House of Lords Reform

I was appalled when I learned that the new Coalition government are going to attempt to turn the House of Lords into an elected Senate. So strongly do I feel about this travesty that I was compelled to send letters off to various members of Parliament (both Opposition and Government as well as the Lords). Below readers can find a copy of this agitation. I think it summarises my argument quite well, and I would be interested to read the opinion of anyone who happens to be passing through this section of the blogosphere.


An academic’s first duty is to their subject, and a bishop’s to God. Both roles can be found within the House of Lords, but does the value of these individuals as legislators diminish because of their devotion to their chosen field? Almost certainly not; in my own modest opinion quite the reverse is true; by first serving science, or philosophy, or whatever other subject may be represented in the Upper Chamber, peers such as Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, can bring expertise and a unique insight to a prospective law which would have been lost if he had been a politician alone. No matter how intelligent an MP may be, they simply cannot keep abreast of current developments in their past field as well as fully serving their constituents and going through the rigors of re-election every four or five years. This, of course, does not devaluate the hard work of our MPs, but it does highlight the need for independent life peers in the House of Lords who can scrutinise and debate Bills in a way which the House of Commons cannot hope to emulate.

I am not advocating that the House of Lords does not need to be reformed, but I feel that the creation of a wholly elected Senate would be pure folly; the great tradition of highly qualified independent peers would be lost, and this would be a dismal development for the national character: I find it hard to imagine Lord Rees standing in an election at the expense of scientific enquiry, and it would be incompetence in the extreme to force such peers to choose between the love of their country and the love of their subject; there seems no sane reason why the two cannot be reconciled.

I hope that I have clearly expressed my view on this subject, and I hope that you shall at least consider this view before voting on any legislation which may change the nature of our upper house.

And so ends my political agitating, at least for the moment!