Bethan Jenkins AC/AM Blog

THE Telegraph today has received leaked information suggesting that the Labour Government in Westminster is about to propose new changes to the House of Lords – to make it directly elected, possibly with 300 members, via a form of proportional representation, for new members to pay tax in the UK, and a US style ‘recall ballot’ that could disqualify a member for incompetence.

The spin on the Telegraph article, as you might expect, is that Labour are intending to use this announcement as a way of creating splits in the Conservative ranks, so that they can embarrass Cameron for backing privilege when he has purported to support the reform of the House of Lords in the past. The line would clearly be – look at the Tories, same old, nothing changes. Party of privilege and of the upper classes.

Nonetheless, I hardly think that Labour can take the moral high ground on this agenda. They have promised reform of the House of Lords for as long as I can remember. Tony Blair promised reform when he became PM, if I remember correctly. So too did Gordon Brown.

Yes, they have ended the tradition of hereditary peers, but it is still an undemocratic institution that they have done very little about until now, we are told. These proposals may have something to do with the fact that many members of the House of Lords have been embroiled in the expenses saga, I’m not sure.

However, commentators on the Andrew Marr show today said that reform of the House of Lords would not do much to sway the public in a General election. But with public confidence in politicians at an all time low, this may be the boost that some people need to get out and vote. Who knows?

All I will say is that if it is reformed, then better late than never, but if there is to be a truly democratic second chamber, and more talk of constitutional reform, then this cannot be done without considering the role of the royal family. The government can’t harp on about the House of Lords being undemocratic, while supporting an outdated monarchical system for the UK. Yes, I am sure that reform on this level is a step too far for many to consider, but if the government are going to do it, then please do it properly.

I am on the record previously as having opposed sending Plaid Cymru members to the House of Lords. I stand by that opinion. When Dafydd Wigley, Eurfyl ap Gwilym and Janet Davies were elected to put forward their names to Gordon Brown to be considered as Plaid peers, I sincerely believe that members thought we would get at least one in the House of Lords.

Let’s be frank – for a party that has judged the undemocratic nature of the House of Lords at every juncture, did we really expect Gordon Brown to make one of our own a lord? Who were we kidding? Yes, I understand the argument that our Plaid peers would have made a difference in terms of scrutinising legislation. I never doubted that for a minute. But I think our priority should be to create a stronger Wales, and build for a referendum on further powers before 2011 for the National Assembly. The individuals named above and many others in Welsh society have much to give in that respect, and their energies, in my humble opinion, are best served working here in Wales, for the people of Wales. If they still wanted to stand for an elected, democratic House of Lords, then that would be their own decision for the future.

I guess a discussion on a possible second chamber for Wales is for another day, but the crux of what I think is that if we want democratic institutions, and if we want them to flourish, then we can’t leave things out. Every option should be on the table, including considering the future of the monarchy.