LONDON – For seven centuries, the British House of Lords has played a role in laws that have defined Western civilization. England now appears poised to end that.
By Peter Macdiarmid, AP
Members of British House of Lords sit in the chamber in London, England.
The House of Commons on Tuesday voted 462-124 to advance a bill that would require most members of the House of Lords, where some of the more than 800 members inherited their seats from forebears, to gain their seats through elections.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg opened debate in Parliament on changing the "flawed institution" by saying it would make the House of Lords "more modern, more representative and more legitimate — a chamber for the 21st century."
The idea of making the upper house democratic has been floated for decades. It would strip the nation's non-elected elites, like archbishops, nobles and lords appointed for life by the queen, of a legislative role dating to the 11th century.
Opponents say it is a mistake. They argue the uniquely British institution has served the country well, and that appointed peers offer expertise in science, medicine and law that elected politicians lack.
"These changes would mean people of enormous caliber who have represented our country as ambassadors, for example, or who have headed up the armed forces and have great knowledge of defense, would be replaced by career politicians trying to climb the greasy pole," Conservative parliamentarian Andrew Rosindell said.
The proposed changes would reduce the Lords' chamber to 300 "senators" with 80% of them elected to single, 15-year terms. At the same time, it would give the chamber more authority to hold the elected House of Commons accountable.
Lords have historically represented the embodiment of the British aristocracy. Images spring to mind of wealthy earls spending their days fox hunting or on pheasant shoots before retiring to a sprawling country estate for a pipe and brandy by the hearth. But fox hunting is abolished and the monarchy is a spectacle, not a ruling class.
Thirteen years ago, the government began culling the 654 hereditary peers, or those whose titles had been passed down from ancestors. Ninety-two remain, elected by their fellow hereditary peers in 1999.
Yet in some respects the House of Lords has progressed beyond the elected House of Commons. There are 30 women in top positions in the upper chamber and 5% of its members are from ethnic minority backgrounds compared with 4% in the Commons.
Supporters of change say the idea that those serving in the House Lords are sages who weigh matters without regard for political considerations is not the reality.
"Their expertise tends to be out-of-date, they tend to be retired and often don't have the right expertise," said Peter Facey, director of Unlock Democracy, which supports an elected second chamber.
Today, the House of Lords' role is to revise, scrutinize and advise on proposed legislation. Most members are appointed by the queen on the recommendation of the prime minister or of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Only an act of Parliament can remove a peerage; even criminal convictions don't disqualify a lord.
There have been several crooks on the red benches, as the chamber is known given the color of its seating, including novelist and former Tory MP Jeffery Archer, jailed for perjury and perverting the course of justice.
Rosindell, one of 70 lawmakers who signed a letter opposing the bill, says Prime Minister David Cameron has far bigger things to be worrying about.
"The prime minister should get a grip and say this is an utter waste of time and focus on the serious issues facing the country: immigration, Europe and the economy."
Some lords say they answer to a higher authority than Parliament.
"I have been asked to perform a duty which I am proud to do," Lord Trefgarne, whose father was appointed by King George VI, told BBC Radio. "The Almighty decided that I was to have a certain duty imposed on me and it has never for one moment crossed my mind to (renounce) the title and do something else."
Tradition still ranks high among some who have seen centuries-old practices erased from the culture in the name of progress. Outside the Wheatsheaf pub in Tooting, south London, retail manager Brendan Turner, 42, said the House of Lords should be left as is.
"I understand the point about a new and more modern government but these changes mean they will lose all that expertise and thousands of years of history," he says. "Why would you want to change that?"
Others say traditions shouldn't always be kept.
"I'd like to think that if we did vote (the lords) in … things would be better," said Beverly Charles, 53, a customer services assistant. "After all, their world is very different from the one the rest of us live in."
