We should abolish the House of Lords, not reform it

Labour should completely reject the coalition's proposals.

The House of Lords is a medieval relic from a time when land ownership was a major source of political power, and just as ownership of land moved from generation to generation so did the titles. As the House of Commons became the prime chamber the powers of the Lords were eroded and life peerages broke the historical link with land ownership.

This body we are commonly told must be replaced by one which is part elected and part-appointed; but it would inevitably acquire – through election – an authority that could be used to challenge the primacy of the Commons.

There is a case for a national advisory committee to look at legislation and make recommendations to the Commons, which would be the deciding body. This committee should be a representative gathering of people from different parts of our society, which would not be called Lords or enjoy any of the finery associated with that chamber.

How such an advisory body could be established would require further thought, to be sure that it would be genuinely representative of experience and interests and would have a contribution to make to legislation through its advice.

To do this would be to abolish the House of Lords altogether and start afresh in a way that was useful and constructive. The Labour Party should be working on this idea and should reject completely the proposals the coalition government has brought forward.

This piece originally appeared in the New Statesman supplement "Reforming the House of Lords", free with this week's magazine.

Peers sit in the chamber of the House of Lords. Photograph: Getty Images.
Tony Benn retired from Parliament in 2001 after more than 50 years to ‘devote more time to politics’. The longest serving Labour MP in the history of the party he served as a cabinet minister under Wilson and Callaghan.
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

Forcing tech firms to create a "backdoor" to access messages would be a gift to cyber-hackers.

The UK has endured its worst terrorist atrocity since 7 July 2005 and the threat level has been raised to "critical" for the first time in a decade. Though election campaigning has been suspended, the debate over potential new powers has already begun.

Today's Sun reports that the Conservatives will seek to force technology companies to hand over encrypted messages to the police and security services. The new Technical Capability Notices were proposed by Amber Rudd following the Westminster terrorist attack and a month-long consultation closed last week. A Tory minister told the Sun: "We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in. The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Put that way, the plan sounds reasonable (orders would be approved by the home secretary and a senior judge). But there are irrefutable problems. Encryption means tech firms such as WhatsApp and Apple can't simply "hand over" suspect messages - they can't access them at all. The technology is designed precisely so that conversations are genuinely private (unless a suspect's device is obtained or hacked into). Were companies to create an encryption "backdoor", as the government proposes, they would also create new opportunities for criminals and cyberhackers (as in the case of the recent NHS attack).

Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb."

But there is a more profound problem: once created, a technology cannot be uninvented. Should large tech firms end encryption, terrorists will merely turn to other, lesser-known platforms. The only means of barring UK citizens from using the service would be a Chinese-style "great firewall", cutting Britain off from the rest of the internet. In 2015, before entering the cabinet, Brexit Secretary David Davis warned of ending encryption: "Such a move would have had devastating consequences for all financial transactions and online commerce, not to mention the security of all personal data. Its consequences for the City do not bear thinking about."

Labour's manifesto pledged to "provide our security agencies with the resources and the powers they need to protect our country and keep us all safe." But added: "We will also ensure that such powers do not weaken our individual rights or civil liberties". The Liberal Democrats have vowed to "oppose Conservative attempts to undermine encryption."

But with a large Conservative majority inevitable, according to polls, ministers will be confident of winning parliamentary support for the plan. Only a rebellion led by Davis-esque liberals is likely to stop them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496