This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/22/inactivity-lords-problem-elections-reform-second-chamber
The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Attention, fellow Britons - you are paying peers to have lunch | Attention, fellow Britons - you are paying peers to have lunch |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The serious work of the House of Lords is done by about 100 of its 800 members. These are the peers who scrutinise legislation, attend committees and make speeches worth hearing. Another 300 or so turn up at question time for the first half hour of each sitting, which is the closest the Lords comes to political theatre. About the same number are on hand for votes, of which there are usually a few a week, mostly between 4pm and 7pm because that is the only time the whips can be sure that their “troops” will be present somewhere on the parliamentary estate. | |
| So for those who are not slaving over section 5, subsection 3, or engaging in debates or committees, there is no excuse to be claiming £300 a day in tax-free allowances. One peer said to me when I first arrived in the chamber: “This is the only place in the country where they pay you to have lunch.” But that shouldn’t be the purpose of Lords allowances. | So for those who are not slaving over section 5, subsection 3, or engaging in debates or committees, there is no excuse to be claiming £300 a day in tax-free allowances. One peer said to me when I first arrived in the chamber: “This is the only place in the country where they pay you to have lunch.” But that shouldn’t be the purpose of Lords allowances. |
| A complacent air of self-satisfaction pervades the Lords for no good reason. Its legislative revision is haphazard; any significant changes it makes to bills are usually rejected by the government and the Commons. Its debates are largely tedious exercises involving peers reading skimpy essays into Hansard with no spontaneity or challenge. And its much vaunted committees make almost no impact, however worthy their reports. It is telling that the principal committee of the Lords is on EU affairs – yet over four decades the Lords has made virtually no impact on British attitudes to Europe or vice versa. | |
| However, it is a mistake to think that the Lords would do a better job if more of is members spent longer in the chamber or the committee corridor, earning their £300 a day. The key weakness of the house is not a function of inactivity, but of a nominated membership that gives it too little political authority to exert itself even when the House of Commons is manifestly making a hash of things. Think the poll tax, the bedroom tax, and most recently the invoking of article 50 before the government had a clue what it was going to do next. All passed the Lords unscathed. | |
| The nature of the appointments system could be improved. At present “working peers” are mostly party loyalists appointed by party leaders to repay favours or ensure loyal lobby fodder. You will have heard of few of them. Can you even name the current leader of the House of Lords (it’s Lady Evans, a friend of Nick Timothy, which mainly appears to be why she is in post) or any of her predecessors? | The nature of the appointments system could be improved. At present “working peers” are mostly party loyalists appointed by party leaders to repay favours or ensure loyal lobby fodder. You will have heard of few of them. Can you even name the current leader of the House of Lords (it’s Lady Evans, a friend of Nick Timothy, which mainly appears to be why she is in post) or any of her predecessors? |
| Because appointments are for life, and generally of people in their 60s, most peers are ancient and divorced from significant engagement with contemporary affairs. Appointments for fixed terms of, say, 15 years would ensure more turnover and relevance. The new generation of mayors of England’s great cities, and leaders of the faith communities beyond the Church of England, should be members, yet on the present system won’t get there before retirement, if then. | Because appointments are for life, and generally of people in their 60s, most peers are ancient and divorced from significant engagement with contemporary affairs. Appointments for fixed terms of, say, 15 years would ensure more turnover and relevance. The new generation of mayors of England’s great cities, and leaders of the faith communities beyond the Church of England, should be members, yet on the present system won’t get there before retirement, if then. |
| However, improving the Lords’ nominated membership will enhance its status only marginally. To become an effective second chamber, the Lords needs to be elected. Yet this is the one reform that, decade after decade, is avoided because successive governments and generations of MPs bridle at the thought of a chamber with real political clout. | However, improving the Lords’ nominated membership will enhance its status only marginally. To become an effective second chamber, the Lords needs to be elected. Yet this is the one reform that, decade after decade, is avoided because successive governments and generations of MPs bridle at the thought of a chamber with real political clout. |
| Successive governments and generations of MPs bridle at the thought of a chamber with real political clout | Successive governments and generations of MPs bridle at the thought of a chamber with real political clout |
| It wouldn’t be difficult to devise an electoral system that produced a second chamber with democratic legitimacy yet was not a carbon copy of the Commons. A chamber elected by proportional representation for fixed five-year terms would be a good democratic counterpoint to the Commons. | It wouldn’t be difficult to devise an electoral system that produced a second chamber with democratic legitimacy yet was not a carbon copy of the Commons. A chamber elected by proportional representation for fixed five-year terms would be a good democratic counterpoint to the Commons. |
| What of potential gridlock between the two elected houses? The key point is that the Commons alone should have control of taxation, and the fate of governments should also depend on the Commons alone. The second chamber would only have strong powers over non-financial legislation, which at present is largely determined by the government alone because of its stranglehold over the Commons. | |
| But don’t place too much store on any reform of the Lords. In democratic politics, what matters above all is leadership. Britain’s problems and mistakes of recent years are not primarily a function of poor legislation and administration. They are the consequence of disastrous leadership on big questions, notably Europe and the union with Scotland. The biggest mistake of all was to bypass parliament entirely and mortgage the future of the country to ill-prepared referendums. By doing so, David Cameron neutered not only the Lords but the Commons also. It will take more than House of Lords reform to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. | But don’t place too much store on any reform of the Lords. In democratic politics, what matters above all is leadership. Britain’s problems and mistakes of recent years are not primarily a function of poor legislation and administration. They are the consequence of disastrous leadership on big questions, notably Europe and the union with Scotland. The biggest mistake of all was to bypass parliament entirely and mortgage the future of the country to ill-prepared referendums. By doing so, David Cameron neutered not only the Lords but the Commons also. It will take more than House of Lords reform to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. |
| • Andrew Adonis is a Labour peer, and former minister | • Andrew Adonis is a Labour peer, and former minister |