Peer review

Well, what a month! For political enthusiasts (ok, geeks) like me, the past few weeks have been tense and intense. Now that the dust is beginning to settle, we have time to think about some of the changes the new government wishes to make. Some of them good, some of them bad. Some will look more far reaching than they actually are. And some will completely transform our democracy. One such change is reform of the House of Lords. As a passionate democrat, you would think that I would be in favour of a wholly-elected Upper Chamber. And I am pretty sure I should be. But I am not. I believe that there is a role for appointed peers. I don't mean peers who get to wear ermine as a leaving present from the House of Commons but peers who are are appointed because of their experience and contribution to civic society. Peers like Joel Joffe, Robert Winston, Helen Hayman, David Ramsbotham, Mary Warnock and dozens like them. They bring real expertise and offer a completely different perspective which I fear would disappear in a wholly elected Chamber. So if asked, I will be saying yes let's review and reform the system but let's not throw any babies out with the bathwater.

Too many lords a leaping?

At breakfast the other day with a member of the Shadow Cabinet, another guest complained bitterly about the number of Lords in the Government. (It has to be said the Shadow Minister didn't seem that fussed indeed I think he is grateful to Brown - it makes it easier for a future Tory government to do the same.) So does it really matter if Ministers are not elected? I am not convinced it does. Ok, they are not called to account in the Commons. So? When was the last time a minister was so crushed by the questioning of MPs on the floor of the House that s/he changed the policy or even resigned? Ministers are accountable in many other different ways. John Humphrys, Paxman, Select Committees - they regularly have to appear before these inquisitors. And if we are going to have a House of Lords, shouldn't our noble friends be able to scrutinise ministers effectively? Another point worth bearing in mind is that the current system pretty much means that if you want to be a minister you have to become an MP. Your motivation is not to become a great legislator but to get into the executive as soon as possible - what impact does this have on the legislature. Finally, being able to bring in talented people into government who are not career politicians but draw on wider experience has to be a good thing. The point surely is not where in the Houses of Parliament the minister sits but whether they are up to the job.