House of Lords reform 2005-2006
From Democracywiki
Central Lobby
December 2006
In reply to a questions from Lord Barnett about whether the Government would consider it appropriate to use the Parliament Acts to pass House of Lords reform, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer said,
Novermber 2006
The Joint Committee on Conventions submitted its report on 3 November 2006. A full copy of the report can be found by clicking on the link above.
At its heart the report looked at the balance of power in the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The report described its remit as being:
"very important ... Parliament is a complex mechanism, but at its heart is a simple balance:the balance between enabling the Government to do things,and holding them to account — asking questions, proposing alternatives, forcing them to reveal information and justify their actions. This report is about the most important aspects of how this crucial balance works".
The report looked at:
- The Salisbury- Addison convention, which dictates that a manifesto bill must be accorded a second reading and not be subject to ‘wrecking amendments’.
- The idea of ‘ping-pong’ which is the practise of exchanging amendments to legislation between the two houses where the primacy of the Commons is maintaind and the Lords have a scrutinizing role.
- The convention that the House of Lords consider Government business in ‘reasonable time’.
Throughout the report the primacy of the House of Commons was not contested. The conclusion was that these conventions should not be codified because as conventions they allowed for greater flexibility. But it did suggest that the Salisbury-Addison Convention should be debated and a resolution setting out the terms of the Convention as it has evolved should be agreed.
July 2006
In a written answer to Ben Champman(Labour, Wirral South) Jack Straw said
June 2006
On 12th June Jack Straw as Leader of the House answered a number of parliamentary questions on House of Lords reform. They included Simon Hughes (Lib Dem, North Southwark and Bermondsy) asking about the timetable for reform, Gordon Prentice(Labour, Pendle) asking about whether lessons would be learnt from the Canadian example and Sir Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordhsire) asked whether Jack Straw would also be meeting with those who do not support an elected second chamber.
Westminster Hall Debate
Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda) held a Westminster Hall debate on 20th June on House of Lords reform. The debate focused on the need to clarify the powers of the second chamber.
Speaking in the debate Chris Bryant said
"As I have said many times before, I support a House of Lords whose Members are democratically elected as far as is practicable, given the parliamentary politics of today, but it is more important at this stage to focus on the powers and functions of the House of Lords. After all, an important principle of architecture is that form should serve function, not the other way round. That should also be true in the architecture of government.
The difficulty in this debate is that the precise nature of the power of the Lords is rather nebulous. It is framed more by convention than by statute. Those conventions may have a lustrous patina that is honeyed by use, but the conundrum we must resolve before we can alter the composition of the Lords is how we can better clarify the conventions so that they will stand the test of time."
House of Lords debates
On 19th June Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative) asked the Government;
Baroness Amos replied that
"the Government keep under constant review work on the effectiveness of the House of Lords. The House of Lords has a valuable role to play in the legislative process of this country."
On the 14th June Lord Northbrook (Conservative) asked the Government;
Lord Falconer replied that
"a Joint Committee of both Houses has been set up to look at the current conventions. The Leader of the other place, the Government Chief Whip in this House and I gave evidence yesterday. We discussed the 60-day proposal which is included in our manifesto. That proposal would not reduce the House's power to delay legislation. We await the Joint Committee's report."
On 5th June Lord Lyell of Markyate (Conservative) asked the Government;
Baroness Amos speaking for the Government said that
"the Government listen carefully to the views of this House, and will continue to do so"
Joint Committee on Conventions
The Joint Committee on Conventions was established on the 22nd May and will report by then end of this parliamentary session. A detailed briefing on the remit, members and discussion of the Committee can be found by clicking on the link above.
The House of Commons debated the creation of the Joint Committee on the 10th May. A transcript of the debate can be found here
May 2006
In reply to a written question from Andrew Rosindell on 3rd May Bridget Prentice said The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer, has held preliminary discussions with the other parties about a process to see whether a consensus can be found on the way forward on Lords reform.
On 9th May Bridget Prentice of the Department for Constitutional Affairs anserwed parliamentary questions on House of Lords reform. She informed Brian Iddonthat the government was fully committed to a free vote on the issue.
