Putting power into another place: Jeremy Mitchell suggests how to turn the Lords into an effective QBY: JEREMY MITCHELL

LORD TEBBIT, one of the leading anti-Maastricht campaigners in the Lords, yesterday justified his defiant stand thus: 'It's not a vote against the Government, it's a vote for the people.'

Last night's revolt was the second clash within a fortnight between Lords and Commons; two weeks ago, their Lordships forced an unwelcome amendment on the Government's rail privatisation Bill. On that occasion, too, it was asserted that the Upper House was representing popular opinion. Such actions, abnormal though they are, raise fundamental questions about the functions of the House of Lords, its relationship to the House of Commons or even its continuing existence. They are questions that the Institute for Public Policy Research attempts to answer in Reforming the Lords, which is published today.

The process of government could not function without a second chamber; the growth in the volume and complexity of legislation has made it essential. At present the Lords shares the scrutiny of government with the House of Commons, it allows Parliament an opportunity to revise or change legislation and is an alternative source of ministerial personnel.

So the House of Lords is politically useful, but in a limited way. Its present composition, based on heredity and patronage, is indefensible, and without reform the Lords will continue to lack the legitimacy to play an extensive role in the legislative process.

The attitude of the major parties to the Lords is ambivalent. When in opposition and concerned about the actions of an unchecked executive, they advocate reform; in government they do little. During the late Seventies under a Labour government, Lord Hailsham supported reform in his 1976 Dimbleby lecture; in 1978, an internal Conservative party committee chaired by Lord Home concluded that 'maintenance of the status quo is not a prudent policy' and advocated a part- elected, part-nominated second chamber. But Mrs Thatcher and her successor have taken no action.

After 1979 the Labour Party was committed to abolition but it now supports reform, and proposals will be formulated by the party's Commission on Constitutional Reform. For the Liberal Democrats, too, reform of the Lords is linked to their wider constitutional aims.

However, the House of Lords is not just a legislative chamber, and this makes reform complex. It has judicial functions, its composition draws heavily on the traditional aristocracy and contains representatives of the established church. A seat in the Upper House can form part of a political career and the Lords is inextricably linked to the existing system of political patronage.

The question of composition is crucial: a change in the functions of the second chamber can only come after its membership is changed. In Reforming the Lords we suggest a radical set of changes to alter the composition of the second chamber and give it a defined set of powers so that it can play a significant role in a modernised legislative system. It starts from the assumption that a revised second chamber should have real but limited powers. It should not rival the House of Commons as a legislative chamber nor as the basis of government. It will retain its existing powers of legislation, scrutiny and the ability to impose some delay, but should be more of a deliberative chamber.

For greater democratic legitimacy most members of the revised House will be elected, but by a different system from MPs: they will represent regional areas rather than constituency communities and will be elected by proportional representation. The appointment of individuals to positions in public life can have some advantages, so some appointment would be retained. But it would be severely limited in scope and the system would be open and accountable.

To increase its independence we propose that the revised chamber has a different term from the Commons and is not dissolved at general elections. Instead, the term of office would be nine years, with one-third of the members being replaced every three years. The present House of Lords is too large; for the new chamber to fulfil its revised functions it would have 300 members.

These changes would produce a more democratic and independent second chamber but still retain the supremacy of the Commons. They are intended to improve the process of legislation and strengthen Parliament; they do not alter the position of a government in the House of Commons or the existing imbalance of power between the two Houses.

We suggest that the existing relationship between the two Houses is retained, except that the revised chamber would have equal standing with the Commons in constitutional matters and a special responsibility for human rights. Committee work is one of the strengths of the Lords, and this would be expanded to provide comprehensive pre-legislative scrutiny. Such committees would have responsibility for monitoring and approving public appointments and for a detailed examination of European legislation.

These changes would create an effective bicameral Parliament and revitalise our democratic process. But this would not happen overnight and the report outlines a gradual transition between the existing House of Lords and the revised second chamber, to ensure some continuity of personnel and the way in which the House works.

Our proposals do not abolish the aristocracy, although they may weaken the link between social status and political power. Nor do they disestablish the Church of England. There are still areas of controversy and some unresolved questions. What would such a revised chamber be called? We have suggested 'Senate', but there may be better names. Removal of the judicial functions of the House implies the creation of a separate Supreme Court.

However, the broad principles of reform that underlie Reforming the Lords are no longer controversial. A revised and democratic second chamber could share the legislative programme of the Commons, revitalise the work of Parliament and help to restore popular support for our political institutions. It is surely time, as the millenium approaches, to tackle this unfinished business from the 19th century.

The writer is co-author with Anne Davies of 'Reforming the Lords', published today by the Institute for Public Policy Research, pounds 7.50.

(Photograph omitted)