My experience of the House of Lords is small. I have over the years known a few members, and some have made important contributions to legislation on health, legal, ethical, and environmental matters. Twice I have been invited to give evidence to select committees, and on both occasions was confronted by an impressive panel including distinguished scientists and academics, even a Nobel prize-winner, and asked searching questions.
From time to time, I watch broadcasts of Lords’ debates on matters of interest, such as the NHS Bill. My experience is small but, like most people, that does not stop me having an opinion on the subject. It is easy, especially in the wake of scandals and apparently unjustified appointments, to condemn the whole institution. There is so much that is bad about it. Here are some defects.
The title. It is an extreme form of flattery to endow on somebody the privileges associated with the title of baron/baroness of somewhere, and I suspect many people would pay good money in the hope of obtaining it. In the act of putting on the robes and funny hat, they call to mind WS Gilbert’s parody in Iolanthe:
Bow, bow, ye lower, middle classes,
Bow ye tradesmen, bow ye masses
Blow the trumpets, bang the brasses
We are peers of highest station
Paragons of legislation
Pillars of the British Nation…
Such titles are not only unnecessary but reek of privilege, appeal to vanity, and invite corruption.
The method of appointment. It is extraordinary that in the 21st century this should depend on the patronage or whim of a prime minister and party leaders. No specific qualification or experience is required nor, apparently, is any commitment to do anything. It is clearly open to corruption. Leaving aside the means by which they have enriched themselves, it is an ever-present suspicion that wealthy individuals can ‘purchase’ a title by making donations to one or other major party. The potential for rich people to buy a role in the legislature is a throwback to the rotten boroughs that should have been abolished by universal suffrage.
Aside from the issue of corruption, there is an increasing tendency to appoint retired or defeated politicians and relatively young people who have experience of nothing other than hanging onto the coat-tails of ministers, in a silly game of trying to influence the way the House will vote. Such appointments may seem justified to those in the Westminster bubble but just increase cynicism elsewhere. The only safeguard we have against unsuitable appointments is that individual proposals are said to be vetted by the Honours committee. No doubt this does its job conscientiously, but its name gives the game away; the appointment is regarded as an honour, not a job or commitment. Real honours, given by many states, are simple and cheap ways for a nation to say thank you for some exceptional and usually financially unrewarded service, and require nothing in return (I admit bias – I have one). This is not the case with appointment to the Lords.
The required commitment. Governments have increasingly insisted on contracts for public servants, doctors, nurses, teachers, and so on, that specify hours of work and remuneration. No great harm in that, other than that it denies the ethos of professionalism that caused us to work long hours from a sense of commitment rather that from a clocking on and off, pay-for-hours-worked mentality. Is it not strange that similar contracts do not apply to Lords? They are not paid a salary but receive an attendance allowance and expenses, similar to but much more generous than that which applies to people who serve from time to time on independent government advisory committees (but are expected to work). Could that be why one sees some of them sleeping through debates even when the television camera is on them? Few of us, I suspect, would turn down the opportunity of joining a club in central London that paid us £300 per day plus expenses to turn up, without requiring any useful activity in return. Indeed, there are far from sufficient seats in the chamber to accommodate all 826 members simultaneously.
Appointment for life. It is an unusual job that one holds for life, in spite of corruption, perjury, conviction for criminal activity, or unwillingness to contribute any useful activity. It may be argued that peers do not receive a salary and are not employed, but allowances plus expenses for the unemployed are an aspect of public expenditure that the present government seems particularly hostile to. Why should such policies not apply to the most privileged in society as well as to the poorest?
What’s to be done? Most, if not all, agree that a second chamber is essential in a legislature, and that the one we have does a useful job in revising proposed laws and in subjecting the big issues of the day to critical scrutiny. Unicameral government is clearly dangerous, especially when one political party has achieved a substantial majority, since that way lies tyranny.
If we are agreed that a second chamber is necessary, there are three fundamental questions to be answered. What should it do, how should it be constituted, and what should be done with the present members? These same questions would apply to any such chamber in Scotland should we at some time vote for independence. These are the rocks on which the ship of reform founders.
What is the role of a second chamber? This is a matter for debate but to me it seems reasonable not to change its present role, as a deliberative chamber for scrutiny and revision of proposed laws. This requires something more than the skills and motivations that cause people to seek election to the House of Commons, and herein lies the great strength of the Lords. Increasingly, the Commons comprises individuals who are professional politicians, driven by often untested dogma and with little experience of anything else (though the recent intake of SNP MPs runs counter to this trend). Increasingly also, new appointments to the Lords are either political placemen/women no longer in the Commons and rich benefactors of the parties. In spite of my strictures above, however, the Lords still includes people from many different backgrounds, most of whom have achieved singular distinction in their lives outwith politics.
An alternative role might be as a part of a radical restructuring of the British constitution whereby there is an extension of devolution to major regions of England comparable in size to Scotland and Wales, and that all these regions and nations elect members of a democratic upper house. This has the significant disadvantage that it would take decades or even centuries to agree, whereas a reform of the present House could be enacted quickly by a government with sufficient will and majority.
How should members be appointed? There are calls for a democratic method of selection. Unfortunately this is likely to produce a rival institution to the Commons or to the Scottish Parliament. It would also largely remove the expertise available at present to the Lords. Given a relatively similar role of the chamber to that at present, surely the title Lord should no longer be used and the appointment be subject to a contract specifying duties, duration and remuneration. The House might reasonably be called the Senate and appointees senators. Civil Service terms and conditions should apply, including a limited term subject to satisfactory performance. Positions should be advertised and applicants should be expected to show evidence of achievement in their trade or profession commensurate with the responsibilities of the post, to which they should be prepared to devote a specified part of their time, as agreed in their contract.
Selection could first be made by a panel of cross benchers and independent peers. Politicians should not be excluded but the aim should be to remove political bias from the scrutiny of legislation and to substitute objective analysis of its likely consequences, advantages to the population, and flaws and loopholes. The appointment committee should have a clear view of the range of expertise and experience desirable to cover the likely work of the House, as is the case at present with appointment to advisory and expert committees.
What should happen to present members? A fixed number should first be set, perhaps smaller than or equal to the numbers in the Commons after any boundary changes. There has been a widespread practice in the public services of downsizing, with employees being told they are redundant and asked to re-apply for their jobs. I see no reason why this should not apply to the Lords. Those whose applications fail to convince that their contribution has been substantial of recent years or whose record includes criminal conviction could easily fail to be reappointed, while senior members could thereafter retire on a rotating basis after say 10 years’ service. There is no need to remove their titles but the privileges of membership would no longer be available to them.
Automatic appointment of a fixed number of hereditary peers and bishops in the Church of England should cease, though some may well remain for a while following successful re-application. Indeed, the presence of individuals of faith in the present House is the only guarantee of a strong ethical voice in parliament. The task of the selection committee would be a difficult one, but at least some written criteria on past performance would allow many to be rejected without further ado.
The fact that we do not have a written constitution should allow a brave political party to take such suggestions on board, but increasingly I see a need for such a brave party. And while it writes its manifesto, why not start discussion on proportional representation and regional assemblies in England? Perhaps all those SNP members elected to the British parliament could set their minds to something bigger than a narrow nationalism? As British MPs, representing all their British constituents and not just the minority who voted for them, they should be fully engaged in British politics.
By Anthony Seaton | October 2015