House of Lords Bill (HL)
From Democracywiki
Central Lobby
 Our View The purpose and timing of the bill are open to question. It fails to acknowledge the sea-change which has taken place over the issue of House of Lords reform since March 2007. For the first time, and in defiance of the pundits who claimed it would never happen, MPs have voted decisively in favour of a wholly or largely democratic second chamber. In doing so, they have accepted that rather than weaken the primacy of the House of Commons, strengthening either chamber serves to strengthen Parliament as a whole; as the government itself accepts. MPs have also taken the straightforward position of principle that a system not based on democracy is no longer appropriate in a Parliamentary system in the 21st century, and that much of the hocus pocus talked about the UK constitution as a means of resisting democratic change is just that. The bill identifies a number of issues that do need to be addressed but we are concerned that the way in which they are being proposed, which pre-empts the government’s white paper is not helpful. Fundamentally this bill fails to recognise the need for a democratic and legitimate second chamber. The House of Commons has now voted for an 80% or 100% elected chamber and that the public supports this decision by more than 2-1 . If this bill were to be amended to reflect this, rather than being a tool to undermine further reform, we would be happy to support it. |
Lord Steel of Aikwood has tabled a Private Members Bill in the House of Lords to reform the second chamber but to stop short of electing members.
The bill had its' first reading on 7th November. Private Members Bills rarely become law but give backbenchers in both Houses of Parliament the opportunity to raise issues they feel strongly about.
Contents |
What the Bill does
The Bill, seeks to
- create a statutory appointments commission to make recommendations to the Crown for the creation of life peerages,
- end the practice of hereditary Peer by-elections so that any vacancies would not be filled,
- enable members to take a permanent leave of absence from the House of Lords,
- provide for the expulsion of Members of the House of Lords in certain circumstances
Third Reading debate
The third reading debate was conducted with the House of Lords in committee. This debate focused on three amendments proposed to the bill. The first would have renamed the reformed House of Lords the Senate; the second would have meant that the re-naming of the House of Lords would need to be passed by the House of Commons; and the third would have set up an independent committee, chaired and appointed by the Lord Speaker, to consider a new name for the House of Lords.
Amendment 1: Renaming of the House of Lords the Senate
The Earl of Caithness opened the debate, moving the first amendment to the bill. He cited the Public Administration Select Committee’s report on peerages, and argued that
Lord Steel of Aikwood, the sponsor of the Bill, argued that it should be debated without any amendments, and that trying to debate each of the many amendments would “kill off the Bill”:
Viscount Astor argued:
Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Opposition, argued that the amendments should be debated. He also supported Amendment 1, saying that the new name of the House of Lords should reflect changes in the selection and structure of the chamber and that the name “Senate”
Lord Trefgarne supported the Bill, but said that the amendments were necessary to clarify the appointments procedure, because
“The Bill sets in place and enshrines an appointed House.”
He also brought up the question of whether by-elections should be allowed to replace peers who retired or died:
The Earl of Caithness agreed and defended his proposed amendment, arguing
He said that if the government decided the bill constituted a stage 2, that would be different, but also that
Finally, he withdrew Amendment 1, but warned that the bill served to perpetuate the House of Lords as it was:
Amendment 2: Requiring the House of Commons to approve the new name
Lord Richard moved the second amendment as an amendment to the first, saying that
Lord Elis-Thomas argued for Amendment 2, and for greater public participation in the reform process:
Earl Ferrers questioned whether constitutional reform was an appropriate subject for a Private Member’s Bill, saying that
“It is wrong to introduce this Bill in this way; it ought to be a Government Bill.”
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said that the Bill would need to be considered in the light of votes on House of Lords reform in both houses of Parliament, but that
He added that the name of the reformed House of Lords should depend on its composition, but warned, in response to a question from Earl Ferrers about whether an elected House of Lords should remain subservient to the House of Commons, that
“the Parliament Acts themselves are the enshrinement of the primacy of the Commons.”
Lord Richard decided not to seek a vote on Amendment 2, saying
Amendment 3: A committee to consider the new name
Baroness Whitaker moved Amendment 3, saying
She also urged the Lords to look for a “feasible British term” for the reformed House.
Viscount Astor objected to the amendment because it stated that the committee should come up with different options for a name, and that both houses of Parliament should then vote on what the reformed House of Lords should be called. He asked
Lord Howarth of Newport also objected to the amendment, pointing out that a committee could be established without legislation.
Lord Desai suggested that a new name for the House of Lords should be decided through a public consultation, and added
“At least a lot of people would find out what we do and how we should do it.”
Lord Strathclyde argued that Amendment gave too much power to the Lord Speaker and to a small committee, and said that new name should be debated by the entire House of Lords. He added
The Earl of Caithness said that a fully elected House of Lords could not remain subservient to the House of Commons, because no one would bother voting for the peers if they couldn’t override Commons decisions:
Baroness Whitaker ultimately withdrew her amendment.
By the end of the debate, all three amendments were withdrawn.
Second Reading debate
The debate was divided into three camps; those who were in favour of the bill and wanted the reforms to take place quickly; the lukewarm and those who either did not see the point of any reform, or the who wanted reform delayed. The need for caution was a recurring theme: the word ‘incremental’ was used 11 times at different times.
