Who's Hooe in the Upper House... and why?

Torquay United are more likely to win the Premier League and the European cup than I am to be appointed to the House of Lords, but I have decided which name to adopt. When I was working as a junior doctor in Plymouth we lived in a suburb called Hooe, pronounced “Who”. I would love to be Lord Hooe (Who?) or even Dr Hooe (Who). 

But with all the controversy surrounding our upper house I’m not sure I would want to be Lord Hooe or Lord anything else. 

Since the time of Lloyd George there have been plans to reform the upper house, but nothing has happened. There has been over 100 years of indecision. 

Detailed proposals come and go including papers from Roy Jenkins and Gordon Brown. Ideas vary from a fully elected upper house to abolition. Any new proposals must be multiparty. Gordon Brown suggested an upper house reflecting the regions. 

The first question is what is the point of an upper house?  Most democracies have two houses. It is claimed that the House of Lords   is a revising chamber which can point out potential problems with legislation and ask the Commons to think again. This means that anyone appointed to the Lords needs some expertise. 

The other option is that it is a political chamber with the Prime Minister appointing members of their own party, in which case it should be elected. At the moment it seems to be both a political and revising chamber.

Any long-term proposals will take time but there are a few changes which could be introduced quickly.

First of all the House of Lords appointment committee which oversees appointments to the Lords needs to have the power of veto. Currently they can rule that someone should not be in the Lords and then be overruled by the Prime Minister. We have people in our legislature that an independent non-party political committee have ruled as unfit.

My second idea would be to appoint people for a limited time, perhaps five years. Each member could face an appraisal by a beefed-up House of Lords appointments committee. They could not rule on any political decision but look at issues such as attendance and involvement. This is no more than most people in the workforce face, including GPs. If after five years they are not performing their duties they would have to step down as a member, although could keep the title. This might also solve the problem of size. With 682 members eligible to vote the current House of Lords is the largest legislative chamber in the world after the National People’s Congress in China, another organisation which is not exactly democratic. 

The other obvious change which could be done quickly would be to abolish the hereditary system. It makes no sense in the 21st century to have people making our laws because their father was also there. I’m very fond of my dentist who is excellent but I would not want her son or daughter to become my next dentist without any training simply because they inherited the position. Any hereditary peer who was working well would be appointed as a life peer. However good they are it does not mean that their son or daughter should automatically take over.

There are some excellent members of the House of Lords. The level of debate on the red benches is often far higher than the Yar-boo shouts in the commons. It is useful to have a chamber where experts can point out problems in legislation missed in the commons. 

Of course, this is an area where I am completely unqualified, and I am sure that there are some politicians and constitutional experts who would point out major flaws in my ideas. It is about as likely to be implemented as my becoming Lord Hooe (who).  But isn’t pontificating on an area where we are ignorant also one of the problems of the current House of Lords.