Henry Kissinger once said that the reason why academic politics is bitter is that the stakes are so small. Some may feel the same is true of the present debate over an elected House of Lords.
A White Paper and draft Bill are presently before Parliament; a Joint Committee is grinding its way through months of testimony; and the media are already getting fired up, amid increasing signs that the next parliamentary session will be dominated by the issue.
Parliamentary partisans of election will insist that this is the unfinished business of a century ago. Opponents will muster constitutional arguments by the hatful. Stuck in the middle will be a substantial number of MPs who fear a modern version of the Great War question: “What did you do to solve the greatest economic crisis of the past 70 years?” They know that creating an elected Lords—if indeed that happens—will not suffice as an answer.
What we need, then, is less heat and more light: arguments that cross party lines and make sense to people whatever their political views or party labels. Should an elected Lords be a priority right now?
The answer is No. But what’s more interesting is that this applies in particular to would-be reformers or progressives in all parties. Reformers are in fact the last people who should be pushing for an elected Lords at this moment.
Why? Well in the first place, an elected Lords would be less, not more, diverse than the present Lords. There are lots of older people in the House of Lords, but on almost every other measure the Lords is more representative of different parts of British society than the Commons: more people from ethnic minorities, more people from different religious groups, more people with disabilities. The 2010 general election marked the first time in recent history when the percentage of women in the Commons caught up with that in the Lords, at 22%. But the difference is that women are at the forefront of the Lords, as Lords Speaker, Leader of the Opposition and Government Chief Whip. Four of the past six Leaders of the House have been women. All these different voices would be muted in an elected Lords.
Secondly, consider the Union. It now seems likely that there will be a referendum on independence for Scotland in 2013-14. Unlike an elected House of Lords, Scottish independence is a highly contentious current issue for many people on both sides of the border. The secession of Scotland from Great Britain would throw our constitutional arrangements into turmoil. Whatever one’s views, it makes no sense to consider the issue of electing the House of Lords before the basic question have even been framed of who exactly will be governed by such a House, and how.
Worse, an elected Lords would introduce the West Lothian Question into the Upper House for the first time. This is already a vexed issue in the House of Commons. It does not arise in the present appointed Lords, but would immediately do so if the Lords were elected. Scottish Senators would be able to vote on English laws while English Senators would not be able to vote on Scottish laws on domestic matters, since these issues are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The result would be to delegitimize some Senate decisions, and add to existing pressures pulling the United Kingdom apart.
Finally, insistence on election of the Lords will impede, not assist, real progress on reforming the Lords itself. The present government is not yet two years old, but it has already passed three major measures of constitutional reform: on constituency boundaries, on fixed term parliaments, and on the Alternative Vote referendum. There is unlikely to be more than one shot at reforming the Lords in this parliament.
A wide consensus exists now across Parliament as to the kinds of measures that a genuine reform Bill might include, such as a reduction in the size of the House; the ending of elections for hereditary peers; a retirement process; a more independent process of appointment; and removal of peers who have committed serious criminal offences. A more radical approach would also separate the award of a peerage from membership of the upper house.
Many of these measures are long overdue. They could be implemented today, and would likely pass Lords and Commons alike on a free vote. But the issue of election seems certain to be vigorously contested in both Houses. The irony is thus that the draft Bill’s preoccupation with election is likely to impede real progress on Lords reform.
Encouraging diversity, addressing Scottish independence, and genuine reform of the Lords: these are three major reasons why would-be reformers of all stripes should not make an elected Lords a priority.
[A version of this article first appeared in The Times]