Beware the word 'reform'

A POINT OF VIEW By Brian Walden

Changes to the House of Lords have focussed attention where politicians like it least - on their doings, says Brian Walden in his weekly opinion column.

I think one of the most boring experiences of my life were the occasional classes I attended at school about something labelled "Civics".

Schools were allowed far more freedom to slip in the odd subject in my school days as there was no national curriculum. The one consolation about Civics was that it wasn't an examination subject. So directly I grasped how dull the lessons were bound to be, I half-dozed my way through the period, saving my energy for even less gripping matters in other subjects, such as why a pump worked and the everyday life of the amoeba as it excitingly divided itself in two every so often.

The reason Civics was such a bore was that it was about local institutions with all the politics taken out. In practice this meant an intellectual tour of the drains and sewers, or the trams and buses - and all the other facets of local administration. The one thing it taught me was that institutions are not in themselves of any interest to the general public.

BBC NEWS: AUDIO Hear A Point of View in the BBC Radio Player

Try it for yourself. Tap on the dinner table for attention and tell the family: "The government is the executive and parliament is the legislature. Parliament is divided into the House of Commons and the House of Lords."

The howls of disapproval will stop you at this point. Nobody wants to know. It is one of the little ironies of life that not many people have any interest in the details of how they are governed. Only a few political nerds think they do.

Of course most people know that the House of Lords can hold up legislation passed by the House of Commons, for a time. As a last resort the House of Commons can use the Parliament Act to force the legislation through. That's as much as need be known to understand how the system works.

Shake-up

But something unusual has happened. This dry as dust subject has become entertaining. Suddenly all sorts of people have become interested in the constitution and "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" is firing off letters to the press.

'Jovial cove' Lord Falconer, right

The Lord Chancellor, Charlie Falconer, has suggested that most of the members of the House of Lords should be elected, but have no power to delay legislation. If he thought he'd slip this past the slumbering masses, given the tedium of constitutional matters, he was mistaken.

I must say I like the look of Charlie Falconer. He seems to be a jovial cove and Westminster is crying out for a bit more humour. Undeniably Lord Falconer has no pomposity. He told the House of Lords, over which he presides, that the reason he was there was that he was once Tony Blair's flatmate. He may have done himself an injustice, because I think he used to play tennis with the Prime Minister as well. Don't rely upon that in court, I could have got it wrong.

I may be muddling him up with Lord Levy, who certainly plays tennis with the Prime Minister and introduces him to potential donors who have a knock-up with the great man prior to getting down to business with Lord Levy.

If Charlie Falconer did get into the House of Lords simply because he was a mate of Mr Blair, I can't say I'm outraged. I would far sooner the Prime Minister of the day sent to the House of Lords his old friends from college, his bridge partners, the lady who taught him how to dance and the local stationmaster, than fall under suspicion of dishing out the ermine robes for political donations.

However agreeable Lord Falconer may be, the poor fellow has got himself embroiled in that dreadful fly-trap christened Reform of the House of Lords. Always beware of the word "reform". It's one of the clearest signals you can be given that something fishy is going on. A reform of the NHS, or the railways, or local government is almost bound to mean that all the prices will go up and the service will be a lot worse than it was before.

As for Reform of the House of Lords it can mean almost anything, most of it nasty. It can mean that the Lords should be appointed with no elected members - which was Tony Blair's first idea of the reform needed.

Or it can mean that they should all be elected. Or maybe 50-50, or perhaps 60-40, with all the remaining hereditary peers kicked out. Or you could keep some of them in. The permutations are endless. The one thing I can tell you for sure is that the intention behind the so-called reform will have nothing to do with making the House of Lords better. Its purpose will be to weaken it.

Part to play

I know of what I speak. I'm proud to say that I was one of the MPs who played a minor role in scuppering a former attempt to reform the House of Lords, the notorious Parliament No 2 Bill of 1968. This was a truly barmy scheme which had not just been dreamt up by the Labour government, but had the support of the Tory front bench as well.

Enoch Powell helped knock back a past attempt

Enoch Powell and Michael Foot led a back bench revolt against it. They ran rings round the Establishment and eventually Harold Wilson, the Prime Minister, withdrew the Bill in a speech read so quickly that very few people could follow it.

To do justice to Tony Blair and Lord Falconer, I must tell you a few of the provisions of the 1968 Bill, not because they matter now, but to illustrate the crackpot ideas that get into even sensible heads when the House of Lords is discussed.

The Bill proposed that the government should have a built-in majority of life peers. They were to be called Lords of Parliament and were like aldermen as used to exist in local government. They would all be place men of course, not the slightest pretence was made that they'd need possess any merit other than blind loyalty.

Enoch Powell revealed that the scheme was even crazier than that. The nominees of the parties couldn't be allowed to change sides after membership, because that might decisively alter the balance. So the Lords of Parliament would literally have to take an oath of obedience and swear to vote like robots.

Marking time

Now be fair. Nothing that the Prime Minister and Charlie Falconer are suggesting is as way out as that is it? There's a reason why Lords Reform always contains loony and squalid elements. It's because the whole charade is a fraud from start to finish. It has nothing to do with improving the House of Lords or properly revising legislation. Its sole purpose is to abolish the House of Lords without actually taking the risk of doing it.

What should its make-up be?

Who knows? Having just one chamber, the House of Commons and that nearly always under the thumb of the government, might possibly alarm some people and lose votes.

Under Lord Falconer's suggestions, the House of Lords could amend legislation, but if the House of Commons told it to get lost it must give in immediately. Can you imagine the sort of creeps who would want to serve in a House of Lords like that? If ever such a monstrosity is set up, I predict that it will be riddled with corruption and will be a national disgrace within a couple of years.

What kind of person does Charlie Falconer suppose will be prepared to give serious attention to business after being told that nothing he, or she, does or says will make the slightest difference? It's absolutely bound to attract a percentage of crooks.

I'll concede that most of its members will pick up their allowances and expenses and play dominoes to pass the time. But what will the others be doing? Who do you suppose will be hanging around such a place?

Fancy footwork

There is a sub-plot in this story. Some of Gordon Brown's friends are putting it around that the whole thing was originally his idea, which has been pinched by Tony Blair to upstage him. I'm disappointed that Gordon Brown, who comes from a respectable Presbyterian background, would want to be thought capable of conceiving such a dodge. But if he's upset that he's missing out on the credit, I can cheer him up.

Whose big idea?

Anybody who goes near this so-called reform is going to wind up with egg on the face and mud on the suit. People sometimes say that parliament is out of touch with public opinion. I often disagree and argue that politicians understand the broad currents of opinion and try to swim with them.

But not in this case. It astonishes me that at this time of all times the Labour Party wants to pull this rancid rabbit out of the hat. The Party has been very lucky. Due to the Prime Minister's quick footwork, the loans for peerages scandal has turned into an relaxed inquiry into political funding with Labour looking no worse than the Tories.

But Labour shouldn't push its luck. Politics isn't giving off a pleasant odour right now, which could easily hurt Labour more than its opponents. It would be wise to shut up about peerages and who should or shouldn't be in the House of Lords. The House of Commons in its own best interests ought to want a period of calm on the institutional front.

The aim of all parliamentarians ought to be to make civics dull again. Give the voters a breather from constitutional scandals and upheavals. Parliament needs time to restore its repute.

---

Send your comments, using the form below.

Terms & Conditions