The House of Lords: reform
Briefing on the White Paper and
options for reform:
February/March 2007
The Campaign for a
Democratic Upper House (CDUH) is a group of Labour Parliamentarians and
activists who support a second chamber at least half of which is elected.
We welcome the White
Paper and the important change it represents in the thinking of the
Government on this issue, led by the Leader of the House, Jack Straw, and
supported by the Prime Minister. The forthcoming votes represent the best opportunity
for a generation to complete what should be a crowning constitutional reform by
the Government. An important step was taken in 1999 with the removal of the
majority of the hereditary peers, but a lasting reform remains unfinished
business.
We believe that any
reform in the 21st century must be rooted in democracy. In a
free society, legitimate political authority is based on consent. Legitimacy is
based upon democracy, and democracy works through elections. There is no
substitute for enabling ordinary voters to choose their representatives, and
subjecting those representatives to democratic accountability.
A more democratic second
chamber will both strengthen and modernise Parliament. As the White Paper makes
clear, all of the reform options proposed are based on the fundamental
principle of the primacy of the House of Commons (see Annex for detailed
arguments).
The votes on composition
The White Paper includes an
Executive Summary of the proposals as a whole. There is also a helpful “Key
Proposals” document on Jack Straw’s website at www.commonsleader.gov
The options likely to be
proposed on composition are:
100%
elected
80% elected, 20% appointed
60%
elected, 40% appointed
50%
elected, 50% appointed
40%
elected, 60% appointed
20%
elected, 80% appointed
100%
nominated.
Elections would be
staggered, with a third of the elected element being introduced at each
election. In each of the options involving appointment, 20% of the House would
be Crossbenchers. The transition would be gradual, and none of the current life
peers would be forced to leave the House. The right of hereditary peers to sit
in the House would end.
The CDUH position on
composition can be summarised as follows:
On that basis, we urge
MPs and peers to vote not just for their preferred option but also for both the
largest democratic element they
can support (including those above their preferred option), and all other
democratic options (including those falling below their preferred option).
Only in that way will
support for a democratic second chamber be maximised. There is a majority in
the Commons for reform, but it has to be concentrated to win.
We urge all supporters of
democratic options to ensure they are present for all of the votes on Wednesday
7th March 2007 (5pm onwards).
Support for democracy
We believe that there is a
majority in the Commons for reform. All the main parties fought the last
election committed to reform. A democratic second chamber was only narrowly
defeated when the previous set of divisions took place on 4th
February 2003:
Opinion has moved on since
those votes. Jack Straw and Tony Blair
now support a partially-elected second chamber, and a large number of Ministers
are expected to support reform.
The public have made their
position clear in successive opinion
polls. In the most recent, for the
Hansard Society, 82% of the public wanted the House of Lords to contain at
least some elected Members. Of these,
42% supported a wholly elected second chamber, and 40% supported a mixture of
appointed and elected members. Only 6%
supported a wholly appointed House.
In 2005, an ERS/ICM poll
conducted on behalf of the Elect the Lords campaign found that 62% would
support an 80% elected second chamber, while the JRRT/ICM “State of the Nation”
poll in October 2006 found that 65% wanted a majority or wholly elected second
chamber.
Conclusion
The Campaign urges Labour
MPs to take this opportunity to make an historic democratic reform, which will
be remembered for generations to come.
Further information from:
Damien Welfare,
Co-ordinator, Campaign for a Democratic Upper House, 07947 616821
You can email us on: democratic_upper_house@hotmail.com
For more briefing and news
on the issue see the Elect the Lords website: www.electthelords.org.uk
We are a
group of Labour Parliamentarians and activists who support a second chamber at
least half of which is elected. Formed in 2000, we took an active part in the
last votes in 2003 and in responding to earlier consultation proposals. Our
supporters as individuals back options from 50%+ to 100% elected, but
understand the vital importance of compromise to achieve change on this issue.
Annex - Key arguments
Primacy
of the House of Commons (see White Paper, pages 25-27)
Those advocating reform of
the Lords agree that the primacy of the House of Commons is essential. Its
primacy rests first on its role:
-
The Commons forms the
Government of the day and sustains it, if necessary by vote of confidence. The
main Ministers sit in, and answer to, the Commons
-
The Commons controls the supply of money to Government
-
The Commons has the final say
on legislation, through the Parliament Acts
The Commons’ role translates
into the greater powers of the Commons to secure its measures, if
necessary after a delay, and to have sole authority over Money Bills and public
expenditure. This will remain the case if the Lords are reformed.
In any bicameral system, the
balance between two Houses is essentially a matter of choice as to how their
respective roles, and the powers which flow from those roles, are defined.
These can be laid down in legislation, assisted by conventions which can
develop or be adapted within these overall statutory rules. The House of Lords
has a complementary role to that of the Commons, of revising legislation
and scrutinising the Executive. This would not change.
Its members would be elected
to a different and secondary House, with a lesser role than the Commons
and powers which reflected this relationship. Under the proposals, Members of
the Upper House would lack the legitimacy of a constituency role. Under
proportional voting, no party could expect an overall majority. Members would
be elected on different dates from the Commons, and would be prevented from
becoming MPs for a number of years after leaving the House. The long terms
proposed (15 years) and rolling basis of election would mean that the House as
a whole would not have a fresh mandate. In a mixed elected/appointed House,
moreover, the presence of an appointed element (especially on the Crossbenches)
would further reinforce the secondary status of the House.
International
comparisons (see White Paper, pages 22-24)
As the White Paper points
out, from figures compiled by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, larger countries
in population terms overwhelmingly have bicameral Parliaments. Of these, most
are wholly or largely elected, the main exceptions being Commonwealth countries
which have inherited their Parliamentary structures from the UK.
The only other wholly
appointed second chamber in a major democracy is the Canadian Senate which is
based on the UK House of Lords. In September 2006, the Prime Minister, Stephen
Harper, announced immediate plans to limit terms of office in the Senate to 8
years and in the longer term to introduce elections to the second chamber.