Lords Reform - 21st May 2011

Lords reform isn’t top of anyone’s political agenda, few people ever write to me about it, and I do not relish the amount of parliamentary time that will be given over to it at the expense of other perhaps more pressing business.

The House of Lords is something that few of us would have designed, but finding it the way that it was and that –by and large-it worked reasonably well, I would have been inclined to leave it well alone.

The problem is though, that it wasn’t left alone. All but a rump of the hereditary peers were removed leaving an almost wholly appointed house. Each government of the day is now under enormous pressure to appoint new peers to get its own numbers up in order to avoid having its legislative programme wrecked by the Opposition, with the result that the house is getting unmanageably large. The consequence is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to put off fundamental reform. The old settlement has been broken by a half-baked reform and we really will now have to give the thought, energy, and legislative time to getting it right.

The Deputy Prime minister is right when he said that we shouldn’t let the ‘best’ become the enemy of the ‘good’. Reform has always failed in the past because neither house could agree on what form the reform should take. The point Mr Clegg was making is that there is common ground on which a reasonable consensus can be built -even if each of us, if left to ourselves, might have imagined that we would have come up with something much better. As a supporter of the Government’s proposals I hope he is right but it will be a very bumpy ride.

I believe that election is the essential qualification of legislator. A significant number MPs however, are opposed to electing any peers because that would give them the authority to challenge the Commons. They do not trust the assurance that political primacy would remain with the Commons. They believe that it is inevitable that an elected second chamber would demand more of the action.

For my own part I think that we would be better governed as a result of the creative tension between two elected houses: there might be fewer laws and they would be better scrutinised.

A second argument deployed against electing peers is that it would lead to the demise of the crossbenchers –those peers not associated with any political party, but who –having reached the pinnacle of their own particular professions- bring enormous experience and expertise to the proceedings. It is argued that these non party political experts would never seek election.

I am not convinced that this is true. I rather suspect that, having acquired a taste for politics, they will be inclined to find a berth in one of our political parties which, after all, are pretty broad churches. If they really can’t face the prospect of elections, then should they be legislating?

The one exception to election in the Government proposals, announced by the Deputy Prime Minister, are 12 Bishops of the Church of England (down from the current 26). This proposal seemed to draw particular fury from the Opposition benches. As far as I am concerned the reason for retaining the Bishops is obvious: we have an established church and Parliament still determines its doctrine, so it follows that the Bishops should be part of the process.

Of course, some would question the fact that we continue to have an established church, but if we start down that road it will make the row over Lords reform look like a vicarage tea party.