LORD SPEAKER: YES, WE ARE TOO BLOATED
... but we’re still better value than the MPs!
Yesterday’s daily Mail reported a poll which it said suggested that the House of Lords was outdated, outsized and out of touch with the British public. Let me set out five short reasons why I do not believe the House of Lords should be discarded in this way.
First, the daily Mail poll suggests that seven in ten voters believe there should be fewer peers than the current 780. I totally agree. that is why I set up a special committee under terry Burns to propose how we could reduce it.
they suggested an overall cap of 600 members, not to be exceeded, and limited terms of service for new peers. In a debate last december, the Lords itself endorsed that report. the process of reduction is now under way – and I should emphasise that this is being done without the benefit of Government legislation, but rather by peers themselves. the size of the House is now falling and will continue to fall.
second, it is ludicrously unjust to characterise peers as ‘dinosaurs in ermine’. We may have an older membership than the House of Commons but with age comes experience and we have acknowledged experts in virtually every area and a far greater level of expertise than any other senate I know of in the world.
In defence we have distinguished military leaders like alan West, the former First sea Lord, richard dannatt, the former Chief of the General staff and Jock stirrup from the raF who was also Chief of the defence staff. Or if we take health, we have figures like robert Winston and ara darzi. In the law, we have former Lord Chief Justices like Igor Judge and John thomas.
among the historians and broadcasters, we have Peter Hennessy, Joan Bakewell and Melvyn Bragg. For obvious reasons, the depth of knowledge here vastly exceeds anything available in the younger House of Commons.
third, there has been criticism of the House for pressing amendments on the Brexit Bill, but this ignores the fact that the final decision on all these amendments rests with the Commons – the elected chamber. Our only power is to ask the Commons to consider again. It would be odd if this Bill – of profound importance – was the only bill which escaped such scrutiny.
It should be added that of the 201 amendments which were made to the bill in the House of Lords, 178 of them were proposed by the Government, again underlining the importance of the second Chamber in improving legislation.
Fourth, the vast majority of peers are hardworking and honest. I in no way defend anyone who has been shown to abuse the allowances system. I will refer any substantive complaint to the Commissioner for standards for independent investigation.
as for the £305 allowance itself, you might remember the many peers who live outside London require either a hotel room or lodgings for the night, and have to meet this expense and any secretarial expenses out of this flat allowance. everyone who claims has to sign a declaration that they have undertaken genuine parliamentary work.
FIFTH, on the question of cost, the overall cost of the Lords is approximately £100million a year, compared with the Commons which is over £200million a year.
Moreover, the annual cost of each member based on the average allowances claimed is £22,000 a year, less than a third of an MP’s salary, let alone their additional expenses.
the Lords cannot simply be written off as enemies of the referendum or enemies of Brexit, there are many views in the House on those subjects as there are on a range of issues. I was in the House of Commons for over 30 years and I cannot recall ever hearing calls for its abolition on the grounds that members held views which were considered out of step.
We are a strong enough parliamentary democracy to permit differences of view, honestly held – particularly with the safeguard that the final decision rests with elected MPs.