17.01.2002

Abolish the second chamber

The Labour government is facing its biggest back bench rebellion and potential defeat over its proposals to reform the House of Lords. Addressing the Parliamentary Labour Party, Lord Irvine, the author of the white paper The House of Lords - completing the reform was "crucified" a Labour MP told the Financial Times (January 10). Meanwhile Iain Duncan Smith could face a rebellion of his own, from Conservative peers and MPs who object to his counterproposals for a largely elected "senate" to replace the Lords. Under the proposals contained within the white paper the Lords would be reduced to 600 members. The 92 hereditary peers that survived the first phase of Labour's reform will be removed. In their place will be the originally named members of the lords (ML), 332 of whom would be nominated by political parties, 120 selected by a supposedly 'independent' appointments commission and finally 120 (20%) directly elected. Seeking to outflank the government, the Tory-proposed second chamber would comprise 300 'senators', 240 (80%) of whom would be elected, the rest appointed. This senate would be given enhanced powers of scrutiny over European legislation and possibly the power to summon ministers before select committees. The bogus nature of the Tories' 'democratic' posturing is self-evident. To allegedly safeguard its 'independence' the elected element of the senate will serve 15-year (!) terms and the so-called 'independents' - the unelected bishops and law lords - will remain in place. For the enfeebled Conservative Party, Lords reform has obvious attractions. Primarily it represents the opportunity to cause the government some discomfort. Some of the effects of the constitutional reforms enacted by Labour since 1997 can at least be mitigated. A key theme for Duncan Smith, launching the proposals within the pages of The Sunday Telegraph this weekend, was made clear: "Drawing members from every corner of the country would strengthen the union and bind our country together" (January 13). Historically the Lords has tended to have an inbuilt Conservative majority in the form of hereditary peers whose social position and outlook has made them 'natural' Tories. However, Labour's policy of flooding the Lords with its peers has further stymied a Conservative Party already impotent in the Commons. Unsurprisingly Duncan Smith has been scathing about this 'cronyism'. He is reduced to pontificating on democracy - ironic, given his own party's history. But defending the status quo is of little advantage to the Conservatives: "Leaving the House of Lords as it is is not an option", according to Duncan Smith (ibid). In essence, like Blair's Labour, the Tories want to give the discredited Lords a facelift to save it. However, both envisage different roles for a reformed second chamber. For Blair it is to remain the pliant creature of the Commons, while the Conservatives and the hard Telegraph/Spectator right have discovered the virtues of a 'strong (bicameral) legislative' versus the 'tyrannical executive'. For them "the Lords is doing rather well as it is" (Daily Telegraph January 10). Laughably this populist demagogy seeks to present the Lords as being 'in touch with Britain' - of course we all identify with your average hereditary peer, don't we? Though Duncan Smith's policies have been endorsed by the shadow cabinet, this issue divides the Conservative as well as Labour benches - albeit more subtly. Some Conservative peers have already expressed misgivings. Lord Kingsland, the shadow lord chancellor, expressed his opposition to a "hybrid house" and endorsed the view expressed by one of his contemporaries, Lord St John of Fawsley, that there was "nothing whatsoever to be said" for the Duncan Smith proposals - before they were published. Though according to a Conservative spokesman quoted in The Daily Telegraph (January 15) Lord Kingsland has since undergone a Damascene conversion, some opposition could still arise. If it comes then it will test IDS's grip on his fractious party. The beginning of William Hague's leadership saw him attempt to formulate a policy on Lords reform along similar lines to Duncan Smith - only to be forced to back down by opposition from Conservative peers. For dismayed liberal supporters of the government the fact that the Tories have outflanked them is proof of the feebleness of Irvine's proposals. For The Guardian, "It beggars belief that the Conservative Party, the historic defender of aristocratic privilege, should have contrived to appear more open-minded on Lords reform than Labour" (January 10). The proposals from both the Labour government and the Conservatives are certainly both a sham and a swindle in equal measure. Marxists campaign for 'extreme democracy' under capitalism. In opposition to the 'checks and balances' so beloved of the bourgeoisie, radical and consistent democracy is in the interests of the working class. In opposition to the Commons/Lords charade, we demand a single-chamber, annually elected parliament, with recallable MPs - a body directly susceptible to pressure from below, in other words. An opportunity exists for the Socialist Alliance to take the lead in putting forward an independent working class position on this question. The local elections in May will see democratic issues feature high up on the agenda. While arguing for a programme of local democracy, we need at the same time to ensure that we make more general propaganda linking local democracy to the national fight to sweep away the House of Lords - in any form - and the whole rotten constitutional monarchy system it sits on. James Mallory