Reforming the House of Lords 


94 years ago today, the Parliament Act received Royal Assent. In it, the present House of Lords was established as an interim measure until a democratically accountable and mainly elected second chamber could be set up. However, 94 years later, we are still waiting for this democratic deficit to be corrected, and the original hereditary body has now given way to a largely appointed chamber that is neither democratic nor accountable, and dangerously close to becoming a rubber-stamping body for the government of the day, as opposed to the effective and informed scrutiniser of legislation that was originally intended.

Why should this concern us? Because it directly affects the character and quality of our democracy, the way our country is governed, and the effectiveness of laws that affect our daily lives and those of generations to come. This blog is part of a wider effort to draw attention to this issue, and is dedicated to the late Robin Cook MP, who was a passionate and eloquent advocate for House of Lords reform, and whose voice will be sorely missed. 

In the early years of the present Labour government (as well as several of the latter ones), watching legislation bounce back and forward between the House of Commons and the House of Lords was a popular, if not entirely captivating, activity. It seemed that whatever the government thought to be a really good idea, the Lords thought was a terrible one, and sent the legislation back to the Commons to see if it could knock a few more lumps out of it or force the government into a humiliating ‘U-turn’. Increasingly, the government became irritated with all this political ping-ponging of its legislative agenda between the two Houses and began to flex its own constitutional muscles by invoking the Parliament Act to force the Lords to submit to its overriding democratic mandate, in some cases, such as the recent Hunting Bill, causing an earlier and inferior version of the legislation to pass into statute.

The other, more radical solution, was of course to reform the House of Lords itself, but after having had its fingers burnt with other constitutional reforms (Scottish and Welsh devolution, as well as the recently abandoned plans for English regional government), the government elected to press ahead with its plans and simply replaced the majority of unelected hereditary peers with a bevy of unelected appointed ones. As in 1911, this was carried out with the proviso that it was a ‘temporary’ measure until a wider consensus on the future of the second chamber could be reached. However, but the government swiftly lost its appetite for reform, and we are now left with a temporary fix of a temporary fix instead of the credible and effective revising chamber that is required by a modern liberal democracy.

Of course, the present state of affairs is actually rather convenient for the government. Now that the inbuilt Conservative bias has been removed with the abolition of hereditary peers, it is a lot easier to force through legislation the Lords that might have proved troublesome in earlier times. More seriously, the legitimacy of the second chamber has been undermined, meaning that it is less able to perform its proper function, which is to scrutinise and revise proposed legislation. Although it is not the Lords’ job to hold the government to account—that's what the House of Commons is for, although therein lies another story—it is supposed to act as a safeguard against poorly drafted and bad legislation, a job which is as important today as it ever was. Most observers agree that the only way to achieve this is to have a partly or wholly elected second chamber, which would restore the legitimacy of this important constitutional body, provide a mechanism for public accountability (if you don't like them, then you can get rid of them next time round), and ensure that it accurately reflects the political make-up of the country as a whole—doesn't sound like much to ask, really, does it?

So what can we do about it? Well, there is a group of senior MPs, including Ken Clarke and the late Robin Cook, who have published a Second Chamber of Parliament Bill that commands widespread support—indeed, some might say consensus. However, like the late Roy Jenkins' recommendations for introducing proportional representation into the UK electoral system, it's never going to happen unless people like you and I start making a fuss about it and ask—no, demand—that government lives up to its promises. Is it really credible at the beginning of the 21st century that the oldest surviving democracy doesn't have its own democratically accountable body for scrutinising and revising legislation? If the present situation continues for much longer then we will certainly pay the price in terms of increasing government arrogance, abuse of power, and poor quality legislation, which has a detrimental effect on us all, not to mention the nature of society as a whole.

Like all democrats, as soon as the government get wind of the fact that sufficient numbers of people actually want a democratically elected second chamber as part of their system of government, then they will be falling over themselves to introduce it—and no doubt claim that the whole thing was their own idea in the first place. In the meantime, may I humbly suggest that you consider writing to your MP to urge them to support the proposed Bill, adding your name to the Elect the Lords web site, supporting a group such as Charter 88, who also campaign on a number of other democratic and constitutional issues, or simply passing on this information to others in order to spread the word and generate support for this much needed reform.

Thanks for reading this blog. Here are some more: electthelords. 

Posted on Wednesday - August 10, 2005 at 08:55 AM            

© 1995-2006