The Daily Echo 8 February 2007

Written by Sandra Gidley MP on Thu 8th Feb 2007

What do we do with a problem like the House of Lords?

There has long been a desire to reform the upper chamber and there is a general acceptance that hereditary peers have little or no place in a modern democracy and the number of hereditary peers has been reduced since Labour came to power in 1997. There is a recognition that peers are there to do a job of work and many people feel that in recent years they have provided a useful check on some of the Government's wilder schemes.

The last time the House of Commons voted on the future of the House of Lords we were spectacularly unable to come to a decision. The biggest argument is, at first glance, about whether the upper house should be appointed or elected or a mixture of the two. Appointed members have become associated with cronyism and Liberal Democrat policy is to have a completely elected upper house. I differ with my party on this as I would like to see a small proportion of appointed peers. One of the strengths of the current House of Lords is that the members have a wealth of experience and speak with authority on a range of subjects. Appointed places could be used to improve diversity and ensure that relevant expertise was used.

There is however, another dimension to the debate. People are equally divided as to whether they think that the Lords should have more or less power. Some want the peers to remain as a revising Chamber with no real muscle whilst others feel that our democracy would be better served if the House of Lords had real power.

My personal view is that large majorities lead to political arrogance - whatever the colour of the Government of the day. In such situations it is necessary to have some system of checks and balances and this should be the main role for the House of Lords. This would be less likely to be achieved if the election system for the upper house echoed that of the Commons so a different electoral cycle, and probably a different electoral cycle would be necessary.

I suspect that this is one of the issues that exercises those in the Westminster bubble rather more than the average person in the street. This is one of those occasions when I would be happy to be wrong because the long term quality of our democracy depends on it.

Published with kind permission of the Daily Echo