Abolish the Lords?

ON WESTMINSTER

THE calls for the abolition of the UK’s House of Lords have now gone further than just Sir Kier Starmer. The matter is being actively debated in the broadcast media.

We had a “reform” of their Lordships in 1999, when the heredity peers were kicked out (apart from 92, who are now elected by their Life Peer colleagues). Far from perfect.

The Heredity Peers tended to be younger and certainly more independent politically, whatever their alleged party allegiance. As for the Life Peers – they tend to be older (or retired) and are now pure party hacks, nominated by whichever party is in power, so they can pack the “Upper” chamber with their own kind. Not good.

Their Lordships are there primarily to scrutinise legislation in detail, line by line, a task largely abandoned by the Commons since they cut their hours and the “timetabling” of Parliamentary Bills was introduced, limiting debate and increasing the power of the executive (No 10).

We have Blair to thank for that one. Parliament is a mess, compared to what it used to be. So, what to do?

My view is generally “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it”. It wasn’t and Blair did. Consequently, it now IS broke. Abolish the Upper Chamber? No. A second chamber is vital in controlling the executive, so reform it. How? Be radical.

The Australian model is a good one. They have a Commons in all but name and a relatively powerful Senate, limited to just 76 members, elected by the individual Australian States and Territories. That could work for UK and its member countries. Their Lordships’ days are sadly over. All the UK needs is a PM with the guts to recognise it.