THE Westminster debate on the Lords organised by SNP MP Pete Wishart this week is a chance for some blunt talking about the second chamber.
The Lords has its moments as a revising body. Despite the weight of Tory appointees, it has still inflicted more than 40 defeats on the Coalition, including a hefty one last week on excessive antisocial behaviour orders. And, as its _defenders point out, its members include many excellent thinkers and experts.
But it remains at base an undemocratic, unelected relic, a jumble of historical accidents and botched attempts at reform; it has to go.
Another form of chamber could fulfil its functions and draw on outside expertise if needed.
According to Labour's Lord Foulkes, there is now growing cross-party support for a constitutional convention in the next Parliament which could look at how to replace the Lords with a senate. The aim is sound, though the details are hazy. If the second chamber were directly elected, it could challenge the primacy of Commons, and so MPs would never legislate to put it into effect. But if indirectly elected - its members chosen from lists of party-approved candidates by the Scottish Parliament and other elected bodies - it could end up filled up with yet more cronies. Finding an answer will not be easy. Even the SNP are reluctant to pick a solution, talking instead of several possible models. But if the will is there, it can be done.
The first thing to agree is that the second chamber cannot be tweaked into the 21st century. So no more plans for 50% or 80% elected. No more residual hereditary peers or bishops. Instead of yet more "Lords reform", we should insist that only "Lords replacement" will do.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article