Plaid Peers?

Interesting to see that Elfyn Llwyd has resurrected the argument about sending Plaid peers to the House of Lords. I wonder if it will generate the same level of rhetoric and emotion as the last time this was debated. In those days the House of Lords was still heavily dominated by hereditary peers and it was pre-assembly. The new debate needs to take account of changed circumstances.

The reform of the House of Lords is very very far from complete. There is still no democratic argument than can support giving someone a seat in a legislative chamber for the rest of their lives. There is still no democratic argument for appointments to that chamber being made by patronage alone. But equally there is no argument for Plaid Cymru to deliberately absent itself from any legislative chamber, however dubious its democratic credentials, if that body has the potential to influence the well being of the people of Wales.

Strangely, in this new era of devolved politics, the argument for a Plaid presence in Westminster's Second Chamber is stronger than ever. The Government of Wales Act has an inbuilt tension between the legislative ambitions of the National Assembly, and the frustrations of Welsh Labour MP's bereft of a meaningful role in so many domestic issues. When those frustrations spill over into blocking Assembly measures - and it is already mooted that this might well occur given the aspirations of Rhodri Glyn for a new Welsh Language Act - the need for alternative strategies, including creative use of the second chamber becomes a necessity rather than a nicety.

And isn't there a wonderful irony in using the least democratic legislative chamber in Western Europe to safeguard the emergent democracy of Wales and strike a blow for meaningful devolution?