The House of Lords needs radical reform not cosmetic surgery

In its 1997 election manifesto, Labour pledged to abolish hereditary peers, an important and inspiring first step, it seemed then, towards a radical overhaul of the anachronistic House of Lords and the creation of a truly modern Britain. Yet, as investigations into the shadowy financial conduct of four Labour peers get under way, we learn that, whatever the outcome, under present rules the only consequence for the four will be having to say sorry. Two have half-heartedly done so, but appear unwilling to recognise that accepting money to change the law of the land is quite possibly the most serious offence a legislator could commit, far more serious than the cash-for-questions scandal that rocked the Major government in 1994.

If we were to seek a bright side to learning that not just these four, but one in five of our Lords and Ladies undertakes lucrative "consultancy" work, it might be that this surely will be the trigger for much-needed constitutional reform. We are not optimistic. A change in the laws governing penalties for errant peers, promised by Baroness Royall, leader of the Lords, will be about the limit of it. Despite bills and royal commissions aplenty, our Upper House remains more fitted to the social structure of the 18th century than that of the 21st. To identify the last truly radical Lords reform, we would have to go as far back as August 1911, when a Liberal prime minister, Herbert Asquith, thwarted the continuous blocking of Commons legislation by threatening to create sufficient new peers to secure a majority in the Lords. In the end, the Upper House voted away its powers of veto, preferring to die at their own hands than be swamped with low-class created peers.

Most subsequent reform efforts, new Labour's partial abolition of hereditary peers excepted, have become bogged down in party politics or simple parliamentary machinations. Roy Jenkins saw constitutional reform as a "breaking the mould" issue but Labour's failure began with the timidity of its ambition in 1999. There had been widespread parliamentary support for a fully elected Lords, an ambition Robin Cook was anxious to see through as leader of the House before his tragic death in 2005. But neither Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or, in particular, Jack Straw, whose 2007 promise of reform remains unfulfilled, shared Cook's intellectual vision or his passion. As a consequence of Labour's caution, we still have hereditary peers and a convicted criminal can sit in the Lords with more influence on the laws of the land than a diligent constituency MP.

Worse, by clinging to the old nomenclature, Lords, Baronesses, "upper chamber", and retaining the traditional palace trappings, we have indulged the unelected in the belief that those "elevated" to the peerage may not only subvert the law, they are actually above it. There are no sanctions for unethical behaviour because the Neill Committee thought the culture of the Lords "was rooted in the concept of personal honour". Their ermine, marbled halls, plush dining and writing rooms and generous allowances have imbued Lord This and Lady That with feelings of superiority totally at odds with new Labour's 1997 vision of a classless society.

In the past ten years this rudderless Upper House has defeated the government more than 400 times, occasionally fatally delaying legislation. Many of us at times have praised the Lords for the checks they thus exercise on the legislative programme of a Whip-happy government with a large majority and an illiberal agenda. But we must grow up. This is one undemocratic voice shouting down another. And we should be concerned, too, at the creation of peers to be fast-tracked into cabinet posts. Lords Myners and Mandelson and Baroness Vadera are among the most powerful politicians of the moment, chosen by no one but the Prime Minister.

They should consider the words of the great trade unionist Jack Jones, who turned down a peerage because he did not want to sit with "the progeny of prostitutes and cattle thieves", referring to those who owed their titles to the favours of kings. Today, instead, Lords owe their seats to party leaders rather than monarchs. We can expect far-reaching reforms from neither.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website