Lords Above
by Sam Gisoad

Not for a long time has the House of Lords been so vivid in the public consciousness. Just as their legitimacy is being threatened by allegations that a peerage is little more than an IOU, they’re simultaneously denying the ‘will of the elected house’ by refusing to pass the ID cards bill. Which means that it’s going to shuttle between the two like a demented wasp unless a) they reach a compromise, or b) the Commons uses the Parliament Act.

The Parliament Act, for those of you who have neglected your constitutional studies of late, is the political equivalent of saying ‘it’s my ball, so if I can’t win, I’m not playing.’ It goes like this: if the Lords refuse to agree to a Bill which has already been approved by the Commons, the government can pass the Bill into law, without the Lords' agreement, after a delay of a year. The Act has been used 4 times since 1949, and three of those were by the current government (European Parliamentary Act 1999, Sexual Offences Act 2000, Hunting Act 2004).

In fairness, it might have been used more by the previous Tory government had they not had a huge majority in the Lords. But the overuse of the Act in recent times is telling in terms of how the current powers-that-be see the Upper Chamber.

'They don’t get paid, and they sit for long hours, debating seemingly minor points of legislation long after most people would have given up and started keening at the sheer ennui of it all'

It takes very little for people to start to abuse the poor old peers. The whole why-are-they-there, who-do-they-think-they-are, what-right-have-they brigade are too damn fond of pointing out the obvious; that no one elected them, which is their greatest strength. Doesn’t take much to see why. They don’t jerk knees in time to The Sun and The Mail, and couldn’t give a tiny toss if they piss off you and me and everyone else in the UK. And if you think that’s a bad thing, then think of anything that has been passed by the ‘overwhelming will of the elected house’ and pretty soon you’ll find something you despised. And if you can’t find it since 1997, try looking in the previous 18 years.

The funny thing is, they’re conscientious about what they do; they’d have to be. They don’t get paid, and they sit for long – and antisocial – hours, debating seemingly minor points of legislation long after most people would have given up and started keening at the sheer ennui of it all. Those who decry the Lords should spend a few hours in Grand Committee; it doesn’t take too long to realise that you could neither elect nor pay people to do this. No one would stand, and the riches of the Orient would not be salary enough. Only people who do it for the love of it could possibly hear the phrase “We turn, my Lords, to amendment 120A, which would ensure that an Electoral Returning Officer had a duty to consider the steps that he could take to encourage electoral participation in a ‘reasonable’ light, rather than simply doing so in a way that he thought ‘appropriate’” after five hours of debate without losing their rag, wits, or will to live. The only ones who regularly attend, and so influence politics, are the ones who are prepared to sit through all that, the rest just get silly titles that mean nothing.

Truth is, the last thing any government wants is an elected House of Lords; it would hand them a mandate that they have never before enjoyed. At the moment, they can only amend bills, and every time they vote something down, the Commons scream about accountability. True, they are given to long, maundering speeches in which they stray into the realms of the absurd, True, they are not that representative of modern Britain; although if you read and believe the popular press, the last thing anyone wants is to be ruled by representatives of modern Britain.

'If they want to give Blair a million notes in return for the dubious honour of going through everything the Commons churns out then that’s fine by me'

So what about removing them, cutting through swathes of class privilege and outdated snobbery and finally making a modern, classless Britain? Well, okay. But since we’re on the subject, who will scrutinise the perpetual screeds of legislation, and make sure that the Commons don’t pass lunatic law that contradicts itself, (it often does) or mean that people can be arrested on spurious grounds? [And before you wonder if that might happen, consider the case of the Northumberland teenager who, thanks to no one reading the small print of his ASBO, was compelled by law to carry alcohol in towns and under a court order to cause distress through unruly behaviour.] Someone would have to do it. Would they be elected, or selected, or nominated or…and we’re back where we started.

It doesn’t matter a damn how they get there. If they want to give Blair a million notes in return for the dubious honour of going through everything the Commons churns out then that’s fine by me. If they have to be subjected to it because of who their father was, I’m still happy. I’m just happy that someone is. And those someones have done more to defend your essential freedoms than any other politician for the last decade.

When the Lords kick the ID cards Bill back to the MPs there will be further calls for the House to be abolished. There are always voices – some genuine, some patsies, and a sprinkling of machiavels – prepared to shout siddown when the lords start rocking the ship of state. But before you add your voice to the throng, think of them as ennobled sanitary towel collectors. They deal with the lifeblood of politics, but in its least attractive form. Voluntarily. And they feel, quite literally, honoured to do so.