Politics

What should we do with the Lords?

Robin Downie

Everyone seems to want to change the House of Lords but nobody is quite sure what to do. One suggestion might be: follow the example of Scotland and don't have a second chamber i.e. abolish the Lords. But the Scottish example is not very helpful as a model here because the voting system for the Scottish Parliament means that its membership is likely to be more balanced and its consequent legislation more generally acceptable.
     It is worth remembering that when the budget of the Scottish Government was defeated an election did not follow, as would probably have happened at Westminster. The Scottish Government simply had another think and renegotiated their package until it was more generally acceptable. But at Westminster the current voting system reinforced by party whipping does not provide a similar balance. Hence, a second chamber is helpful in Westminster to the extent that it can offer some checks, balances and scrutiny So what should be done with the Lords?
     One approach might be: do nothing, don't change it. Institutions should be changed if they are doing a bad job, but is the House of Lords doing such bad a job? Is it ineffective? Leaving aside matters of expenses (which were no worse in the Lords than in the Commons) we might bear in mind that the Lords has in fact held up or modified over-hasty Commons legislation, for example concerning the detention without charge of suspects. So why change the Lords? The usual answer is that it is neither accountable nor elected, and in our present age it is widely held that being elected (usually assumed to mean the same as being democratic) and accountable is more important than being effective. Or perhaps it is thought (although this is a questionable thought) that to be democratic and accountable is ipso facto to be effective.
     Note that being accountable is not the same as being elected. Most people are accountable to a boss but are not elected. To whom should the Lords be accountable? Who should be their boss? If we say, 'The Lords should be accountable to the Commons' that would defeat the whole point of having an independent second chamber. If we say, 'They should be accountable to the same electorate as elects the Commons' then we have restored the link between accountability and electability – but at an undesirable constitutional price – namely, we have set up a rival chamber with the same sort of legitimacy as the Commons. Only delay and strife can come from that. Those who say – and a lot of people do say – that they want a wholly elected Lords have missed that point.
     In any case, accountability is not the universally good thing it is depicted as being. During the many changes (a word I prefer to 'reforms' because it is more neutral) in the NHS it was said that medical staff cost and use a lot of money so they should be 'accountable'. But to whom? The answer turned out to be – and may God preserve us – to managers, who in turn are accountable to chief executives. And such is the accountability of chief executives that if politicians say 'Jump!' they will say 'How high?'.
    
But to return to the Lords, one of the merits of that institution may be precisely that it is not entirely accountable. It seems to me to be important that there should be a body that can tell it how it is without having to curry favour with the Murdoch press, political masters expecting pay-back time, or even an electorate. To take a controversial example, there is certainly huge waste in the NHS in terms of inflated salaries for bureaucrats. But some cancer drugs also are simply not cost-effective – they are vastly expensive and much promoted for profit by pharmaceutical companies, but perhaps offer only a 15% chance of extending life for six months ie they have an 85% chance of doing nothing except toxic harm. But try saying that sort of thing if you want to be elected.
     If we grant however that there is pressure for changing the House of Lords into a wholly elected second chamber how can this be done without creating a rival chamber? One idea might go like this. We could draw up a list – no doubt a controversial list – of the great institutions of our state. I would suggest for starters: trade unions, the CBI, the Law Society, the royal societies, the British Academy, the churches, the universities, the Farmers' Union, the British Medical Association, the Association of Local Councils, the Association of Small Businesses (there must be one) and others. Suggestions welcome (but please, no bankers).
     These institutions could be asked to elect several of their members to serve in a second chamber. Members of such institutions are such because of their experience, responsibilities, skills or scholarship, and could bring to bear on proposed legislation a mature scrutiny without worrying what the Murdoch press is going to say. We could then have an elected chamber, the members of which are accountable to one or other of the large variety of specific constituencies which elected them. Being elected and accountable they would also have an answer to the often ill-informed sneers which are currently directed at the Lords. Perhaps the members of a chamber so constituted could continue to wear ermine; but moats and duck-houses are reserved for the elected and accountable Commons.

There will be no edition of the Scottish Review tomorrow, but there will be an edition on Friday

Robin Downie is emeritus professor of moral philosophy at
Glasgow University