Lord Steel opened the debate by saying
He then went on to liken the succession of white papers concerning Lords reform to the long series of Just William books, before concluding that
Baroness Boothroyd was also positive, commenting that Gordon Brown has a choice:
Calling it “a totally sensible proposal”, she commended it to the house. Also, Lord Strabolqi called the bill
“a useful interim measure”, and said he hoped full-scale reform
Another of the supporters was Lord MacGregor who spoke stridently in favour, saying
“These are important and much needed reforms for the Lords, and it is right to do them now.”
He highlighted the importance of Clause 12, which will reduce the number of Lords, hoping, along with Lord Baker, that it will be strengthened.
Questioning whether the bill was as radical as people thought, Baroness Whitaker urged the House to act, recalling the Levellers and Chartism as two movements whose aims were considered outrageous at the time but have since become common currency. Giving the bill a qualified welcome,
Lord Higgins said he thought the bill
Lord Howarth argued that the bill followed in the British tradition of incremental change, but that further postponement of reform should not stretch into the long-term, adding
In a measured comment, Lord Bradshaw said he hoped that
Also, Baroness D’Souza claimed that the appointment system
and that it works. She said she would
“hold resolutely to the 20 per cent independent appointees as set out in the Bill.”
The Earl of Sandwich believes that action should be taken in the near future, but that
“there should be an alternative of 25 per cent appointed and 75 per cent elected”.
Lords arguing against reform included Lord Howe who quoted David Cameron when he said
"We keep what is good and change what we need to change".
He went on to say that
Earl Ferrers also expressed concern on a number of fronts. First, that the idea of prohibiting people who have served more than a year in prison, which he said it
“seems to me like being punished twice and I do not think it is right.”
He characterised efforts to reform the unwritten constitution as
before adding that if the
Lord Tyler was also critical of the ability of the bill to form the framework for reform in the future, saying
“I do not consider that this Bill is a realistic basis for a sustainable reform”,
before saying Lord Steel
He voiced concern over the short-term outlook of the bill, asking
before concluding the bill
“could be sustainable only for a very few months”
Viscount Astor supported this by saying
“this Chamber works. It works as well as it ever did”
and that “The Bill lets the Government off the hook and I do not believe that it should be supported.”
Lord Baker was also pessimistic about the prospects for speedy action on the bill, but said that basically it was
“a small, incremental measure that will make this House better”
adding that
“This is all that we are going to get, so let us take it.”
Lord Campbell sat in agreement with Lords Hunt and Howe in opposing the bill’s progress, saying it would break the Cranborn deal (to retain 91 hereditary peers). Also vying for further time to gain agreement was Lord Trefgarne, who voiced concern that without adequate consensus it would be impossible to progress, and that without such consensus the House should
He was also concerned that the bill should be consulted on more widely and that it is “an amateurish approach to an overwhelmingly important issue and simply will not do.”
At the far end of the scale was Lady Saltoun, who called the bill “dreadful”, and was strongly opposed to its advancement, citing the example of hereditary peers who were
Other issues raised included the ability of people not domiciled in the UK for tax purposes to be a member of the Lords, of who Lord Oakeshott said he would
Expressing frustration that progress had not been made more quickly he said
He gave the example of Irvine Laidlaw, now Lord Laidlaw of Rothiemay, who had said he would be based in the UK for tax purposes by April 2004 and that
“The [House of Lords Appointments Commission would have taken a different view on Lord Laidlaw's nomination if it had known that he would not be resident in the UK for tax purposes from April 2004 ... Lord Laidlaw has not become resident in the UK for tax purposes.”]
Unlock Democracy publishes briefing on House of Lords Bill
Unlock Democracy has published a briefing for the Second Reading of the House of Lords Bill, introduced by Lord Steel of Aikwood, on Friday 30th November 2007. Unlock Democracy is a cross-party campaigning think tank that supports a predominantly or wholly elected second chamber. It draws on the briefing prepared by Damien Welfare, co-ordinator of the Campaign for a Democratic Upper House.
The bill is presented as a consensus measure to make limited changes, without preventing further reform along democratic lines at a later stage. In fact, it pre-empts the government’s policy of pursuing cross-party discussions in order to implement the votes of the House of Commons in favour of a House which is 80% or 100% elected, and its forthcoming white paper.
Key points include:
- The bill fails to recognise the fundamental change in the political landscape represented by the votes in the Commons on 14th March 2007 in favour of an 80% and 100% elected House
- There is a tension between those who wish to see a House of experts, as the bill seeks to provide, and those who support a chamber that is more representative of the country as a whole. The bill does not resolve this, and its provisions in relation to diversity are extremely weak
- It proposes that a committee of 9 persons should determine the membership of half of Parliament. No other chamber of a leading Parliamentary democracy chooses its own members in this way
- It does not provide for the removal of the remaining hereditary peers (only the ending of elections to vacancies)
The bill leaves a number of significant questions unanswered, including:
- how to control the size of the House, notably if political support were to fluctuate over short periods. There would be a risk that the House would grow rather than contract, even allowing for retirements;
- how to determine the balance between the government and third and other parties;
- the size (as opposed to relative balance) of the government and Opposition parties;
- whether and how political balance should be measured – e.g. by numbers of votes at a General Election, or by number of seats won;
- the role and powers of the House, and appropriate conventions; and
- pay and retirement provisions.
A copy of the full briefing can be downloaded from the Unlock Democracy website.
