Baroness Boothroyd: A milestone of muddled thinking as pillar of our Parliament is wrecked

Never in all my years in public life has the bicameral role of our Parliament been so wantonly put at risk by such disregard of the nation’s best interests.

In one of his interviews last week, Lord Strathclyde, the leader of the House of Lords, talked about reaching a milestone in history. If only that were true.

Instead of a milestone, I foresee a millstone around the necks of future generations if the Lords is mangled in this way.

In their joint foreword to the draft Bill, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister repeat the fallacies on which their coalition agreement on this issue is based.

There can be no misunderstanding of what is at stake. This is not reform of the House of Lords, as they would have us believe. They are set on abolishing the Lords.

If this draft Bill becomes law in any shape or form, it will wreck this place as a deliberative assembly and tear up the roots that make it the most effective revising Chamber in the world.

Worse still, the balance between our two Houses, on which our democracy and the rule of law depends, will be lost for ever.

Why is this? Is it because the Government’s muddled thinking stems from the argument that both Chambers must be elected in order to be legitimate? That is the only reason offered. No other reason is on offer.

It is certainly not the inability of Members of this House to do their job to the highest standards. The foreword admits as much, when it says: “The House of Lords and its existing members have served the country with distinction.” Nick Clegg, the chief advocate of the demise of this House, acknowledged our “wisdom and expertise” when the Commons debated the draft Bill last month. I tell noble Lords that if this House was judged on its record in a court of law, our acquittal would be sure and swift.

So what is the problem? I refer again to the foreword, which claims that we lack “sufficient democratic authority”. Nothing more. According to Mr Clegg, our fatal flaw is that we are not directly accountable to the British people. That is absolutely true, but nor are the monarchy, the judiciary, the chiefs of the armed services, the Prime Minister, his deputy Mr Clegg or – let us face it – the Cabinet directly accountable. We in this House must be resolute in our determination and ready to resist, come what may from the Government front bench.

The Government already hint at using their powers of duress to get their way, but I warn them that they will not overcome the growing scepticism on all sides in both Houses and outside by cajoling backbenchers or rattling the Parliament Act in front of our noses.

I again ask in the simplest and most mundane terms that I can command: in what way would the nation benefit and Parliamentary proceedings be enhanced by the abolition of this House of experts and experience, and its replacement by a senate of paid politicians?

I am an optimist. I live in hope of an answer from the Government.

The phrase “If it ain’t broke, don’t mend it” is still true. That is why we celebrate great national events adorned with pageantry and why the State Opening of Parliament takes place in this Chamber.

I note that there is no move to scrap that. Why? It is because they do not dare to abolish that. Their sole aim is to preserve the coalition for five years, create 300 jobs for the boys and girls on the party lists, and send us as quietly as possible salami-style to the knackers’ yard.

The draft Bill’s proposals for electing the new breed of peers – or perhaps I should say the new breed of senators – are the most disjointed and disconnected possible.

Under the terms of the draft Bill, elected peers and MPs will be accountable to the electorate but some will be more accountable than others. Does that not smack of George Orwell’s Animal Farm?

The Labour front bench in the Commons dismissed the whole process as a huge anti-climax and the backbenchers called it a tatty roadshow, a constitutional version of fantasy football and a bag of fudge. The Tories were also restless.

No wonder Lord Strathclyde doubts the chances of the Bill getting through by 2015, as he stated in his interview last Saturday with the Financial Times. Mr Clegg, too, dismissed the public’s indifference in a way he may regret. He said: “The fact that an issue is not raised with us by our constituents does not mean that it is not worthy of debate.”

But the Government is losing the debate. The Government’s Bill is so loosely drafted, so full of internal contradictions that the Deputy Prime Minister himself admitted in the Commons debate that it represents no more than the Government’s “best guess of what would work legislatively”.

That takes my breath away. What an extraordinary comment to make on an issue of major constitutional importance. The governance of this country cannot depend on best guesses and burnt-out obsessions that have no relevance or public resonance.

Baroness Boothroyd, who was born in Dewsbury, is a peer. She was Speaker of the House of Commons between 1992-2000. This is an edited version of a speech that she delivered this week in a Parliamentary debate on Lords reform.