When I heard about a 3 part series on BBC2 revealing the inner workings of the House of Lords, I was excited: both as a politics junkie and for the public. I thought it was necessary for the public to have the opportunity to understand how the secondary, unelected chamber of Parliament worked. A chance for the Lords to be held to account, for once, with the impartial BBC showing the good, bad and ugly. From watching the first episode, my views on the Lords are mixed.
In a way, the House of Lords feels like Hogwarts. From the start, the architecture, atmosphere and 'feel' of the buildings were simply divine. On the exterior, gargoyles, stone structures at huge heights for the eye to feast upon. Inside, chandelier after chandelier, narrow red corridors and constant loud echoes. All of this inhabited by Lords - a majority of whom are over 70. Maintained for hundreds of years, it is clearly at the heart of British democracy. I found it fascinating how the documentary followed a number of different peers from all parties who genuinely wanted to contribute. A highlight was Baroness King, a former Labour MP, trying to amend the Government's Housing Bill. It was inspiring to watch all the meetings she attended and speeches she gave to make progress - thankfully achieved. Another was Lord Bird, founder of The Big Issue, whose journey we followed as he entered the Lords. His maiden speech was *interesting*, if nothing else. I found it excellent to see someone non-political, with real life expertise, becoming a peer. Despite all the hard work of some peers, it is very easy to see why there is such disconnect between voters and Parliament. Beginning every day with Black Rod, the usher of the Lords, and his sword leading an ancient procession seems terribly old fashioned. Though some may wish to preserve this ancient ritual, I find to hard to see what place this procession has in 21st century democracy. I wonder how the Lords can be made more inclusive and accessible to a wider spectrum of people. The system of an independent panel deciding which non-political people should become peers, who can bring their expertise, seems fair and reasonable. The policy of the party leaders deciding which former MPs or members deserve seats seems slightly undemocratic. Perhaps a list of candidates being put to respective party memberships, allowing more people to have a voice. Of course, these are just hypothetical ideas, but ideas nevertheless. However chosen, the purpose of a secondary chamber is so important. Holding the lower house to account on all legislation and ideas seems vital for a functioning democracy. The ability to re-draft, add additional amendments and simply ask the Commons to re-consider is a very powerful position to have. Given the expertise of many Lords, having served in Cabinet positions previously, the advice should be very well received. Currently, the Lords is debating the Brexit bill. Personally, I believe the house should vote for Brexit, but add amendments safeguarding the rights of EU nationals already in the UK. So, the future of the Lords? I don't know. Presumably, it will at some point become an elected chamber, which may or may not make its work more effective. What I do know is that as an institution, though it has its faults, the Lords is a huge benefit to the way our country is run.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|