How to fix the Lords

It has become fashionable to denigrate the House of Lords, and given some of the recent allegations surrounding individual peers, this is no surprise. Seeing an opening, Labour proposes scrapping the institution altogether and replacing it with an elected second chamber – completing the constitutional revolution set in train by Tony Blair when he abolished hereditary peers.

This would be an act of constitutional vandalism. The whole point of the Lords is to act as a deliberative body, a check on pure democracy, bringing voices of experience and expertise to the writing of legislation.

Were it to be replaced by an elected assembly, especially one regionally or sectionally balanced so that it could claim to represent national rather than partisan interest, there would immediately be a contest between two bodies claiming political legitimacy.

It is true that other countries have pulled this off, but part of the historic success of the British constitution is due to its assertion that a constitution is about more than just voting every few years. Our settlement is a tradition, permanent yet evolving, to which one can contribute by election or appointment – and this finds expression through custom and ritual that set our Parliament apart.

Reputationally, a change is needed: the best approach would be to reduce the number of peers and strengthen the vetting process for candidates. Too many prime ministers have used the Lords to reward cronies – while, curiously, rejecting the opportunity to serve there themselves. But what this great institution needs is revitalisation, not thoughtless revolution.