Any proposals to rewire politics and replace the House of Lords
with an elected Senate risk blowing a constitutional fuse, the
Lord Speaker says.
In his first major speech since being elected Lord Speaker,
of Drumlean says that -
against a background of political upheaval - the House of Lords
stands as a beacon of stability, meticulously scrutinising and
improving the flaw-riddled "half-formed legislation sent to it by
MPs.
He suggests changes could be made to the appointments system,
which would allow for the nomination of more independent experts
as well as tougher vetting of those chosen by political parties.
This could be matched by restraint - voluntarily or by law - on
Prime Ministers' powers to appoint an unlimited number of peers.
In his speech to the Hansard Society, the Lord Speaker - who is
politically impartial - says anyone advocating wholesale reform
of the Upper House should reflect carefully on how that reform
could affect the House's ability to perform its work.
There has been talk recently about rewiring our constitutional
arrangements. Any electrician would tell you, if you get your
wires crossed, you may be in for a nasty shock.
The House of Lords is a kind of constitutional trip-switch,
forcing a reset on bad laws which have not been properly
considered by the elected House. Anyone advocating rewiring
politics needs to consider very carefully, will their new system
keep the lights on or will it blow a constitutional fuse?
Would an elected Upper House attract members with the same high
level of expertise ... as the current Lords, or would it be
dominated by career politicians? Would elected members be willing
to focus on scrutiny of legislation or would they concentrate on
constituency work and media appearances to boost their chances of
re-election? Would members of an elected Upper House accept that
the Commons must have the final say or would they feel free to
attempt to block or kill legislation, risking the kind of
gridlock regularly seen in the US Congress?
He says the work of the House of Lords included agreeing more
than 2,000 changes to legislation in the 2024-2026 Parliamentary
session, and removing flaws which could have caused serious
damage.
I urge anyone advocating radical reform (to the Lords) to first,
do their homework. Ensure that they understand the work that the
House of Lords does to improve law on behalf of voters; consider
whether their proposed alternative format for the Upper House
would be suited to the task of detailed scrutiny and revision of
legislation; and ask themselves, if it would not be suited, then
who would do this work - or would this work not be done at all?
Citing recent Lords initiatives such as the ban on deepfake
pornographic material and social media use by children, rewriting
terrorist legislation to avoid accidentally pulling journalists
into prosecutions, and pushing the Government into more effective
action on sewerage discharge into waterways and the illegal
dumping of waste, he says: Ultimately the justification for the
House's existence is that its work improves the quality of
legislation produced by Parliament, and thereby the lives of the
people of our country.
Those arguing for a move to a directly or indirectly elected
Upper Chamber would have to answer some tough questions.
Turning to the composition of the House, says: I recognise that no
politician wants to give up powers of patronage. However I
believe it is time for political leaders of all stripes to give
serious attention to measures which can build trust in our
political system.
An independent nominating body could have responsibility for
ensuring better geographical balance on the red benches, and be
allocated powers to vet political nominees, while the power of
prime ministers to appoint unlimited numbers of peers could end -
either voluntarily or by law.
This could be coupled with changes to the existing House of Lords
Appointments Commission, enabling it to nominate more than just
two life peers a year.
The speech is the first of a number proposed by the Lord Speaker
on the work and role of the House of Lords.
He adds that the Upper Chamber will be sitting a full week longer
than the Commons, which rose on Thursday July 16, while costing
considerably less.
