It seems now that the Lords Reform submitted by Nick Clegg will be rejected in committee by both MPs and peers. The main point of contention? The size of the upper chamber. Clegg's proposal would limit the Lords to 300 full-time, elected members. Opponents from the Commons would like to see more around 450, which would allow around 90 life peers, instead of around 60 (the current proposal).
Peers in the Lords, however, remaining committed to a mostly-appointed chamber. No major party agrees, and Clegg has threatened to use the Parliament Act to force the bill through the Lords if they attempt to obstruct the legislation, allowing the Lords to sit on it for no more than one year.
Clegg's ultimate proposal, crafting a mostly-elected Lords, would make the Lords look more like the senates of the United States and Australia. The UK has been trending towards politicizing the Lords by removing hereditary peers and replacing most of them with life peers, who are usually retired politicians, and thus crafting a Senate in the American or Australian sense of the term without shifting the balance of power between the Lords and the Commons, and thus failing to give their reform any teeth (since the Lords themselves would not have any additional power to back up their now elected role in the government).
And so, in what ways could the Lords undergo reform that would allow it to still function as the Lords? Since no one in the debate seems very willing to shift power from the Commons to the Lords, the most practical reform would be to the way the Lords conduct business, both within themselves (who makes up the Lords? How does it run on a daily basis?), since their relationship with the Commons seems fairly settled.
Keeping the Lords as Experts
In the last article of this series, I commented on how the Lords in the past served as a chamber of expertise to fact-check and verify the work of the Commons. Many peers were in the Lords because they were diplomats, economists, lawyers or physicians. Committees in the Lords were (and are to this day) broken up by their field, not their political party as in the Commons. Partisanship, as we can see in this example, isn't meant to play a part in the business of the Lords. Rather, the importance should be on verifying the truth and feasibility of Acts of Parliament.
The biggest reason why the Lords may not be filling this role too well presently is because of the House of Lords Act of 1999. Because this Act drastically cut hereditary peers and allowed for the appointment of more life peers, many experts were dismissed from the Lords and former politicians began entering. As the parties switched back and forth between government and opposition, they appointed more of their own to counterbalance what the last government appointed. Now, the Lords is filled with ex-MPs, retired politicians, and not non-partisan field experts.
If the Lords is to keep functioning as a chamber of experts, reforms should be passed to restrict who can be appointed. Former politicians shouldn't be common, though not necessarily disqualified altogether (many MPs have been economists, doctors, lawyers, diplomats and scientists that could contribute, though they should not be considered based on their service as MPs and their political persuasion but rather on their unique expertise). The House of Lords Act was also quite concerned with the growing number of peers, and sought to remove hereditary peers in order to make a smaller chamber. This has backfired, as life peers continue to be added and the number of Lords is again increasing. While true that these life peers will not hand their titles to their offspring, there is no restriction on how many life peers can serve at a time. Perhaps, there should be. Good reform of the Lords, I believe, would include a cap on how many life peers can serve at any given time. Perhaps a small number of life peers should be appointed, and more hereditary peers could be allowed to return, as hereditary peers often stand outside of the realm of the Commons and would not be so tainted by political motive as an appointed ex-MP.
Making the Lords a Senate
This is the other viable option, but one that no one seems to consider. If the Lords is to be a wholly elected body, a Senate, then the senators will be politicians. The "expertise" that the Lords is currently clinging on to as a role will be altogether lost and political opinion will rule both there and in the Commons.
However, what isn't on the table is a re-balancing of power between the upper and lower chamber. The government doesn't seem willing to grant more power to the Lords, though it would become an elected body full of politicians placed there by the people. Who, then, would want to run for the new "Senate"? If there are to be two elected bodies, they must both have legislative power. This would mimic more like the United States Senate or the Senate of Australia (which is based off of the US Senate) than other Commonwealth Senates (such as Canada's, which functions more like the Lords).
Reform is Necessary
No one really denies that Lords reform is necessary, but it seems that the above options are really the only viable choices. Either the Lords are cleansed of ex-politicos or is overrun with them and given appropriate power. However, if the government ends up only fixing part of the problem, nothing will have really been solved for the Lords, and we will continue to debate over what their function is supposed to be and how to make it work correctly.
It's time for the government to play ball or go home on the issue of the Lords. Anything short of true and meaningful reform will accomplish nothing.
Chris Medlock - Chris is a freelance writer, fiction author and blogger. For Suite101, he enjoys writing on politics, history and religion.
Join the Conversation