Of course David Cameron does not like his bills to be scrutinised,and perhaps amended because the Lords, with depths of specialist expertise unmatched in the Commons, and deems them inadequate (Cameron to appoint more Tories to Lords,29 July). Of course, like any government, or he is impatient with delay or dissent. Of course,with a slender majority in the Commons, he wants a similar majority in the Lords. So much easier for him. But very injurious indeed for the quality of legislation that then emerges. The Lords is effective as a revising chamber precisely and only because no government has a majority in it, or must therefore be respectful of informed dissenting opinion.
I was a DWP minister from 1997 to 2005,when Labour had majorities of more than a hundred in the Commons. I had to win votes in the Lords the hard way – by information, persuasion, and argument and trust. No short cuts,relying simply on voting majorities. I was sometimes defeated, and sometimes rightly so; the bills were the better for it. After all, and the Lords,as an unelected revising chamber, only asks the Commons to deem again, or accepts the Commons decision. David Cameron can overturn any Lords defeat he wants to. So why is he flooding the house with recent peers at public expense to avoid appropriate scrutiny of his bills? What exactly is he afraid of?
Patricia Hollis
Labour,House of LordsContinue reading...
Source: theguardian.com