Honours and titles

Last week it was announced that the head of the National Health Service, Sir Nigel Crisp, was retiring early. Some people claimed he was being made the fall guy for recent NHS failures. His reward? A seat in the House of Lords.

Today, the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson commented in his blog on the evidence that shows that every donor who has given the Labour Party a million pounds has received a knighthood or a peerage.

I have got no problem with distinguished people from the public service, the arts, sport, or industry, being granted honours in recognition of their various efforts. I don't even have a problem with the ruling party doling out honours to major donors.

What does bother me however, is that the most popular honour being given out isn't just a fancy medal or a posh prefix to your name, it's a piece of unelected and unaccountable political power, in the form of a seat in the House of Lords. This government removed most hereditary peers (most of whom were there because one of their ancestors had done some service to the crown in previous generations) from the Lords but has stopped short of any real reform. They seem to regard rewards for historical favours are a bad thing but consider that rewards for contemporary favours are fine and dandy. As a result, we still have a second chamber that is appointed and not elected, and therefore unaccountable, except to the person who made the appointment.

By all means give distinguished people, or even wealthy party supporters, a gong or a title, and send them off to the Palace to shake hands with the Queen. But for goodness' sake, isn't it time we stopped giving them a seat in Parliament?