Lords reform 27 June 2011 The Times
Those who oppose parliamentary reform have used always four arguments. There is no public call for it; it will all end in constitutional collapse; it is vandalism to let the elected into our quiet groves of wisdom – they won’t handle things half as well as we do. And why fix what isn’t broken?
All these arguments were on full display in the Lords last week and will be, no doubt in the Commons debate today.
Its true the public are not clamouring for a democratic Lords. But they have told us clearly enough that they don’t like our way politics is, as the gap between Government and Governed grows wider. We need to respond to that call and the Lords cannot be exempted from this process.
What the constitutional armageddonists say they are frightened of, meanwhile is that elected Lords would challenge the primacy of the Commons. I don’t want to see that either. But why should it? There are 61 elected second Chambers around the world. In none has election of the second chamber led to threatening the primacy of the first. Is Britain’s constitution really so weak that it would risk collapse if its second chamber was elected, like the overwhelming majority of others worldwide? Those who extol the magical virtues of an unwritten constitution, cannot then say that nothing may ever change unless the consequences are written down!
As for wisdom versus democracy, well I concede; there is a reservoir of expertise in the Lords. But it is not evenly spread, unique, or, much of it, up to date either. Most of it exists on the cross benches. So if some find simple democracy too radical, maybe we should preserve this 20% provided they are independently appointed. That would be uncomfortable for those who think democracy best. But if that’s the price for an overwhelmingly elected Lords, then I, for one, would swallow it.
Then there’s the charge that a democratic Lords would mean a more political Lords (perish the thought!). As though it wasn’t political already! There are 201 ex-MPs who have humped their politics the short distance from the green benches in the Commons to the red ones in the Lords – not counting those who are there because they have filled Party coffers. The overwhelming majority of those who attend the Lords are there for political reasons and have a political job to do. We are – all of us – political placemen (or women), put there by a system of patronage, in the hands of those in power. I thought that went out with Stuart Kings!
Our second Chamber is too important to be a retirement home for ex-MPs passed their sell-by date (myself included), when it could be properly democratically elected.
The House of Lords is already political. How could it be otherwise? The question is whether its politicians are put there by the powerful – or the people.
The Lords should have two functions. The first is to be a revising Chamber. This it does well.
The second should to act as part of our system of checks and balances, to stand up to an over mighty executive, backed by an overwhelming majority in the Commons, when they try to do foolish things like the Poll Tax – or launching us into an illegal war. This we do, hardly at all. How can we? We are the Government’s creature.
The very first thing a new Government does is appoint enough new peers to create a majority for itself in the Lords, which replicates the one it has just won in the Commons! Which means we are all too frequently reduced to a reflection which magnifies the power of the Executive, rather than a counter balance which, subject to the Commons’ ultimate authority, checks it. We may have a bicameral system when it comes to the small thing of amending legislation. But when it comes to the big thing – acting as a check on the executive – ours is no more than a mono-cameral system with a bungalow annexe.
Last week Labour old warhorses in the Lords ignored their manifesto commitment to an elected Chamber and once again joined backwoodsmen of the Tory right to block radical change.
There is a chance for a great reform here. In the end, it may all depend on whether Labour in the Commons is prepared, to put its money where its manifesto was. If it doesn’t, then, we may lose another chance for change. Then we will know that, once again, Labour just cannot be trusted with reform.
760