POLITICS
Why the classless society should not be the end of the peer show
SIMON HEFFER
Patronage in the Upper House has become more staid since then. That does not mean the Lords is held in higher regard; rather, it means its virtues of inde- pendence and troublemaking have irritated successive prime ministers to the point where they want to neuter it or, failing that, turn it into a replica of the Commons by filling it with reliable placemen. Little imagination is used about the people who are sent there. Most recently created peers, like Lords Healey, Wakeham, Ridley and Tebbit, have gone entirely voluntarily; one or two, like Lady Thatcher, have not gone entirely voluntarily; others, like Lady Chalker, were dismissed by a merciless electorate. Had but a small part of the mil- lions she continues to dole out overseas been spared for her own part of the Third World in her Wallasey constituency, she might be Mrs Chalker still. She, and the rest, join a chamber that has become (as Bagehot put it) more dignified than useful. Peerages are supposed to be a reward. With Lord Archer of WeSton-super-Mare about to enter the lists; conspicuous con- sumption of Conservative Association chicken dinnth-s will now figure prominent- ly in the plans of the ambitious. Yet Lord Archer's critics should think back to the golden Wilsonian era of the jail-bird, Lord Kagan, or to some of the rubbish that found its way onto Mrs Thatcher's earlier lists, to see that in some ways our Jeffrey represents a raising of the tone. Whatever else he may be, he is not wicked.
The lists of peers published in June high- lighted the failings of modern patronage. In the Dissolution honours it was felt neces- sary to give every ex-Cabinet minister a peerage, when some of them had been so undistinguished in office that they hardly deserved even a state retirement pension. And because a few — but by no means all — of these were hard-line Thatcherites (including the hard-line Thatcher herself), it was felt necessary to use the Birthday honours, a week later, to add some 'bal- ance' — not between Tory and Labour, but between wings of the Conservative Party.
Thus such mediocrities as Sir Geoffrey Finsberg, one of the most pointless men in the last House of Commons, find a place on the red benches, as does Sir Barney Hayhoe, who spent his obscure ministerial career giving the impression that he spoke for a coalition government. Yet for some- one of obvious parliamentary and intellec- tual gifts like Mr Enoch Powell, there was still no place at all.
Such patronage seems to confirm that the Lords is the retirement home for the politically toothless and impotent that active politicians have long claimed it to be. Ever wanting a quiet life, it suits the Gov- ernment for the Lords to be that way. It does, though, have a substantial workload that someone must discharge. Therefore groups of so-called 'working peers' are cre- ated to provide new active members of the House, on the grounds that most normal creations either never go near the place or, if they do, cause trouble. However, Labour working peers do work but Tory ones, with some notable exceptions, do not.
Some peers have further interpreted it as a slight that the Government has the bare minimum of two Cabinet ministers in the Lords — the Lord Chancellor, Lord Mack- ay, and the Leader of the Lords, Lord Wakeham. The hereditary element is not represented at all in the Cabinet, presum- ably in keeping with the classless society. However, because there are so few papabile life peers, this classless Government has to rely on hereditary peers to do most of the ministerial jobs in the Lords. They also fill all but one of the Lordships-in-Waiting, the exception being Lady Ttumpington.
Mr Major should not not underestimate their Lordships. They cannot kill but they can wound. The extra-parliamentary Left claims to have brought down the poll tax, but the process had no finer impetus than in the attempt to hijack the legislation on the Tory back benches in the Lords. In the last parliament the Lords' role was, if any- thing, less important than now, because there was not such squashing of dissent as we are seeing in the Commons in this par- liament. Now, especially given the views of some of its most noted recent recruits, the Tory-dominated Lords is set to be the most rigorous body of opposition to the Tory Government. After a while Lady Thatcher gave up trying to coerce the Lords, and the Tories lost 150 divisions there during her premiership. Mr Major is thought to be less indulgent. The embarrassment the Lords may afford him would explain the care with which he is considering its management.
The House's main role may be as a revis- ing chamber, but it is also a safety-valve. Lord Hesketh, the Chief Whip, recognises this. He will be treading carefully so as not to lose support for the Government among backbench peers who are depressed by the way the Lords is regarded by the Commons as a convenient dumping ground. It will not be entirely bad if the Government loses more Lords' votes; Lord Whitelaw and Lord Denham, the last Chief Whip, used to arrange for this to happen occasionally, to throw scraps to the Labour party. Lord Hesketh gained his office not least because he had distinguished himself under Lord Denham as being the finest mixer of a Bloody Mary in the Whips' Office in living memory. These were dispensed to peers invited in for a dose of persuasion; thereby Lord Hesketh's abilities to rein in the mal- contents became, like his charm, legendary. The people now put in the House of Lords are not, though, noted for succumb- ing to such blandishments. Mr Major has sent John Wakeham, the most experienced Commons business manager available, to try to keep the Lords sweet. It is a measure of how nervous these unregarded, unelect- ed old souls make the leadership that a man of such calibre is given this job; the same was true with Lord Whitelaw in 1983.
Mr Major would do better to propitiate the traditional Tory interest in the Lords (by, for example, including the odd heredi- tary peer in the Cabinet) rather than to confront and humiliate it by further use (as with the War Crimes Bill) of the Parlia- ment Act. To treat the Lords as an obstruc- tion that must be overcome rather than as a most useful (and dignified) part of our poli- ty is what one expects from Labour. Tory- ism should include a more constructive view of their Lordships than that.
Previous page
