It’s time for radical Lords reform fit for a modern democracy
House of Lords (Credit: Alamy)
4 min read
There is no obvious reason for the House of Lords to have such a large membership.
A reduction in size would hopefully persuade members to attend the House more regularly and serve on its committees, reducing public expenditure and providing each peer with more office space than a small desk in a small room.
The House of Lords needs both elected and appointed members. I disagree with those who want an all-elected or all-appointed House – a ‘hybrid’ House is clearly the way forward. In my view – which goes against the royal commission chaired by Lord Wakeham – the elected element should be larger than the appointed.
First, it would be less prone to the patronage and corruption that bedevil even the best system of appointment that we can think of. Second, regions and nations demand and deserve representation and will not be satisfied with a token presence. Third, although a greater range of representation and expertise and the discharging of vitally necessary functions are sources of legitimacy, its most important and widely recognised source is election. Any system in which the appointed element is larger than the elected and therefore able to outvote it would be widely and rightly perceived to be undemocratic.
The title ‘Lord’ or ‘Lady’ gives its bearers an exaggerated sense of self-importance
Somewhere between 60 and 80 per cent should be elected peers, the rest appointed.
As an academic used to the stimulating presence of visiting professors from other universities, I have sometimes wondered whether it might be a good idea to invite one or two distinguished international figures each year as visiting or associate members of the House of Lords for a period of four to eight weeks.
They should be widely respected for their experience and judgement and be knowledgeable about our political system, but not politically active. They could have the right to speak, but not vote, and attend the House and interact with its members. They could include such persons as a younger Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a past president of the European Commission, or a past secretary general of the United Nation.
The advantages of this are several. Britain is one of the most internationally-minded countries in the world, and the appointment of such persons would be an important way to affirm and nurture this sentiment. It might also set an example to other countries and start a healthy trend away from narrow nationalism and obsession with sovereignty. It would add moral weight to our voice when we press for international co-operation and multilateral institutions. Above all, it would expose us to different perspectives on global issues, and enrich our parliamentary deliberations and public life in general.
The title ‘Lord’ or ‘Lady’ gives its bearers an exaggerated sense of self-importance. It tends to foster vanity among some of them and deference among the rest of their fellow citizens. It is a source of undeserved privilege in several areas of life. The much-favoured term ‘senator’ is preferable, but by no means ideal.
I do not see why the State Opening of Parliament should take place in the Lords and MPs summoned to it by Black Rod. The historical rationale for this has long ceased to make sense, and the pre-eminence of the Commons is an established fact. The King should open
Parliament in Westminster Hall where members of both Houses have enough space to find seats. Ideally the State Opening should be an occasion for MPs and peers to mix informally, momentarily forgetting party affiliations.
It is time to drop the practice of requiring peers to don their ermine robes, which many find too expensive and which only a few have any chance of obtaining in a ballot. It may not be a bad idea to allow, or even encourage, a diversity of national and ethnic costumes to express and affirm our multicultural society.
Many of our institutions and procedures can be changed in this way and turned into public statements of our national identity, the kind of country we wish to be.
Lord Parekh, Labour peer
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
