Once their Lordships vacate our crumbling Parliament, let’s keep them out

One of the fringe benefits of the costly plan to refurbish the Palace of Westminster is that for the first time in nearly 1,000 years, only elected legislators will sit in our Parliament.

Major renovation work, said to cost billions, is needed to the parliamentary estate, fixing everything from faulty wiring and drainage through to subsidence problems affecting Big Ben.

One rumoured proposal would see MPs working conditions ‘pimped’ by moving them into the Lords’ Chamber. Meanwhile our unelected Peers will vacate the premises altogether for the duration of the works, shipped across Parliament Square to deliberate in the QEII Conference Centre.

Amid the banging and crashing that is set to go on for up to five years, this temporary vacation should galvanise constitutional modernisers (read ‘democrats’) into renewed action to make it a permanent exclusion.

Unfortunately, House of Lords reform has completely slipped off the radar in recent years. This is understandable, given the Tories’ historically lackadaisical approach to removing unelected legislators. The Lib Dems are hardly any better though. Nick Clegg has 98 Peers that in his weakened position he dare not upset (with the exception, perhaps, of renegade Lord Oakeshott).

Frankly, though, it’s an issue that doesn’t really motivate MPs of any party these days. Perhaps proximity to their Lordships means that relations between our elected and unelected legislators have become too cosy?

No apprentice to Dennis Skinner has yet stepped forward to claim the mantle of ‘Chief Pricker of Pomposity’ at the State Opening of Parliament, when the ridiculous figure of Black Rod ‘summons’ elected MPs to stand in the unelected House of Lords and listen to a hereditary Monarch read out proposed laws from a hybrid government that no-one voted for.

This is where Ed Miliband can steal a march. Lords reform is a tailor-made issue for him. It’s high-minded enough to pique his intellectual curiosity (without being too esoteric) and builds on the bold constitutional changes made during New Labour’s first term. Best of all, Lords reform costs nothing – neither in cash terms nor in the risk of generating sympathetic victims. In fact, the reverse is true. There is a populist whiff of the people socking it to the undeserving toffs. We have little enough time for the politicians we actually elect, let alone the ones we don’t.

First, Miliband should remove, at a stroke, the remaining hereditary peers from Parliament. There are still 92 of them sitting in the upper house, a compromise measure that was foolishly agreed by the Blair government in order to smooth the way in getting rid of the rest of the troublesome hereditaries in the late 1990s. They didn’t have the good grace to go quietly at the time but this arrangement should never have been allowed to dangle this long. Cut them out of the equation cleanly, brutally and for good.

Next, establish an august inquiry of both Houses to recommend what happens with the Lords. This ground is well-trodden, yet all previous attempts at reform under Labour stalled for the same reason. Agreement could never be reached about whether to have a wholly-elected second chamber or only partly-elected.

If wholly-elected, will the new democratic credentials of members of a reformed Upper House clash with the primacy of the House of Commons and create ‘mandate envy?’ But if a reformed Lords is only partly-elected to avoid this problem, what percentage should be directly-elected? Opinions vary.

The way of bridging this impasse is simple. If there is no clear agreement on next stage reform within 12 months, then there never will be. In this case, Miliband should abolish the House of Lords entirely.

Britain can function perfectly well with a unicameral system. The House of Lords’ historical purpose as a ‘revising chamber’ is largely redundant these days thanks to an active media and a burgeoning army of lobbyists, pressure groups and business bodies seeking to trim the rough edges off legislative proposals.

And this state of affairs is certainly no more undemocratic than a bunch of appointed placemen, frocked in ermine, making our laws for us. And arguably a good deal more effective in holding the government of the day to account.

Indeed, the voices of our Peers of the Realm are no more worthy of affecting the great issues of our time than the members of the BBC Question Time audience they look set to share the QEII centre with.

Necessity is the mother of invention and we have a unique chance to refit not just our crumbling parliament but our clapped-out legislature as well.