Leading article: We must preserve what is best of the House of Lords
The chamber needs reform, but non-partisan service still has a place
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
The case of four members of the House of Lords who apparently offered to influence legislation in return for a fee has been greeted by general uproar. It is not surprising, given the echoes of the toxic "cash-for-questions" affair that convulsed the House of Commons in the 1990s.
This latest scandal emphasises the lack of transparency in relation to the lobbying links of peers and also the vagueness of the rules governing their behaviour. Whatever the results of the inquiry into the conduct of the four peers, the system manifestly needs to be tightened up.
The argument that this is merely a case of a few bad apples will not do. There have been several recorded instances of peers handing their Westminster passes, intended for researchers, to lobbyists. And how many of us were aware before this week that 145 of the 743 members of the Lords are engaged in paid consultancy work? Most of these peers are doubtless offering innocent political advice for their services, rather than altering legislation in their clients' interests. But the point is that the present disclosure arrangements leave a good deal of room for doubt. At the very least, peers should be compelled to reveal how much they are earning from their outside interests.
Such problems flow from the half-reformed nature of the House of Lords. The Government cleared out most of the hereditary peers in 1999 but, in other respects, the House remains as unaccountable as it ever was. Nowadays, a peer is appointed rather than born to the title, but the seat is still considered his or her personal property. They cannot be expelled from the house or stripped of their titles for corruption; not even if they end up spending time in prison for their crimes. It is difficult for a democracy to tolerate an upper chamber that is, in many respects, a feudal relic.
All this is true. And yet some wider perspective is important in considering the future of the second chamber. It is important to remember that many peers do much good work painstakingly picking through the legislation that is sent up by their professional colleagues in the Commons. When they come across something wrong-headed or dangerous, they send it back. And most of them perform this service for no salary. The lords have certainly proved their worth as a revising chamber in recent years. Last year, the House rejected the Government's legislative plans to detain domestic terrorist suspects for 42 days without charge. In 2005, the law lords ruled that the Government's internment of foreign terror suspects was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The argument for completing the reforms set in train a decade ago is strong. At least a proportion of peers should be made democratically accountable to the electorate, but a wholly elected chamber would be a mistake. The last thing we want is another chamber of professional politicians. It is worth asking whether the House of Lords would have proved such a stubborn check on the Commons over the years if it had been full of individuals keen to secure party funds for re-election? It is unfashionable to speak of non-partisan public service in the present cynical era, but there is still a place for it.
By all means, let the Government clean up and reform the Lords, but in the process we need to be careful not to wipe out what makes the chamber such a valuable check and balance on our democracy.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
I am also agreed that the Upper House should exist to protect our liberal democracy. however, I would like to see its members to be nominated and partially elected by people.
They ought not to be related to any archaic or neo-interventionist organizations and have a proven record of public causes defense history.
Westminster needs a omplete overhaul and that includes the main "elected chamber" as well as those unaccountable lot in the second house.
In the past, pseudo-democracy was excusable on the ground of the sheer difficulty of enabling democracy. It's no longer difficult
OK, society, after gutting the premises of the private dens of pols and other personal service (of bloodstained snouts) facilities, might usefully retain a people space to accommodate a number of necessary engineers and administrative support workers - a spacious 'drop in' centre to enable voting by the homeless and those who can't afford an internet connection might not be a bad idea too.
If the House of Commons were properly accountable then there would be no need for a second 'revising' chamber.
We need:
1. Proportional representation;
2. Rebalancing of powers as between the executive and the legislature, mainly by giving committees a range of powers along the lines of the US Congress;
3. Public-sponsored referenda items on ballot papers - local and national;
4. Local government financially independent of Whitehall;
5. Delegate public services back to local government, subject to central inspection; (NB: NOT Ofsted!)
6. Direct elections of posts such as chief constable; directors of education, ceo primary care trust (et.al.);
7. Public-triggered recall;
8. E-ballots;
9. I nearly forgot: fixed term parliaments
Please add a load more suggestions ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po
is what "parliament" and "representation" has done.
Poor ol' once respected Britain is brought to disrepute and global ridicule, by organised economic crime syndicates, through their high office holding / abusing, stooges, carpetbaggers and quislings.
Its an anachronistic members club for the elite in society defined by little more than their wallets, party politics, religion and accident of birth. They don't have to attend, they are accountable to no one, they get paid piece work; its laughable in the 21st century. We must look so quaint old fashioned and fulfill all the old British steretypes when foreigners see pictures of the Lords asleep - sorry I meant in action.
They don't have to attend, they don't have to account for their actions, when they go to prison, they go knowing a cushy number in the upper house awaits them on release.
Yet some try to justify the Lords by saying that they do lots of things well, such a opposing the commons, defeating 42 days, oh good, but what if they had approved 90 days what recourse would the public have to sanction members of the Lords?
Itis the same arguiment some people used to defend the Kray twins, by saying that there was never any trouble down their street, the Krays dealt with it, they only ever slit the throats of other thugs; and weren't they nice to their mum as well.
My question is what authority do they have to do it, the Lords that is, not the Krays; if they get it wrong where is the sanction. The Lords god bless them aren't perfect, who is. The Lords harps back to the days of the British well meaning amateur, when honour was everything and results - well who cares?