Richard Heller: Culling the Lords - spare the oldies, strike out the liars

BEFORE writing about the House of Lords, I must declare an interest. I have just made an offer to Jeremy Corbyn, Labour’s new Leader and Great Helmsman. Should any Labour peers flounce out of their seats after his victory I am ready to flounce back in as a replacement. By nominating me he could signal his views on the House and his intention to abolish it. To help him do this, I would change my name slightly – to Lord Helpus.

Interest duly declared, I hope I may join the current discussion about the bloated membership of the House. The latest appointments have taken this to over 800. The House of Lords is therefore second in size only to the Chinese National People’s Congress as a legislative body. You would think people would be proud of this, and urge David Cameron to appoint still more peers to give the House a crack at the world title. But no. Moaning minnies are demanding a cull instead.

One frequent proposal is compulsory retirement at age 80. This is a rotten idea, which strikes at our history. It would ensure that our Parliament contains no one who served in the Second World War, such as Lord Healey, Lord Carrington, and Baroness Trumpington, who would be casualties among the over-90s. The rule would also eliminate such respected names as Baroness Boothroyd, Lord Hattersley, Lord Tebbit, Lord (Nigel) Lawson, and Baroness (Joan) Bakewell, a particular irony since she was appointed as a champion of older people. Applied retrospectively, this rule would have driven out Baroness Thatcher and Lord Callaghan and a host of other historic worthies. It would insult all over-80s, especially our record-breaking 89-year-old sovereign. The Queen actually summons all peers to attend the House. Imagine telling her that she is not fit to be summoned herself.

There should be better reasons than age for removing a peer. One is obvious. Instant sacking with no possible return for any peer caught fiddling expenses, hiding a secret paymaster or failing to declare any other relevant interest, or breaking any other rules of the House. These are not onerous, and it is reasonable to expect total compliance from legislators who do not face exposure through elections.

Less obviously, peers should be removed if they take money or put themselves under any obligation to a foreign government, even a friendly one. It would be wrong to apply this retrospectively, but those who want to continue such a relationship should leave. All peers are summoned personally by their sovereign as “right trusty and well-beloved... upon the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to Us” to attend her Parliament and give counsel on the “arduous and urgent affairs concerning Us, the state and defence of Our United Kingdom.” Out of respect for the magnificent mediaeval language and the history behind it, peers should work for no other sovereign but their own. This rule would bar Tony Blair from the Lords (oh dear) and it would have excluded Ted Heath, who took money from a company wholly owned by the Chinese Communist government. One extra twist: peers should be disqualified for working for any Russian oligarch, because whether they like to admit it or not, they are thereby helping Vladimir Putin. Their bosses would not remain oligarchs without paying off Putin in some way – giving him a new palace or a new arms system or funding his corruption-drenched sports events.

All peers who have given more than £1,000 to a political party should be disqualified unless they match their cumulative donations with an equal contribution to the taxpayer.

Best of all, peers should be disqualified if they are caught telling any lie about any matter of public importance. This rule would turn the House of Placeniks into the House of Truth. Government ministers there would not dare to give dishonest answers to questions or repeat lies peddled in the House of Commons.

These measures, especially the last, should remove many discreditable or simply unnecessary peers, but if an excess remains we, the people, should decide who should leave. The House of Lords is often described as the best club in Britain. Like many other great clubs, it could have a blackballing system – but not one limited to the current members.

Instead, there should be a People’s Blackball. Before each session of Parliament, we would all get the chance to eliminate one peer of our choice. (I have a little list, and they’ll none of them be missed.) Peers who attract over a certain number of blackballs, say 10,000, within a week would be candidates for elimination. To spare controversial peers from being removed by pressure groups, they would be given a week to find a matching number of votes for them to stay.

All of these methods would be more just and more popular than a cull of the over-80s. But I still think our country should aim to overhaul the Chinese Congress. That would need over 2,000 new peers. Jeremy, my offer stands.

Richard Heller was formerly chief of staff to Denis Healey.