March 2006
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, re-affirmed the Government's commitment to building a consensus on House of Lords reform on 26th February. In its manifesto the Government pledged a Joint Committee to examine the powers of the House of Lords and a free vote on composition of the second chamber. Although a timetable for reform has yet to be made clear in evidence to the Department of Constitutional Affairs Select Committee Lord Falconer confirmed that he expected the free vote to be this year and said 'I do not think anybody wants Lords reform to take up two whole sessions of Parliament.'
On 28 March the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the House of Commons answered questions on the Honours system from members including David Heath, Tony Wright and Theresa May. He stated that, in regard to the distribution of honours
On the same day Bridget Prentice, in response to a question from Mark Pritchard told the House that
January 2006
On 9th January, in reply to a written question from Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford), Harriet Harmen, the Minister of State for Constitutional Affairs said
Westminster Hall Debate
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham) held a Westminster Hall debate on the 31st January. The debate highlighted that both of the main opposition parties support a majority elected second chamber. Opening the debate John Bercow said that
"A seat in Parliament should not be a prize for historic battles won, services rendered or favours done. A seat in Parliament should not be a mark of approval by the great and the good that someone is suitable to join their number. A seat in Parliament should be the result of a choice by voters that an individual has the equipment and can be relied on to deliver."
Although Harriet Harman, Minister for Constitutional Affairs spoke in the debate, there was not enough time for her to announce the timetable for reform.
A transcript of the debate can be found here
December 2005
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC, and Minister of State for Constitutional Affairs Harriet Harman QC MP have both confirmed the Government�s intention to hold a vote on the composition of the second chamber in this parliamentary session, with a view to bringing forward legislation at the beginning of the next session. Giving evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee[1], Lord Falconer stated that the first stage of the process would explore the powers of the House of Lords. 'We need to have a Joint Committee to see what all the conventions are and to make any representations in relation to that'. This will be followed a vote in both Houses on the composition of the second chamber 'we will come back to the issue of composition and allow both the Lords and the Commons to vote'. Lord Falconer expected that the Joint Committee would be set up 'sooner rather than later', that the vote on composition would be held 'sometime during the course of this session and before the second session' and that legislation would be brought before the House 'earlier rather than later in Parliament which means not this session but maybe next'.
Lord Falconer also argued that "it is plain that reform of the House of Lords depends upon building some degree of consensus". The Elect the Lords campaign welcomes the outlining of the timetable for reform but believes that that there is already a great deal of consensus, as demonstrated by the publication of the Second Chamber of Parliament Bill in the last session. The fact that a cross-party group of such senior MPs has been able to agree such a detailed set of proposals clearly indicates that there is consensus. A clear majority of MPs and the public want a predominantly elected second chamber and this draft Bill is detailed enough to form the basis of closer parliamentary scrutiny.
Rt Hon David Curry MP (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon) has tabled an Early Day Motion in support of the Second Chamber of Parliament Bill. EDM 571 on House of Lords reform states:
That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to a free vote on the composition of Parliament's revising chamber; believes that the House of Lords should be replaced by a chamber which is predominantly elected; and believes that the Second Chamber of Parliament Bill, presented in February by the then honourable Member for North Cornwall, endorsed by the Right honourable Member for Livingston, the Right honourable Member for North West Hampshire, the Right honourable Member for Rushcliffe and the honourable Member for Cannock Chase, and supported by other leading Members of both Houses, provides a valuable basis for further discussion and decision.
A recent opinion poll by the Electoral Reform Society shows continued public support for an elected Second Chamber. The ERS/ICM poll asked members of the public two questions: which model of Lords reform they would prefer, and whether they would support an 80% elected Second Chamber. 65% of the public said they would prefer the Second Chamber to be at least 50% elected, and 62% said they would support an 80% elected Second Chamber.
Public support for an elected second chamber has remained consistent over time. The first State of the Nation poll by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust in 1991 found that 40% of the public supported replacing the House of Lords with an elected second chamber, compared with 29% who were opposed. In 2004, they found that 77% of the public supported a majority or wholly elected second chamber, compared with 12% who supported a majority appointed House of Lords.
