House of Lords (Amendment) Bill
From Democracywiki
Contents |
What the Bill does:
- Amends the 1999 House of Lords Reform Act by removing by-elections for hereditary peers when they die
Second Reading
The Bill had its Second Reading on 22nd February 2008.
The Bill was brought by Lord Ayebury, whose position was that the by-elections were undemocratic and an embarrassment to the House of Lords. Whilst no-one disagreed with him on this point, there were objections to the Bill on other grounds.
Lord Ayebury opened the debate by claiming that the process of by-elections for hereditary peers was never meant to continue indefinitely, a process which he termed “bizarre, irrational and undemocratic.”
It was Lord Ayebury’s contention that the only useful purpose of the by-elections being introduced in the first place was to persuade the Tory Front Bench not to obstruct the 1999 Bill.
Lord Addington was of the opinion that the by-election process of four people electing peers “looks silly and it is demeaning to Parliament as a whole.”
Objections
- Some, including Lord Trefgarne, objected to the Bill because they claimed a deal was done between the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Salisbury whereby 92 hereditary Peers would remain until House of Lords reform was complete. As reform is not yet complete, they claimed that deal remains binding.
- The Bill would result eventually in a totally appointed House. The Earl of Errol complained that Parliament clearly did not want that and that “if it had, it would have agreed to it at the time” (i.e. in 1999).
- The House of Lords would end up being appointed by senior bureaucrats. The Earl of Errol also warned this would “not give the House the authority that it needs in order to retain some power.”
- The Bill pre-empts the Government’s White Paper and consultation process on the issue of House of Lords Reform.
- The Bill does not get rid of the hereditary peerage at one fell stroke, but only very gradually.
Government Position
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice) stated that the Government would continue to honour the figure of 90 hereditary Peers. He was keen to stress however "that stage two reform will take place and when it does the hereditary Peers who remain ... will cease to be Members of this House."
Lord Hunt also pointed out that although the by-election system was hard to defend, it guaranteed reform of the House of Lords. He underlined that the House of Commons had voted for either an 80% or 100% elected House of Lords.
Furthermore he outlined the path to reform which he believed would be underway soon:
- A white paper
- Consultation and debate
- Pledges by the political parties in their manifestos regarding reform of the House of Lords
- Legislation for fundamental reform
Lord Ayebury concluded by pointing out that no one in the debate had defended the by-elections and he argued that “nothing in the Bill affects one way or the other the process that leads to fundamental reform.” All he was asking for was that “in the three, four or five years before a Bill is introduced in the next Parliament", that they “implement whatever fundamental reforms are agreed—we shall not have any by-elections.”
