I have previously done a post on the fact that this year marks the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Life Peerages Act. The House Magazine has this week launched a competition to find the most outstanding life peer of the past 50 years. A shortlist of 12 names has been drawn up and peers next month will have an opportunity to vote for who they think is the most outstanding on the list.
I was responsible for drawing up the shortlist, following consultation with senior figures who have had the opportunity to observe the House over a long period of time. Confining the list to 12 names was extraordinarily difficult. The list could easily have been three or four times as long. The list includes one former Prime Minister (Lord Home of the Hirsel) but could easily have included another (Lord Callaghan). Some people may ask why another former PM, Lord Stockton (Harold Macmillan), who made some memorable speeches in the House, is not included. In his case, he was not eligible as he had a hereditary peerage conferred on him.
The 12 names shortlisted are: Field Marshall Lord Carver (cross-bencher), Lord Home of the Hirsel (Con), Lord Houghton (Lab), Lord Howe of Aberavon (Con), Lord Ramsbotham (cross-bencher), Lord Rippon (Con), Baroness Seear (Lib Dem), Lord Soper (Lab), Baroness Williams of Crosby (Lib Dem), Lord Williams of Mostyn (Lab), Baroness Wootton (cross-bencher), and Baroness Young (Con).
The list ranges from one of the first female life peers (Wootton) to three current members of the House (Howe, Ramsbotham, Williams of Crosby). It includes a former chief of the defence staff (Carver), a minister of religion (Soper), four who served in the Cabinet in the Commons (Houghton, Howe, Rippon, Williams of Crosby) but who established notable reputations in the Lords, two who served as Cabinet ministers in the Lords (Williams of Mostyn, Young) and one who served as a Cabinet minister in both Houses (Home).
The result will be announced at a reception in Westminster Hall on 15 July attended by the Lord Speaker.
This list strikes me a rather contemporary. Are you sure the competition is not giving too much weight to the present? It sounds a bit like one of those surveys in which the public nominate a TV personality as one of the greatest Britons of all time.
If that rally is the best that can be mustered from the Life Peers from over half a century, roll on the fully elected second chamber or bring back the real Lords!
I couldn’t disagree with you more. The list is not particularly contemporary when you consider the coverage is of the past fifty years and you look at the length of service of two of the three serving members. As for quality, you would be well advised to read the biographies of the peers as they appear in succeeding issues of The House Magazine. They include some remarkably gifted speakers as well as people, like Lord Carver, who were intellectually outstanding. You are not likely to improve on the quality through an elected House: bear in mind that the leading members of the elected House in this country tend to end up in the Lords.
Apologies. Readers of my earlier posts will appreciate that I should have opened my preceding response with: ‘With all due respect’.
There is nonetheless a faint whiff of hubris about the award.
The contribution of peers in the list goes without saying. However, you cannot deny the contribution of hereditary peers who stood by the House in the difficult years from 1911 to 1958. Their faith kept the House just barely alive and their contribution should not be diminished.
The success of the House of Lords from 1958 onwards is a two edged sword. On the one hand Commons legislation often poorly drafted is scrutinised and refined to a high degree by the House and is something that serves us all well.
On the other hand one could take the view that a law passed is a civil liberty trashed. The law is a very blunt instrument needing constant refinement by Parliament. It is not only one civil liberty that is lost but many whenever a new law enters onto the statute books. It contributes to an increasingly repressive society.
So is the House of Lords contributing to better governance or making it possible for legislation by the Commons to take place on an industrial scale with a consummate loss of freedom too? A fully empowered House of Lords would not let it happen.
Ref:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-00675.pdf
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HLLLifePeeragesAct1958.pdf