Historically Lords reform has tended to be frustrated by the same unholy alliance of those who support an elected chamber but decide that the proposals aren’t good enough and those who see the Lords as a future retirement home and London club rolled into one, far from the gaze of the electorate where one can munch on cucumber sandwiches and take high tea until ones heart is contented. An experience best lived unsullied by ‘democracy’ or ‘accountability’
 
This time that unhappy partnership is Ed Miliband’s Labour party, hoping to cause maximum pain for the Coalition by dragging out the debate as long as possible and the Tory Right led by the 1922 Committee who are hoping to cause maximum pain for the Coalition by dragging out the debate as long as possible.
 
The theory goes that, should the programme motion be defeated this afternoon, instead of ten days of debate we could have as many as thirty, which, apart from anything else, is long enough to bore even the most earnest bearded sandal wearing reformist.
 
Labour are claiming that they need extra time to consider the proposals, which might be true, but probably isn’t. The Government want a time limited debate to ensure the issue does not drag on whilst opponents of the bill claim that democratising parliament is the wrong thing to do in a time of Austerity as it is a distraction from debating the economy or watching video’s of Chloe Smith on Newsnight. The longer the debate will be, the more valid that argument would seem.
 
Ignore for a moment that holding referendums on City Mayors and electing Police Commissioners is, apparently, the right thing to do when the country has a debt problem.
 
The Tory Right are also in favour of a 30 day long debate because they hope it will cause a bloodbath on a par with the Maastricht Treaty; a debate so long, bloody and indecisive that it nearly killed off John Major’s second term before it begun.
 
I won’t accuse the 1922 Committee of being stuck in the past or anything. That would be churlish.

I do, however, have a solution to this conundrum which should accommodate all three factions. A solution which would allow maximum debating time for scrutiny, minimise disruption to the passage of other bills and allow those unsatisfied with the proposals all the time they need to voice that dissatisfaction with no extra cost to boot.
 
Cancel Summer Recess.
 
I imagine such a move would be at as wildly popular with the public as the question of whether or not your average man or woman off the street should be able to vote for their legislators; last night YouGov put support for an elected Lords at around 75%.
 
Reform of the Lords was first put on the agenda in 1911 and I appreciate this may not have been enough time for some to come to the conclusion that those who make the law should be elected by and, accountable to, those who have to follow the law.
 
I can also see how some are having trouble squaring the problem of a supposedly ‘democratic parliament’ having a majority of members who are appointed or inherit their place by birthright. There are 650 MPs and nearly a thousand Lords. Cutting the Lords numbers to just 450 members might also cause problems with unemployment.
 
So to discuss these and other issues, perhaps a few summer months of long, hot, tedious debates on constitutional wonkery in the House of Commons chamber far removed from the government’s timetable for discussing important business and British Airports will focus minds?
 
After all, I don’t think anything happens during the summer, it’s not like MPs go anywhere exotic, they are all hard working and diligent members of Parliament. I’m sure government whips would only endeavour to be helpful and accommodating if they were to ask rebel MPs if debating time could be found in the two month long recess, enquiring if they still plan to be in the Bahamas on select committee business in August.
 
I’m sure no one is planning on playing silly games with the British constitution to try and wreck a policy all parties have agreed on since 2001 or score cheap partisan points. If MPs decide that want to spend extra time debating something they all say they broadly agree on and at the same time think the public have no interest in, I’m sure they’ll take the suggestion they should do it in their own time most illuminating.

Tags: House of Lords reform, Martin Shaplan