Is it time to give the lords a peer review?
The story of the four lords a-leaping (for allegedly offering to affect legislation in return for cash inducements) prompts all sorts of questions about the upper house of our legislature.
The House of Lords prides itself on the quality of debates, and I’m the first to accept that there are some amazing brains in there, and some amazing experience.
But some would say it is a flawed model. 800 people, in there for life, on the banks of one of the world’s great rivers. And unlike the prison system, life really does mean life.
What’s more, the lords do have power – to change House of Commons legislation, to originate legislation, and to hold up legislation for a year.
The question today is whether any reforms that follow this “sting” operation are confined solely to the specific issues unearthed by the Sunday Times, or whether they extend to the continued existence of unelected legislators.
Those who think any reforms will be the minimum necessary point sagely at the extremely desirable attractions of the place – most desirable to those who are charged with sorting it out. MPs are desperate to get into it. It is a pension for life. Well over £120 a day in expenses every time you attend, and you can go on forever.
There are no other jobs like it. You get a title which gets you an upgrade on airlines and a better table in a restaurant. There’s free car parking and the meals are subsidised. In return, an expectation of public service and the responsibility that flows from being one of the more significant “checks and balances” on executive power.
As I speak, the eighth speaker’s conference in 100 years is deliberating why certain groups in the UK population are not adequately represented in parliament.
David Cameron has told Tory peers that reform of the House of Lords would be a priority in the third term. Labour has been in for 12 years and all they’ve managed is to lop off a few hundreds of the old landed aristocracy. So perhaps you shouldn’t hold your breath.