The heart sinks at the prospect of yet another protracted debate about the reform of the House of Lords. The Conservative-led coalition has accelerated proposals on reform – with a draft bill, no less – as a consolation prize for Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg after the alternative vote referendum fiasco.
It is clear that there is no political traction behind the latest initiative. Accompanying the proposal is a wide range of options. How many peers? How many to be elected?
How to elect them? What do we call the reconstituted upper chamber?
It should ensure that the debate will drag on for another parliamentary session at least – just as the Prime Minister always intended, one suspects. And this is before the most important question of all is aired: an elected or partially elected second chamber to do what, precisely?
It is clear that getting people to vote is already difficult enough in our wan democracy where many no longer believe their vote matters. Getting them to vote for a consultative chamber – or bits of it – with powers to postpone decisions to a limited extent could be mission impossible. But a protracted discussion about a sensible distribution of powers between the upper and lower Houses of Parliament, both of them having their own democratic legitimacy, is the surest way of ensuring that reform never takes place.
So shouldn’t we just leave things as they are? No, because, even with its limited powers, the House of Lords is a grotesque blemish on our parliamentary democracy. The idea of having an unelected second house of a legislature would be considered as a democratic affront in any other country – not least when a proportion of the membership is decided on the basis of heredity and the rest by patronage of party leaders and, to make matters worse, of a church which no longer represents more than a tiny minority of the population.
It is a blemish on the record of 13 years of the last Labour Government – which had three successive and comfortable majorities – that it only succeeded in tinkering with the composition of the Lords. Sadly, many Labour politicians colluded in thwarting genuine reform.
Already, the familiar arguments for the House of Lords are being dusted down. “It may not be very democratic, but it does a good job.” “Experts ensure a quality of debate you don’t get in the House of Commons.”
“It takes the quality of legislation seriously.” “It gets the government of the day to review hastily thought-out proposals.” “It’s all about checks and balance.”
In fact, the record of the last Labour Government shows that the Lords can effectively slow down decision-making, particularly when it is a question of progressive measures or a perceived threat to their lordships’ prerogatives.
Certainly, the Lords’ debates are less vigorously partisan than in the Commons, partly because of the average age of the peers. But where is the chapter and verse that the Lords have really improved the quality of legislation?
In a unitary sovereign state, the case for a democratic second chamber may be a strong one – although that surely does not mean a chamber with 800 members. But Britain is a quasi-federal state with more and more powers devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Further, all the mainstream parties are committed to empowering the English regions – no matter how suspect the Tory conversion to localism may be.
Meanwhile, the broad outlines of economic, social, environmental and consumer policy are now determined within the European Union, where the European Parliament now co-decides on all these questions with member states. So the case for “restraining” the House of Commons is weakened considerably.
We need to ask: with this more limited role for a national parliament, which is no longer sovereign in many areas, do we really need two chambers?
If, despite the complications and the cost, the answer is “yes”, then we need to be clear: a second chamber would require clearly defined responsibilities. That, in turn, makes the case for a written constitution overwhelming. And that second chamber would have to be fully elected.
But just spelling out these conditions explains why a democratic second chamber will not happen in the next 15 years – just as it has not happened in the past 15. There are too many open questions, along with too many opportunities for obfuscation and delay.
A radical Labour Party would say that we do not need the House of Lords. We should scrap it, save the money and put an end to the democratic embarrassment that it represents. If people want a second chamber with serious review functions or other duties, let us discuss it in a national convention to draw up a democratic constitution for Great Britain. But the first and immediate step should be abolition of the Lords.
Julian Priestley was secretary general of the European Parliament from 1997 until 2007
