Good Lord: experts required

All politicians, when given power, desire more. It is a basic mantra and one that really should be heeded when deciding whether to give them it or not. The evidence for it sticks out like a sore thumb as well; from the European Union to the devolved assemblies and from surveillance forms to interfering ‘nudge’ techniques: wherever there is power, there is a lust for more.

So why is it that Nick Clegg, who obviously feels he hasn’t been pummelled enough of late, has suggested that we create direct competition between two elected Houses of Parliament? He knows full well that any change will cause an unnecessary constitutional crisis that very few of us will care about.

Now, as a Conservative, I’ve got to admit that I am against Lords Reform from the outset. This is because, to be quite honest, I think getting the economy back to growth, bringing down debt and the deficit, increasing employment, education and an infinitely long list of other things is preferable to spending any time discussing a subject that has no appeal to the vast majority of the British public.

This is an attitude that is shared by members of both Labour and the Conservatives and I believe that the Labour Lord Lipsey expressed it best when he said of his government’s proposals in 2007 ‘…[reforms] would replace the present – admittedly appointed, but fairly expert – House of Lords with a pale clone of the House of Commons. I think that’s a recipe for endless political wrangling and ultimately for deadlock.’

However, as Nick is hell bent on doing it, we should at least be looking at the different alternatives. Some have suggested that we go for an elected house, some for appointed, some for a mix and there are even those that want a return to the anachronistic days of hereditaries. The issues surrounding each are as dull as the topic itself to most people but for me there are two that are of real importance: the effect on accountability and on expertise.

‘A & E’ will be affected by any change but I think there is one suggestion, based on a model that already works rather well, that is being ignored by the political mainstream but really could maximise both. It comes from the most recent reform which removed all save 92 of the Hereditary Peers. It was decided that from the pool of previous peers they would elect their representatives to the House (oddly making them Lords more democratically accountable than it may seem).

Now here is where we get radical: let’s extend that system. We’ve all heard the cry ‘There should be more Doctors/Soldiers/Nurses/etc. in politics’, so let’s get them recognised in our system where their expertise in the field after a lifetime of service can serve us all. Let’s let groups have seats, business federations, university groups, charity groups, heck even Unions! Let them elect or appoint from inside their own organisations their best members, the greatest experts and the greatest minds. Let them be dedicated not to furthering their political career but to making sure that reforms or public Bills help not hinder the country.

This is, in part, what happens now with cross-bench Peers but with so many political Peers appointed by whichever Prime Minister is in Downing Street, we easily fall into a muddle. This is where accountability comes in. Our MPs are geographically based; one per area. Yet so many issues cross borders, affecting a range of the country’s rich and varied tapestry. With the reform that I’ve suggested, we would be able to have representatives of professions from all around the UK, which would be a welcomed change to constituency-based MPs.

If we are brave enough to suggest say, that Health Care professionals be brought into the legislative process in the reformed House then when the cry goes out that they are ‘not listening to Health Care Professionals’ it will have real meaning behind it, visible and accountable to the members that elected their representatives. It may even mean that votes within organisations yield more representative results, as their actions will have real consequences for their members. We could have a House of experts, accountable to the country and their sector simultaneously whilst acknowledging the primacy of the democratic will of the Commons.

One last benefit we could all accrue is the need for the constructive debate that this method would bring. No more could companies, federations and unions snipe at one another without ever meeting. All sides would be working together on a daily basis for the good of the country; this co-operative approach can only be of benefit.

At a time of austerity, when we need to be going for growth and easing the burden on the wallets of ordinary citizens I appreciate fully that Lords Reform is a luxury we should not be indulging in. However it is here and we must deal with it. We have a choice; between a democratically accountable House but one deficient in skills and honesty. Or we could choose to reform our House so that we expand the political franchise to our country’s many sectors, increasing our accountability and our expertise whilst maintaining the primacy of the House of Commons.