Lords of misrule: Sewel’s alleged actions were scandalous – yet the greater embarrassment is the state of Britain’s second chamber

The revelation by a weekend newspaper of Lord Sewel’s apparent pastimes feels like a throwback to the 1980s, when politicians were regular and easy fodder for the tabloids. That a powerful man seems to have a penchant for drugs and prostitutes comes as little shock. But the fact that the peer presumably believed he stood little to no chance of getting caught out is more surprising – if equally dispiriting. Whichever way you look at it, Lord Sewel’s behaviour is unacceptable, and doubly so for an individual holding a position of considerable responsibility in Parliament. That he was not only Deputy Speaker in the House of Lords but also chairman of the Lords Privileges and Conduct Committee makes the charge of hypocrisy all too obvious.

Lord Sewel will, no doubt, pay a considerable price for his alleged actions. He has already resigned from his two jobs in the upper house and there are calls for him to quit the Lords altogether. His family situation may take some resolving too. But the primary concern we should have is what this scandal tells us about the Lords more generally. Nobody is suggesting that there are myriad peers who end a hard day at work with paid-for company and something stronger than a G&T. Yet the complacency with which Lord Sewel appears to have treated the seriousness of his office, and the arrogance of his behaviour, are emblematic of a parliamentary chamber which is itself flabby, self-important and in need of a corrective.

This newspaper has long argued that House of Lords reform ought to figure prominently on the political agenda. Unfortunately, with Liberal Democrat-inspired proposals having been roundly dispensed with during the last parliament, there is little appetite at Westminster to return to the issue. Perhaps MPs are all too conscious of the fact that when they are finished in the Commons, the Lords might provide a nice retirement home. But this frankly won’t do. The House of Lords has a vital role to play in our parliamentary system and should be in the best possible shape for the purpose. While there are occasions when it rouses itself to scrutinise government legislation properly, as for instance it did (up to a point) in relation to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, that should be par for the course.

Rigour, however, is hardly likely to be the hallmark of an unelected, overfilled chamber, whose members are in place by virtue of heredity, length of political service or – let’s be blunt – money. Are there talented people sitting on the red benches? Without doubt. But there are also a good many second-raters, who would never gain their position by merit, nor be elected to it.

This brings us to the crux of the matter. As things stand, there is little sense of peers being accountable to anyone – despite Lord Sewel’s recent pronouncement in his Privileges and Conduct Committee role, which now drips with irony: “The actions of a few damage our reputation. The requirement that members must always act on their personal honour has been reinforced.”

Honour, as Lord Sewel’s own example demonstrates, is not an adequate safeguard. Nor is it a sufficient motive for hard work. Being forced to appeal to an unforgiving electorate might just be, as MPs – voting records and expenses claims in tow – have begun to discover.

As things stand, the only change on the cards for the House of Lords is, absurdly, the expansion of the peerage. Instead, the Government should take stock and think in general terms about how Parliament can best serve the public. It shouldn’t take the embarrassment of a single lord to face the need for reform of the entire chamber.