IF you want to know why long-term reform of the House of Lords has been put off for 94 years and is highly unlikely to be agreed in this parliament, just look at the discussion paper circulated over the weekend at the Labour Party’s Policy Forum. The paper is a candid admission of muddled thinking and incompatible objectives.

The preamble to the 1911 Parliament Act, which limited the powers of the Lords, stated the intention of creating “a second chamber on a popular instead of hereditary basis”, but “such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation”. Time moves more slowly in the Palace of Westminster than outside. And while we have had life peers since 1958, we do not have a popular chamber.

The dilemma is that, as the Labour paper recognises, “the most important guiding principles for the composition of the Lords — the primacy of an elected Commons versus a second chamber ‘as democratic as possible’ — are in conflict. The more that the second chamber can claim a democratic mandate, the more likely it is to challenge the primacy of the Commons”.

Consequently, the paper favours “phasing in” an increasingly democratic element, “with review points to check that we have not produced unintended consequences along the way”. So an elected element could start at, say, 20 per cent, then rise to 40 per cent, 60 per cent, up a maximum of 80 per cent.

At each step, “the impact on Commons supremacy could be reviewed and the next step would not be automatic if it was felt that the unintended consequences were undesirable”. In other words, if peers behave themselves, then a few more can be elected. Or not, if they get uppity. It is like “earnt autonomy”, under which local councils get more freedom if they are judged responsible by Whitehall.

This ludicrous formula fudges the basic question: do we want a pluralist constitution? A proper bicameral legislature would involve checks and balances between the two Houses, recognising constraints on the primacy of the Commons. Preserving that primacy is incompatible with a majority elected Lords. The confusion is compounded by a proposal that half the elected tranche would be chosen directly, perhaps using existing euro constituences, and half indirectly, through regional assemblies and local authorities, while “representative groups”, such as the TUC, the CBI, could be given “an appointing role”. That is half-baked corporatism, reminiscent of 1930s ideas for a parliament of industry.

Faced with these contradictions, and Labour’s unwillingness to recognise formal checks on the powers of the Commons, the chances of any long-term plan being agreed by both Houses looks remote.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• UK regional accents thrive against the odds
• ‘Scarecrow’ wind farms put rare birds to flight
• What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth