Total Politics 2010 Election Map

Total Politics - because knowledge is power

 

Why we need the House of Lords

 

David Seymour

 

At a time when public perception of Parliament is at an all-time low, it is about to destroy the part that works best. It now seems almost inevitable that after the next general election the House of Lords will be abolished. What is planned is being called reform but that is just mealy mouthed nonsense. All that is most admirable in a remarkable, unique institution will be replaced with a watered-down House of Commons Mark II in a wilful, ignorant act of destruction.

 

Last year, in a petulant bout of posturing, MPs voted to replace peers with 100 per cent elected 'senators'. That led to Jack Straw's proposals for a new second chamber, the best thing about which is that nothing will be done about it in this Parliament.

 

To the commitment of Labour and the Liberal Democrats for change at any price must now be added the apparent determination of David Cameron to 'reform' the Lords. Even though the country is in crisis on just about every front imaginable, even though voters frankly couldn't give a damn about Lords reform, the Westminster village is obsessed with it.

 

I should make a brief confession here. For much of my life I believed that members of the Upper House should be elected. I now realise that the quality, experience and knowledge of peers provide such a wonderful breadth and depth to the UK's legislative process that they must be retained. The current House contains a roll-call of the greatest, most distinguished and experienced parliamentarians of the past half century, yet they are to be unceremoniously consigned to the dustbin of history.

 

The arguments against the Lords continuing in its present form are a series of sad old clichés – I should know, I have used most of them down the years. They include the sneer that it is a retirement home for aged MPs; that it is the best gentlemen's club in the country (if not the world); and that it is a barrier to the democratic will of the people.

 

None of these bears serious examination.

 

How could any body which lists among its members Margaret Thatcher, Shirley Williams, Denis Healey, Geoffrey Howe, Norman Tebbit, Paddy Ashdown, David Owen, Betty Boothroyd, Neil Kinnock and Roy Hattersley, to name just a few, be considered a retirement home?

 

How could a House which sits for more hours, more days and more weeks than the Commons be accused of being some form of social club?

 

And how could a chamber that is constantly speaking up for the rights of the people when the Commons does not, be said to be ignoring the will and opinions of the nation?

 

That doesn't mean there aren't faults with the Lords. There are, so let's get them out of the way. The gift of a peerage can be used for discreditable purposes. Even though nothing was ever proved in the most recent cash-for-honours scandal, the fact that peerages could be used like that did terrible damage to the government and, even worse, to the public perception of politics.

 

But you don't need to abolish the Lords to put that right. It would be like ripping up the roads because some people drive badly. If the appointment of members to the second chamber was put in the hands of an independent body, the power of patronage would disappear. Well, virtually. I don't want to be too naive.

 

Another criticism is that peers like Jeffrey Archer and Conrad Black, who are convicted of serious criminal offences, can hang on to their ermine. But why sack a thousand honourable peers to get rid of a couple of crooked ones? So we come to what seems to be the core of the argument against the Lords continuing in its present form: Its members are not democratically elected.

 

Churchill's famous dictum – "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" – is called in support of the blind belief that democracy is superior for every part of government.

 

But we already have democracy at Westminster in the Commons and we have it for thousands of councillors, too. We don't have it, though, for police chiefs, rat catchers and every tin-pot local official as they do in America. Does that make us a less democratic country?

 

The basis of our political system is democratic and will remain so. What political leaders should be doing is examining how this system can be made to work better, rather than pushing back the boundaries of electoral democracy. For they certainly aren't winning hearts and minds at the moment.

We have – as much by luck as the result of a master plan – managed to create a fantastic institution in the current House of Lords. It contains not just the former ministers I have mentioned but scores of ex-MPs who have learnt their trade and, unencumbered by the constant need to appease voters, are able to exercise their judgment and long experience.

 

If my arithmetic is correct, current membership includes five former Chancellors, three foreign secretaries, three home secretaries, large numbers of other ministers, two Speakers and three former European Commissioners. Plus a former Governor of the Bank of England, assorted senior police officers, former commanding officers of the armed forces and security services, as well as people with years of service in Whitehall and local government.

 

Then there are the non-politicians. The A.N.Others of Westminster who are anything but nonentities. They include some of the most gifted, knowledgeable, intelligent people in the country.

 

Let me mention a few of them. Lawson Soulsby, microbiologist and vet; Robert May, formerly the government's chief scientific adviser and a brilliant physicist; Alec Broers, president of the Royal Academy of Engineering and a former Master of Churchill College, Cambridge; Andrew Mawson, the world's greatest social entrepreneur; Julia Neuberger, rabbi and campaigner on health and rights for older people; Richard Rogers, architectural genius; Helena Kennedy, human rights champion.

 

There are many, many more. Those who appear on these pages have been selected at random and I apologise to the many equally distinguished peers whose names are missing. All are specialists in their field, whereas politicians – like journalists – are generalists who have to mug up a superficial knowledge of a subject before dealing with it.

 

When these people get up to speak, they have behind them something more than blind loyalty to the party and the prodding of the whips.

 

Among those who spoke in the House of Lords debate on government proposals to extend detention to 42 days were a former head of MI5, two attorney generals, a chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, three chief constables, one Lord Chancellor, a NATO general secretary, a Lord Advocate and two bishops.

 

Are we saying that the individual and collective experience and knowledge of such people counts for nothing because they did not get to Westminster via the ballot box?

 

Well, that is what a majority of the present generation of MPs appears to believe, including, and most significantly, the leader of the Conservative Party, who is likely to be Prime Minister when the future of the Lords is next debated.

 

Some don't agree. Gerald Kaufman described the Straw proposals as "a masterpiece of imprecision, vacillation and obfuscation that cannot possibly lead to meaningful legislation – a consequence entirely to be desired." Hear, hear.

 

Of course there have been many previous proposals to reform the Lords – in 1886, 1911, 1918, 1920, 21, 22 and 29, 1933 and 35. Harold Wilson tried to do it in 1968, and the Labour Party wanted to abolish the house in the 1980s by creating a thousand peers to vote themselves out of existence.

 

Some significant changes have been made. Today's House bears no relation to that of 50 years ago and its current strength is largely due to the introduction of life peers in 1958.

 

But why keep up perpetual revolution against the Lords, which will lead to its total destruction?

 

One of the most sensible things I ever heard said at Westminster – spoken by a peer, and a hereditary one at that – was that when all three political parties agree on something, you can be sure it is wrong. And all three have got it terribly wrong over the future of the Lords.

 

It isn't part of our broken society. They shouldn't be trying to fix it.

 

David Seymour is former political editor of the Mirror group