How do you solve a problem like the Lords?

The Sunday Times revealed a leaked discussion paper which proposes one possible answer to this frequently asked question. The eighteen page document was presented by Common’s leader, Jack Straw, to the cross-party group on Lord’s reform, and is expected to form the basis of a white paper published next month. The blueprint proposes four main changes to the chamber at present; streamline it, elect half, appoint the rest, and give them a salary.

The chamber that Attlee likened to a glass of flat champagne, may finally have some fizz injected into it. If as expected a new House of Lords reflects the religious, racial, and gender balance of the UK, the chamber may finally be dragged into diverse 21^st century Britain. A free vote in the House of Commons on the issue may come as soon as early 2007, and if the supposed new-found consensus is maintained throughout the legislative process, we could witness the first elections and appointments to the reformed upper house taking place at the next general election. Following which, New Lords would finally be expected to work fulltime in exchange for a salary; almost 100 years after salaries were introduced for their Commons counterparts. This move would end the system of allowances that currently rewards Lords for their attendance, but could cost three times more than the present system, despite cutting the number of members down from 741 to approximately 450.

However, as exciting as this may seem, it will only be money well spent if the New Lords genuinely represent Britain. A geographical constituency provides a powerful and direct link between MPs and the British people, yet an emulation of this concept does not feature in the exposed blueprint for reform. When crossing the floor of the House, or resigning a party’s whip, Members of the Commons are able to carry their constituents with them; a clear reminder that they are primarily, ahead of any partisan affiliation, constituency representatives.

Although it is still under discussion, it is expected that the Lords Reform Group will favour a List system, and therefore a Lord elected in this way will be elected primarily on a partisan line. The fundamental difference that would arise from this situation is that the paid Commons member represents specific constituents and can seek redress of grievance on their behalf, whereas a paid Lords member has no specific body of people to represent, and may only speak and vote on a partisan basis. A youthful and diverse upper chamber would be more aesthetically-pleasing than the present white middle class men, but failure to emulate the Commons’ direct link between people and their parliamentarians may be a costly and ineffective next stage of Lords reform.

Comments

[swatantra nandanwar]

The question is who do they actually represent. Even though their constituencies may not be coterminus with the Commons, there will be someover lap. Unlike the MEP's who represent the European interest, constituents would find it difficult to know who to approach their Lords or their MP.
They could do a deal with their fellow Commoner and take over specific areas, but even then there would be relatively little case work involved; most of their time would be in revising legislation, and preening themselves. Unlike the American Senate a much smaller and more powerful body, our second chamber would be fairly impotent.