The House of Lords

I went on a visit to the House of Lords recently, as a guest of the Bishop of St Albans. It was an interesting visit, and provided some interesting insight into the place and the workings of that house.

The place itself is quite something - very elegant and ornate, quite a spectacular and beautiful building. You can walk along corridors with the most ornate carvings and paintings. It is a place that should inspire awe and a sense of responsibility. To an extent, I think it does. To a large extent, those who occupy the privileged seats in the house do realise what a responsibility they have. Certain recent news stories excepted.

I think that many of the Lords work hard - being involved in the processes, discussing and questioning. There were a number of members there who were doing their job well, asking and getting the answers, being present for the discussion of items that they have skills in. In particular, the bishops who work there combine their other work with attendance and involvement in the work there. Others combine other work with attendance and involvement there.


The problem I have is deeper rooted than that. The fact that some of those involved are good, honest and hard-working, while others may not be does not change the fact that the process seems to be wrong and broken. The part we saw - questions to the government - was a chance to raise questions, but they were answered by rote, and there is a limit to the questions and the time to discuss.

The problem I see is that it is a slow and compromise-driven approach to making laws does not seem to produce good and timely laws. There is a whole lot of debate and discussion over each word and phrase of the law to make sure it is clear and represents the views of the house. This is to ensure that lawyers cannot then untangle it, find loopholes through the legal phrasing. But this does not necessarily make for good laws, because the focus in on the minutiae, not the big picture. It seems to me that these people - the people we have chosen as the best in our society - should be focussing on the big picture. It seems that lawyers should be able to draft the phrasing, based on what the intention of the lords is. It seems that these lawyers should also be able to clarify the meaning of the legal position where needed.

Well, maybe not - this is not completely thought out. But is this the best use of their time? Is it right that (for example) our bishops, selected for their spiritual leadership, their insight and discernment. Their time in the lords is spent trying to identify potential loopholes in legal documents. The time we watched proceedings was worthwhile, but this was half an hour - the rest of the session (potentially late into the evening) would be picking apart a bill.


So yes, the visit was very interesting, and thanks to Bishop Alan for the opportunity. It is always fascinating to see how these institutions function, to observe the practicalities of the business. But in seeing these institutions at work, their archaic nature is sometimes shown up. I think Mhairi Black is absolutely right that the institution is, in some ways, outdated, not least the need to vote in person, not electronically. There is a definite need to update, to make the chambers work in a more modern way. There is a need to The problem is, we often see this way as being the definition of "democracy". The truth is that this is one was of running a legislative house - there are others, and others might be better. The wonderful, historical building should not mean that the functions within it should be as archaic. We can have a modern legislature in a wonderful old building.