Thursday, December 02, 2004
Last bugle call of hereditary privilege

The machinery of the British political system has heaved and groaned but finally it has come to a decision on the future of hunting wild mammals with dogs. Unsurprisingly, it went to the wire with the chasm between the elected House of Commons and the unelected House of Lords, as wide as ever.

Late Commons amendments to the Bill included a proposal to delay the ban for more than a year. But vindictively, the self-righteous attitude of the Lords voted instead to enforce the hunting ban almost immediately, in February 2005, rather than giving hunting a stay of execution and allowing people to be re-employed and pack hounds to be dispersed.

Even Thatcher granted the miners more time than this before turfing them out onto the streets.

Despite pleas from Lord Whitty - that the ban was coming regardless, in selfish pride they rejected the Bill and the amendment. The original bill stood and the Parliament Act was invoked.

Such is the Upper House’s disdain for democracy, it was prepared to sacrifice jobs (other people’s jobs, obviously) for its own selfish pride. And as a last stand against democracy, the amendment was defeated in the knowledge that a legal challenge to Act was more likely to succeed if the ban was imposed through the Parliament Act than with their blessing. If the Commoners can’t be put in their place in a battle of legitimacy, the House of Lords, as the highest court in the land, could have the final say after all. Allegedly, even the hunting fraternity wanted the ban to take immediate effect to allow legal action to commence as soon as possible and to capitalise on the disaffection of those who enjoy killing wild mammals.

Doubtless, the Labour Party would have preferred a delay, but the amendment was a proposal from the majority in the Commons, not from the Government of the day. Such is the Upper House’s disdain for the current Labour Government, the Lords were explicitly prepared to punish Labour at the polls. Knowing an election is likely just weeks after the ban comes into force, the toffs have shown astounding arrogance in attempting such sabotage. With its in-built conservative majority, bolstered by the continuation of the hereditary principle, an unelected Chamber is explicitly setting out to undermine a democratic election.

During the debate, Peers sanctimoniously congratulated themselves on standing by their principles, ‘doing the countryside proud’ and voting ‘as [it] would have wished them to’.

This goes right to the heart of the matter. Analysis of the voting in the Lords reveal that the majority of those who dismissed the amendment were hereditary Peers, the largest group of landholders in the UK.

These hereditary Peers represent no one but themselves. And while I do not doubt their noble devotion to the protection of the interests of the common person against the tyranny of the state, they remain unelected, unappointed, anachronistic, self-preserving toffs. When their hobbies became threatened, they closed ranks.

As yet, few commentators (bar Peter Bradley MP) have made the connection between the dispute over hunting with dogs and the wider constitutional issues which this wretched affair has highlighted.

The House of Lords Act 1999 was a dog’s breakfast, always intended to be interim measure designed to even things up for the new Labour Government in the Upper House. This unfinished business left 92 crusty 8th Earls and 4th Barons in place, nominated by ballot.

Since then, reform of the Upper House has stalled. Blair has been frying bigger fish in Iraq and Afghanistan and has since discovered that his conservative instincts are at odds with the rest of his party, particularly over the relative proportions of elected and appointed members. Blair is either unwilling or unable to fight both the Labour Party and Parliament on this issue.

Although he has agreed that the hereditary element must go, his prevarication over further reform of the Upper House has allowed the hereditary element to remain for too long already.

With the benefit of the objectivity that living somewhere else provides, debate over the relative balance of appointed and elected members seems farcical – a ‘no-brainer’, as it were. Understandably, the overwhelmingly powerful executive arm of the UK government would be reluctant to loosen the reins of power but such should be the force of argument and tone of the debate that anything other than a fully elected Upper House should not even be on the radar. Only the mechanics of the election and the form of the constituencies should be up for discussion.

Australia has long lived in the shadow of the Olde Country; this is why sporting success over colonial HQ remains so important. Reflecting this link, the adoption of the Westminster system of Government remains a potent reminder of the common history of the two nations. But from afar, the reporting of the twee traditions of hereditary privilege is done with the attitude of a youngster considering a batty old grandma.

Surely, now is the time to complete the transformation of the House of Lords to a full elected, proportionally representative Chamber, which has the legitimacy to hold the executive to account, without it being compromised by the presence of political appointees, bishops and accidents of birth.

Whatever views you may have on the fairness or the effectiveness of the Hunting Act, it was legally enacted as that was the will of the elected Chamber. The Parliament Act is an institutional safeguard against the thwarting of the democratic will but it is an unsatisfactory mechanism in deficient legislature. The answer is to have an Upper House that commands respect from the legitimacy afforded by democratic election. Only then it may it rightfully attempt to thwart the will of the Lower House.

• Honesty at last - Simon Hart, Countryside Alliance


• Yes - This is about class war - Peter Bradley MP
  

---