Leaders: Devolution must set agenda for reform of the Lords

THE House of Lords is a travesty of democracy. That the United Kingdom legislature still has a second chamber made up of those who inherited titles, were appointed by the Prime Minister or who are Church of England bishops, is frankly absurd, a fact which has been recognised by parliamentary reformers for more than a century.

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, is just the latest in a long line of Liberal leaders who has sought to make the upper house of parliament answerable to the people rather than to vested political interests, accidents of birth or the vagaries of appointments to the higher echelons of one religious group, which was why he fought to have reform in the co-alition agreement with the Tories. However, as Mr Clegg is finding out, he has inherited the problems with reform which beset his predecessors, from Herbert Asquith onwards. It is far easier to denounce the Lords as an affront to democracy than it is to win consensus for change.

It is against that backdrop that the latest proposals for Lords reform must be seen, with a joint committee of both houses calling for the second chamber to be 80 per cent elected, made up of 450 peers, cut from today’s figure of 800, who would serve for 15-year terms. True to historical form, however, the committee was divided.

Some members argued that electing most peers would give the new House of Lords more democratic legitimacy to challenge the traditional supremacy of the Commons. This argument carries some weight, though it must be remembered that Mr Clegg’s predecessor had to call two general elections before he forced the then entirely unelected peers to give up their powers, particularly over budgets.

Other objections include the cost of running the new chamber, claimed to be £433 million eventually, up from the current £17m, and the fact the new electoral system – with voters choosing to vote for either a party list or for individuals under a single transferable vote system – was too complicated. A further objection might be electing members to serve 15-year terms, when they are paid around £50,000 a year.

All of these arguments should be debated, but there is a bigger picture which Westminster has failed to consider. In the next few years, Scotland could be independent, or at least have far more powers transferred to Holyrood from Westminster. Northern Ireland, Wales and London are likely to demand further powers. Across England, mayors are beginning to be elected and they undoubtedly seek more power over time.

With such constitutional upheaval in prospect, it is perverse to be contemplating Lords reform now.

We have waited so long for reform, it would surely be better to await the outcome of wider constitutional reforms, and then consider setting up a democratic second chamber to play a proper part it what is likely to be a very different political landscape.

UK should learn the Haarde lessons

Former Icelandic prime minister Geir Haarde is the first politician anywhere in the world to have been prosecuted for his role in leading his country both before and after the financial crisis which engulfed the Western world in 2008.

Yesterday, Haarde was convicted of failing to properly analyse the risks of his country’s rapidly expanded financial services industry in the noughties. He was acquitted of charges of malfeasance, including failing to cut the size of the banking system; not properly monitoring national bank Landsbanki’s moves into the UK; and failing to produce better results from a government report on financial stability.

Haarde claimed the guilty verdict was absurd, and suggested the judges were under pressure to ensure at least one conviction, such had been Icelanders’ anger at the collapse of their bank- dependent economy.

In this he has a point, as he will face no punishment for the conviction and the state will pay his legal expenses.

However, it is worth pondering the wider lessons of this episode. In this country, politicians and regulators who got us into the financial crisis may have been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, but they have not faced the kind of criminal trial Haarde was subject to.

In our system, politicians are accountable for their actions to parliament and the people, while civil servants have legal responsibilities for ensuring money is properly spent. But politicians are also governed by the law. In many other fields individuals can face legal action for negligence. The public would be entitled to ask why no-one in this country has faced the courts over the financial meltdown.