Good Lord(s)
Posted by Owen Sanderson on February 10th, 2007
This is almost a seamless transition from the discussion of Britishness we see above, into a questioning of the proposed changes to the House of Lords as outlined by Jack Straw. The House of Lords is that old cliché, peculiarly British. Its role has been relatively unclear since at least 1867, though I’m not going to get all historian on you. The creation of Life Peers in 1953 introduced a fundamentally new principle to the membership of the House of Lords, meaning that a peerage could be awarded without creating an entire dynasty of aristocrats. Few would dispute that this raised the calibre of the House of Lords somewhat. However, it also raised the attendant problems of corruption and cronyism that still plague the system (it’s nothing new; the greatest politician of the last century fell from grace because of Lords corruption)
The latest Lords reform was of course in 1999, the infamous compromise of 92 hereditary peers and nominees from all the major parties. This was public stated as a temporary measure, and it is the temporary nature of the reform, along with the current climate of scandal and criminal wrongdoing that is allowing Jack Straw to try to push on the agenda of Lords Reform.
Unfortunately, nobody seems to have thought about why we need to reform the House of Lords. As Lord Adonis said on his visit to Clare Politics (there will hopefully be video coming soon) many of the Lords are old, and many sessions are ill-attended. However, as he also pointed out, many are exceptionally skilled, with vast experience in various areas of life. Furthermore, lords are chosen as Life peers, meaning they are not constantly beholden to the party whips. Lord Adonis himself represents another facet of the strength of the present Lords system- it is a back door for able advisors to take up ministerial roles, and a source of continuity and stability in government. Philip Cowley also spoke about the House of Lords on his visit to Clare Politics, and he pointed out that the House of Lords has never been more effective as a revising and moderating chamber, and there is every reason to believe that it could continue to be just as effective if there was a Conservative government. It makes good sense to try a system that has produced such a dramatic improvement for more than 8 years.
The removal of the remaining hereditary peers would be a sensible and moderate reform, and this would not create a ‘House of Cronies’. A Prime Minister, if they do well, has a decade in office, and most have far less. A peer, if appointed at the age of 50, might well have 30 years in the Lords. An appointed House of Lords, even if composed solely of the ‘cronies’ of all major parties, would be a cross-section of the political opinion and expertise of the past 30 years or so.
Finally, there is the empirical argument: is there any evidence to suggest that Britain is governed any worse for having an appointed second chamber? I can’t think of any failing of government that a more democratic second chamber would not have exacerbated. Discuss. If you want the opposing view, take a look here
Filed under: constitution, electoralreform, history, labour, ukpolitics on February 10th, 2007
Your arguments (and those of many others) neatly side-step the difficulties of devising methods of appointing and/or electing a second chamber which command general confidence and, in particular, let the electorate feel that it is ultimately in control of its own affairs.
There also appears to be general confusion (in the minds of politicians and the media) between the specialist advisory role of the second chamber (advice, incidentally, which is usually based on long experience rather than continuing active involvement), and its ‘revising and moderating’ role. These are not inseparable.
But the constitutional problem remains that legislation can in theory be determined by those who have benefited from religious preference, inheritance or an opaque appointment system.
I put it to you that these uncomfortable bedfellows, in their different ways, reduce the authority of both chambers. MPs can vote for complex legislation knowing that the second chamber may have more time and inclination to examine it in detail, and the second chamber can vote for policies which are opposed by the majority of elected MPs, knowing that the Commons can either over-rule the second chamber or allow the proposed legislation to lapse. Both houses are to some extent emasculated.
I therefore find it disappointing that few if any politiicians or political commentators seem prepared to contemplate the complete abolition of the second chamber (at least as a UK-based legislature); effective measures to enhance the calibre of candidates for election to the House of Commons; and a major extension of the independence and influence of committees of that house.
Certainly public confidence is an issue. The current system, whilst, in my view, relatively successful, suffers from the appearance of corruption. Appointment at arm’s length from the Prime Minister, or the chance for the public to offer nominees by petition could improve this substantially without requiring elections.
Expertise, and revising/moderating are indeed different concepts, but they are best kept together. If a problem of democracy is ignorance on the part of the electorate, and perhaps their elected representatives, what could be better than a system where democracy sets the programme, and experience sets the details? Revising and moderating could indeed go on in a democratic second chamber, but given the strength of party politics in the UK, any such revisions would be timid indeed.
That MPs can vote for complex legislation knowing that the Lords will examine it further is surely not entirely a bad thing- governments can complete their legislative programme faster, but with the knowledge that flawed legislation will be delayed and its flaws brought to attention. This prevents the gridlock and massive butchering of legislation that can be seen in Congress.
What measures to enhance the calibre of candidates did you have in mind? This is certainly a problem for Britain, but I find it hard to see how raising the calibre of candidates can co-exist with pandering to the vagaries of democracy- i.e baby-kissing, mouthing platitudes, looking good on TV etc. I’d fully support strengthening committee structures in the House of Commons, but not at the expense of abolishing the Lords.