Must Expertise Have a Vote?

One of the issues in the 2010 Parliamentary elections in the U.K. was reform of the House of Lords.  The upper house of the Parliament, none of its members are elected.  These days most are appointed, either by the Prime Minister or a special committee.  A committee of Parliament recently issued a report on a possible reform proposal, with a recommendation that any reform be subject to a public referendum.  However, members of the committee also published an alternative report (what might be called a minority report in the States), suggesting a serious difference of opinion(s) in Parliament about how to proceed.  Even so, reform of the House of Lords made it into the Queen’s Speech, the traditional outlining of the Parliamentary agenda for this year’s session.  There will be some pressure from Coalition leadership to proceed on the issue.

The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) in the U.K. is concerned about preserving what it sees as a wellspring of (scientific and engineering) expertise in Parliament.  To that end, they are concerned about House of Lords reform, and have issued a report with several recommendations.  Most of these recommendations are targeted at the science and technology support structure of the House of Lords – its Science and Technology Committee and the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.  Nothing particularly controversial or unexpected to hear from a science and technology advocacy group.

However, the first recommendation is what prompts the question at the title of this post, and some serious concerns.

The proportion of the House of Lords which is appointed should be increased to at least 30 percent.

The report provides some helpful context.  First, a draft House of Lords reform bill (issued in 2011 recommended that 20 percent of a new House of Lords be appointed.  CaSE notes that most of the scientists and engineers serving in the upper house were appointed by the special committee (and has recommended most of the appointments in a reformed house be through such a committee).

It seems to me that there are serious doubts that scientists and engineers in the U.K. would be either willing or able to win election to Parliament.  It also seems that CaSE (hopefully unintentionally) doesn’t see elected representatives as terribly effective in, well, representing.

“Increasing the proportion of appointed members in the Upper House will ensure it represents a wider breadth of expertise, includes independent voices, and decreases the influence of whips in the House who would direct the 200 elected, or ‘political’ members.” (page 7)

Maybe it’s my experience with American political (in)action, but there’s a fair amount of cynicism here.  That elected officials don’t represent independent voices, that they have a narrow breadth of expertise, and aren’t really accountable to the people, but the whips in the House.

Putting that aside, I’m not persuaded that twenty percent, or thirty percent, or any percent, of appointed members would guarantee the expertise they seek.  And CaSE really isn’t either.

“For peers who are scientists, engineers or academics by background, it is unusual for them to draw on their deep subject expertise in the daily business of Parliament: one thinks of Robert Winston speaking in a debate on human embryology as a rare example.”

“Beyond such opportunities, as Professor Martin Rees observed recently, “We’re all depressingly ‘lay’ outside our specialisms.” Most of the time, scientists operate in the Lords like the rest of their colleagues: on the basis of their experience, professional judgement, and common sense.” (page 2)

It’s not a particularly compelling argument to increase representation of expertise.  Couple this with the other recommendations to ensure non-voting expertise to support the House of Lords, it seems CaSE has failed to make the case that science and technology expertise necessarily requires a vote in order to be effective.  Doing so while also suggesting that a democratically-motivated reform not be so democratic, and it doesn’t look like science advocates care for democracy.

What would be some arguments to suggest that expertise should have a vote?  What kind of expertise, if any, should have a vote?