LORDS REFORM

By Monitor IF it has served no other purpose the current game of legislative ping-pong on identity cards and other issues between the House of Commons and the House of Lords has focussed attention on the urgent need for reform of the Upper House. So has the recent realisation that some of those who get to sit and vote in the Lords have few qualifications beyond their readiness to donate large sums of money to the political parties. All democratic countries need a second chamber to act as a brake, but not a barrier, to prevent sloppy or unconstitutional legislation being hurried through to meet some supposedly urgent need. Such a chamber can also give an opportunity to those with wisdom and experience to contribute to do so without necessarily comitting themselves to a party allegiance. THE government has indicated that it wants to make progress on this matter and it would be wise of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to join them in trying to reach a agreed formula for reform. The most contentious issue is whether a future House of Lords should be all or partially elected, or wholly appointed. The pros and cons can be debated at length but the sensible course would seem to be a combination of the two approaches. The essential points are that the make-up of the new House should be significantly different from that of the Commons and that its powers should be clearly defined.