Is it really a year since I last blogged on this subject? At the time it seemed like a topic that was gaining momentum — at least in the press, if not the country at large. A new political consensus was emerging centring around the notion of a predominantly elected second chamber with the authority and mandate to effectively scrutinise and revise legislation. What happened, and why on Earth have we been left waiting for so long?

After the regional assembly and EU constitution debacles (although the latter was admittedly not caused by the UK), the government seems to have put its constitutional reform agenda on the back-burner. This leaves it — rather conveniently, you might say — with a mainly appointed House of Lords, lacking in the moral or political authority to carry out its proper function, and without any clear path towards reform in the near future. The latest rumblings are that Jack Straw is intending to put forward a proposal that would allow the remaining hereditary peers to continue in their positions until they, quite literally, die off, meaning that the reforms would not be complete until 2050 or even later, combined with a 50% elected house. Does this sound like a coherent, well thought out policy for the 21st century, or an under-ambitious, outdated and hastily cobbled together compromise that is unlikely to please anyone? In my view, both of the aforementioned constitutional reforms failed precisely because they didn’t go far enough. Their vision was too narrow and there was a lack of democratic accountability. Consequently, they were seen as mere rubber stamping exercises designed to enshrine the status quo. This, quite unsurprisingly, failed to engage the public and failed to gain sufficient support to become a political reality.

Now I’m not suggesting that Lords reform is ever going to become sexy or engaging in the way that, say, pub opening hours or anti-smoking legislation are. However, I believe that we get the form of government that we deserve (and deserve the form of government that we get), and the sheer weight of public apathy on this issue has to be at least partly to blame for the lack of direction and progress on this issue. Even before the so-called cash for peerages scandal, the House of Lords was often seen as a bit of an irrelevance at best, and a laughing stock at worst. Whilst there may not have been any actual criminal negligence taking place, everyone understands that political honours are handed out as rewards for service to one’s country (or to one’s party), and that there is a huge amount of cronyism in the system despite recent efforts to make the nomination process more transparent (fancy a virtual peerage, anyone?). In fact, the efforts to improve transparency merely seem to underline the ridiculousness of the system. Consequently, the Lords seems an outdated irrelevance, populated by politicians of yesteryear and party backers, half of whom it seems can hardly stay awake, if they even bother to turn up at all. No wonder the public are apathetic about the issue if this is the perception created by the current system of lifetime appointments and hereditary peerages. To understand why the issue is still important, we need to take a step back and examine at the reason why we even need a second chamber of parliament in the first place.

I have no intention of rehearsing all the arguments for the various forms of reform that have been proposed in the past. These are all well documented elsewhere. However, there is still a need for a secondary revising chamber if we are to have clear, well drafted and carefully thought through legislation — something that has a direct and sizeable effect on all of our lives. Implemented properly, this process helps to ensure that the laws which are passed are both effective in achieving their desired aim and, perhaps even more importantly, cannot be abused by unscrupulous governments wishing to extend or abuse their powers. I’ve heard several recent examples of legislation being used to achieve prosecutions for crimes that it was never intended to cater for, and I have to say that it makes me distinctly uneasy…

My own preference would be for a largely (80% or more) elected chamber with STV (single transferable vote) and a fixed term of office, with one third of its members being elected at any one time to ensure continuity. The remaining members would be appointed by an independent commission (no party nominations) on the basis of merit, or in order to bring in specific legal and professional skills (doctors, teachers, etc.). I see no reason why ministers of the church should receive preferential treatment in this regard, and in this age of multiculturalism, find the present arrangements to be bordering on institutional racism (or whatever the equivalent term would be for religious beliefs). I’d even like to see a small number of seats set aside for true so-called ‘people’s peers’ who would be chosen by lot, or selected by the aforementioned commission on the basis of contribution to their local communities, although would be just the icing on the cake.

The important thing is that it be made clear what the second chamber is actually for and for those individuals serving in it to be made democratically accountable for the important job that they do. As long as the present system of honours and appointments is allowed to continue then this will always obscure the real purpose of the institution, which is to revise and scrutinise legislation, and the whole country will feel the effects in terms of increasingly centralised government power and poorly drafted legislation. We need a clean break from the past and a strong signal that Britain, a country which often boasts that it is the oldest surviving democracy, has a system of government that is fit for the 21st century and beyond. The best way to achieve this is to move to a largely elected chamber as soon as is practicably possible, and to ditch the moniker of ‘House of Lords’ all together (although judging by the current rate of progress deciding upon a new name could take as long as the rest of the reforms put together). All this will only happen as a result of pressure from concerned individuals and groups like Charter 88 and the New Politics Network, of whose Elect the Lords campaign this blog forms a part. Don’t just think about it, write to your MP and make it happen.