At the General Election, the Labour Party committed itself to a free vote in the House of Commons on the composition of the second chamber. Both the Liberal Democrats and Conservative parties are in favour of an 80% elected second chamber.
The Elect The Lords campaign is a cross party campaign which calls for a predominantly elected second chamber.
Second Chamber of Parliament Bill
On 21st February 2005 a cross party group of senior MPs published a draft Bill on House of Lords reform. The group, convened by Paul Tyler MP and consisting of the Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke MP, the Rt Hon Robin Cook MP, Dr Tony Wright MP and Rt Hon Sir George Young MP believe that the draft Bill provides a consensus which reformers from all parties and members of the public can support and which will break the deadlock on House of Lords reform.
A detailed analysis of the Bill can be found by clicking the link above. Key proposals in the draft Second Chamber of Parliament Bill include
- The chamber should be reduced in size to 385 members
- 270 elected members should make up 70% of the reformed chamber
- 87 independently appointed members should make up 23%
- The number of Bishops should be reduced from 26 to 16
- No party should have a majority in the House
- The Single Transferable Vote (STV) system should be used to enable electors to rank individual candidates, in order of preference, across party lines
- Both elected and appointed members should serve terms equivalent to three House of Commons terms, typically 12-14 years
- Elections to the Second Chamber should be held on general election day
- No Member elected to the Second Chamber could stand for election to the House of Commons until five years after their term ended
- Most cabinet Ministers should continue to be drawn from the House of Commons
- The Prime Minister should retain the right to appoint up to four members of the House in each Parliament, to serve as Ministers
- The Appointments Commission would be expected to ensure at least 20% of the appointed Members take no party whip
- The House would be renamed the Second Chamber of Parliament and its Members would be known as Members of the Second Chamber of Parliament or MSCPs
- MSCPs would receive a lower salary and a less-generous expense allowance than MPs
- Existing members of the House of Lords would leave in three tranches
- Departing members would be free to stand for the House of Commons, provided they leave at the point of first elections to the Second Chamber
For more information please click on the title of this section.
The Bill was debated in Westminster Hall on the 21st February.
  Our View The Elect the Lords campaign founded and organised by the New Politics Network and Charter88, welcomed the publication of the draft Bill as an important contribution to the debate. It is often argued that there is no clear consensus on exactly how the House of Lords should be reformed. The fact that a cross-party group of such senior MPs has been able to agree such a detailed set of proposals clearly indicates otherwise. A clear majority of MPs and the public want a predominantly elected second chamber, this draft Bill is detailed enough to form the basis of closer parliamentary scrutiny. The Elect the Lords campaign is a cross party campaign which calls for a predominantly elected second chamber. |
Reforming the House of Lords: Breaking the Deadlock can be purchased online at a cover price of £10, direct from the Constitution Unit (Tel: 020 7679 4977), or downloaded here
More information on the Elect the Lords campaign can be found here
Prime Ministerial Appointments to the House of Lords
In a statement on the 25th January the Prime Minister announced that in future he will limit his non-political appointments to the House of Lords to ten in any one Parliament.
This Elect the Lords campaign welcomed the statement as an acceptance from the Prime Minister that the present system of patronage is profoundly undemocratic. However while this announcement was a small step in the right direction, the question remains as to why he couldn't declare that all non-political appointments to the House of Lords should be made by the Appointments Commission.
The full statement can be found here
HofL Debates Report on Powers of the House of Lords
On 26th January the House of Lords debated the report of the Labour Peers' Working Group on reform of the powers, procedures and conventions of the House of Lords
The group�s recommendations include that:
- bills which are introduced in the Lords should be subject to the Parliament Act. This would enable the government force through such Bills � which it is currently unable to do
- key conventions such as the Salisbury doctrine should be codified
- reconciliation systems should be established to help resolve differences between the Commons and Lords
- a reasonable time limit for all Bills to complete their Lords' stages should be introduced
- peers delaying powers should also apply to secondary legislation
- enhanced support should be given to opposition party frontbenchers and backbench peers to enable them to fulfil their roles properly
To read a transcript of the debate please see here
Links
- EDM 571: House of Lords Reform (2005/6 Session)
