Lords material

The status of Britain’s second chamber has been the very definition of a dilemma: a choice between two contrasting options, neither of which are ideal. It is impossible to claim it is a legitimate body when over 90 of its members are there by bloodline. Contrastingly, the best kept secret in British politics is that it actually does a very good job.

It is according to statistics, the most active second chamber in the world, sitting for longer and more frequently than anywhere else. Morover, it is impossible to question the quality of its output. A case in point comes this week with the publication of a cross party report which is scathing about the consequences of the current government’s plan to equalise constitutency sizes, slash the number of MPs and hold an AV referendum.

According to today’s Guardian:

‘It says the reduction to 600 MPs is not based on any “assessment of the role and functions of MPs”, and the size of the constituency – potentially seeing new constituencies like that of the proposed “Devonwall” crossing regional and county boundaries – need to be better assessed in case they are “overly rigid”.

They also say that reducing the number of MPs but not reducing the number of people who may be appointed to government will increase the size of those on the so-called payroll vote relative to the number of backbenchers, so strengthening the hand of the executive against parliament.

“We conclude that the government have not made a proper assessment of the impact which the reduction in the size of the House of Commons may have on the relationship between the executive and parliament.

“This is an unsatisfactory basis on which to embark on fundamental reform of the legislature. We are concerned that the bill could possibly result in the executive’s dominance over parliament being increased.”

The peers also have concerns about the timing of the AV referendum. “We note the concerns expressed by the Scottish executive that media coverage of, and public debate around, next year’s elections to the Scottish parliament is likely to be affected by the coverage of the simultaneous AV referendum and this could potentially distort the outcome. It could equally be the case that coverage of the elections to the devolved institutions could suppress coverage of the referendum debate.

“We regard it as regrettable that the government should have failed to consult appropriately with the devolved institutions on the timing of the referendum.”’

Much of this material is applicable to the debate on constitutional reform, e.g. “Did Labour’s post 1997 reforms go far enough?”/“Discuss the arguments for and against a codified constitution.”