Iain Dale’s timely blog post about the need for Bishops sitting in the House of Lords to avoid party politics has got me thinking. Am I alone in noticing that the issue of House of Lords reform has almost completely disappeared from the political agenda?
Firstly, I can understand, even if I disagree with their ability to do so, the value of allowing Bishops to contribute to Lords debates about moral issues such as the right to life. I'm constantly reminded, however, of an outrageous speech delivered in the Lords by Archbishop John Sentamu this summer in which he ridiculed Eurosceptics and passionately endorsed the European Constitution.
As a private citizen, I have no problem with the Archibishop Sentamu voicing his support for the European Constitution, however misguided I may believe his views to be. As a representative of the national faith, however, who sits in the Lords by virtue of being the Archbishop of York rather than Mr John Sentamu, he has no right to involve himself in such matters.
Secondly, I have never heard a convincing argument as to why Britain should remain the only country in the world other than Swaziland to still allow tribal chieftains - yes, herediary peers - to sit in our national legislature. Aside from this unacceptable anomoly, one only need look at the 357 life peers created by Tony Blair (as compared to 341 created during the Thatcher and Major years) to conclude that the chamber is broadly reliant on party-political patronage as opposed to genuine ability.
So I'll nail my colours to the mast: the House of Lords needs fundamental reform. But where should we start?
To my mind, an attractive starting point is to closely study the operation of the German Bundesrat where the membership is comprised of the representatives of state governments in direct proportion to their size. A similar such model - a "Senate of seconded county and borough councillors" - is proposed by Douglas Carswell MP and Daniel Hannan MEP in their excellent new book 'The Plan'.
Such a system would avoid the need for the creation of another level of professional politicians while guaranteeing representation in the chamber from all parts of the United Kingdom. The body would also, as the Bundesrat did during the dying days of the Schröder government, act as a constantly-changing barometer of public opinion and a safeguard against the power of central government.
I am, however, open to pursuasion about any reasonable proposal to reform the chamber. How would you reform the House of Lords?
Some Conservatives oppose any and all moves towards reform, clinging to a romantic vision of a patrician House of Lords which acts in the best interests of the British people. They are wilfully ignoring ample evidence to the contrary. House of Lords reform is not only inevitable but necessary for the health of our democracy.
As Benjamin Disraeli said, "I am a conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution and a radical to remove all that is bad". In this case, I'm proud to be a radical.
