Delay for House of Lords reform shows why reform is imperative

It was commonly agreed at the last General Election in 2010 that Lords reform was necessary. All three of the major parties indicated that they supported Lords reform in their manifestos, though each advocated different types. Of course, as the coalition has demonstrated, manifesto promises are often not worth the paper on which they are written. The tuition fee rises, which will see students pay on average almost three times as much per year in fees, were supported by the Liberal Democrats in government, despite their manifesto pledge to fight to remove all fees. Therein lays the problem of coalitions, namely compromise. Tuition fees are an extreme case where one party has completely reversed their previous stance. With the Lords reform there should be no such controversy. The three major parties agree that it must go ahead.

But things are never that simple. The government has just announced that it will no longer hold a vote on a proposal which, if passed, would prevent the bill encountering cumbersome delays intended to prevent its passage into law. Instead, a time limit would be put in place to limit debate and ensure that the first vote for the majority-elected House of Lords could occur in 2015, the date of the next General Election. The Conservatives have put the blame for the debacle at the door of Labour. However Ed Miliband has supported the proposals, whilst maintaining that they should go to a referendum. This is not a position supported by the Government.

In a cruel irony, whilst wanting to give the people the opportunity to elect members of the House of Lords, the Liberal Democrats are reluctant to let those very same people vote on the proposals, in fear that they may be rejected. The Conservatives would surely not be too displeased to see that rejection occur. The current system naturally favours a party which traditionally has represented the better off in society; it is from these upper echelons that a majority of Lords come. Yet the Government cannot risk upsetting the Liberal Democrats, should it make the coalition unstable and result in the Government’s collapse. It is telling that, along with members of the Labour party, it is the Tory backbenchers, who have far less affection for the coalition and far more independent political thought, who have delayed the progress of the bill.

It is fair to say that the currently existing House of Lords is in need of change. It is a lasting remnant of former times when birth-rite gave political power. In our current society this should not be the case. Admittedly our head of state is still the Queen, but the monarchy is little more than ceremonial and is without independent political power. The Queen and the Royal family also have active ambassadorial roles, and the income they bring throughtourism is far greater than the money they cost us each year. The monarchy, therefore, has use but no political power. The Lords also have use; they act as experienced heads to guide and advise the Commons on legislation. But they also have political power. That the public has no say in who they are requires reform.

Looking at the Lords from different angles does not help matters. Only a small proportion of the Lords are ‘hereditary’ peers, with the majority being ‘life’ peers. While this takes away much of the inherited power associated with peerages, it is also difficult to take. The group of life peers represent an ‘Old Boys’ Club’ elected by the political parties and not by the people.  The House of Lords has become the playground of successful businessmen, former MPs and people with connections to the major parties. This can act as a contradiction to their usefulness in an advisory capacity. The trend amongst the Commons of having‘career politicians’ rather than MPs who have life experience before entering Parliament has been heavily criticised. But surely it is even more disgraceful that it can be through connections, rather than qualifications and election, that life peers are given their seat in the House of Lords.

There is no more damning indictment of the system than the continued seats reserved in the Lords for all serving bishops of the Church of England. These men, with their unique perspective on life, can serve a very useful advisory role. But it should not be one they receive as a matter of course, but one that they are given by the people, should they choose to stand for election. In an increasingly multi-cultural nation, the current system could even be seen as discriminatory to other religions.

Lords reform is therefore necessary. But what the process has shown is that the reforms should not stop there. Never better have the problems of the current system been shown than by the three major parties’ inability to agree in practice on something which they all agree on in principle. The coalition has uncovered the contradiction of our political system. Candidates will say anything to get elected, but once they become MPs much of that goes out the window. The Liberal Democrats have shown this already, but other parties (all parties, in fact) are acting awkwardly, as nuisances, designed to affect the coalition (whether it be to stabilise it or undermine it). Lords reform is only fair, but if it is passed then maybe it will concentrate our politicians’ minds on getting their own affairs in order. Only then will we possess a political system, and politicians, which we can finally trust to run the country.