Recognising the value of the Lords

Last Thursday, I spoke in a debate at the Cambridge Union on the motion ‘That this house would scrap the Lords’.  There were three speakers for the motion: Darren Hughes (chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society), Kezia Dugdale (former Scottish Labour leader) and a student.  Speaking against was the Green peer Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, cross-bencher (and the first Lord Speaker) Baroness Hayman and me. 

Before the debate, there was an indicative vote taken: the students, I was informed afterwards, split roughly 50:50 on the motion.  When the vote was taken at the end of the debate, the result was: Ayes 18 Abstentions 41 Noes 73.  It was a remarkable victory and I think bears what was noticeable about the evidence submitted to the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords in 2000: the people who know more about the Lords tend to be the most supportive.  When you explain to an audience what value is added by the House of Lords, they move in favour of retaining it to fulfil its functions.  

I opened not by defending the Lords, but by making the positive case for the House.  I began with two propositions.  First, that good law is a public good.  Second, that form should follow function.  The two in combination make a powerful, I think compelling, case for the House.  I developed the points in terms of what the House did in ensuring law was as good as it could be in delivering on what it was intended to achieve.  The fact that the House of Commons is elected is why it should determine the purpose of legislation.  The fact that it is elected is why it cannot devote time to making sure it is crafted in such a way as to ensure it fulfils its purpose.  That is the function of the Lords and the composition is crucial to enabling it to fulfil it effectively.  As such, it complements the Commons.  It does not conflict with it, which would render the House objectional.  It does not duplicate what it does, which would make the House superfluous. 

In the latter half of the my speech, I responded to the usual arguments deployed against the house, but which are not actually arguments for scrapping it.  That it is too large is an argument for reducing its size, not abolishing it.  The fact that there are problems with the nominations process is an argument for reforming the process (not least through passing my House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill), not abolishing it.  As for the argument that the House is undemocratic, I explained why that is not self-evidently true and made the democratic argument for an appointed second chamber.  

It was twenty years since I spoke against a similar motion at the Oxford Union.  The principal speaker for the motion was the late Earl Russell.  I am pleased to say that the students also on that occasion voted down the motion.

It is gratifying that the value of the House of Lords is recognised in what Blackadder recognised as the nation’s three great educational institutions.  Where Hull students lead, those of Oxford and Cambridge follow.