elect 10 Senators, with 10 more elected by the whole House. Liberal Democrat, and possibly also Alliance Party, MPs would elect 10 Senators, with 10 more elected by the whole House. And MPs belonging to none of those three parties or blocs would elect 10 Senators, with 10 more elected by the whole House. Finally, the whole House would thus elect 20 Crossbenchers.

Any statutorily qualified person who was a member of the relevant party would be eligible to contest the first three categories of election, by self-nomination accompanied by a statement of perhaps 500 words. As, in the fourth case, would any member of any other registered political party, by no means necessarily with the endorsement of that party, as such. And as, in the fifth case, would anyone who was not a member of any party.

All other canvassing or campaigning would be prohibited, and voting would be in a room of the House of Commons on the day of the Senate Elections throughout the country, with the results announced by the Speaker from the Chair.

In addition to the existing powers of the House of Lords, the Senate would have the power to refer legislation back to the House of Commons, or to any of the devolved bodies, with the requirement of a two-thirds majority.

Unless EU legislation had passed both Houses as if it had originated in one or other of them, then it would not be able to have effect in the United Kingdom without a two-thirds majority in the Commons. The same would be true of rulings of either of the European Courts, or of the Supreme Court: confirmation by resolutions of both Houses, or by two thirds of the Commons.

Ministers would not be drawn from the Senate, but would be required to appear before it regularly. Sitting and recently retired Senators would not be permitted to contest elections to the Commons. Remuneration would be fixed at that of MPs.

In addition to the inclusion of other party and Crossbench contributions from every corner of the country, this system would compel Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to think and act within the parliamentary process as fully national parties.