Full Pamphlet F+B/C@Start
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE KEY TO DEMOCRATIC REFORM A Genuine Expression of OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS IS SIMPLICITY, VIABILITY AND LEGITIMACY the Will of the People: a viable method of “Following consultation, the government will introduce legislation democratic Lords reform to implement the second phase of the House of Lords reform.” With this single sentence in the 2001 Queen’s Speech, the Labour government gave notice that it was intent on Billy Bragg fulfilling it’s historic commitment to reform the House of Lords. The choice between a democratic second chamber or one which remains predominantly a house of patronage will have to be resolved. Whilst those in favour of the democratic option push for an elected house, supporters of an appointed chamber counter that it would not be sensible for the Commons to legislate so that the House of Lords became a rival chamber. Thus the debate becomes polarised. This pamphlet sets out the case for a viable democratic second chamber that does not challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. BILLY BRAGG is a lifelong supporter of the Labour Party. Songwriter and activist, he was a founder member of RED WEDGE. His recent UK tour was sponsored by the GMB. Born in Essex, he now lives with his family in West Dorset. During the last general election, he set up a tactical voting website which resulted in an end to the Conservative stranglehold in Dorset and the first Labour MP in the county for over 30 years. Published by www.votedorset.net £1.00 A Genuine Expression of the Will of the People A viable method of democratic Lords reform Billy Bragg Published by www.votedorset.net Text ©Billy Bragg 2001 Design & Production: Claire Kendall-Price, Wildcat Publishing (01305 269941) Printed by Friary Press, Dorchester 2 3 It is clear from the commitment batch of peers is created. If we leave this debate to The Democratic Case for given in the Queen’s Speech, that those who have an insatiable appetite for titles and Stage Two of the stage two of Labour’s reform of the preference, then the likely outcome will be business as House of Lords Reform House of Lords will be considered usual. during this parliament. Whilst not as important as improving public services, nor as high The issue is not one of privilege but democratic profile as the issue of European integration, there is a principle. Yet proponents of direct election have seen danger that these historic constitutional changes will be their argument dismissed out of hand by those who fear decided without broad public debate. an elected second chamber would challenge the pre- eminence of the Commons. Used by its opponents as The House of Lords as presently constituted does not an excuse to retain appointment, direct election no hold a place in the hearts of the British electorate. They longer appears to be a viable option for reform. do not feel that it belongs to them. A public debate on the future of the upper house might help to engage The secondary mandate system, as outlined in this those who, for whatever reason, have become pamphlet, offers a method of composition for the disillusioned with the way in which our democracy second chamber that befits the unique position it has in responds to their concerns. our constitution. It is a viable method, because it does not directly challenge the primacy of the Commons. It Could a reformed upper house be more accessible to has legitimacy, because it is a democratic expression of the electorate? If members were elected would they the will of the people and it is simple to implement as it better reflect the society in which we live? Does does not require further elections. appointment have any place in a modern legislature? Is it possible to have a democratic second chamber Billy Bragg without undermining the pre-eminence of the [email protected] Commons? And what is the point of reforming the House of Lords if not to make it more democratic? These are all issues that would benefit from a wider airing, yet so far most of the discussion has been conducted within Westminster circles and the resulting proposals have failed to live up to expectations. Many within the House of Lords support the retention of some form of appointment for the reformed second chamber. However, once the hereditary peers have been removed, the appointees will become the problem and charges of cronyism will surface whenever a new 4 5 Democratic reform of the House of After the Conservative gained power in 1979, reform of Lords is long overdue. The Levellers, the Lords was discarded. Instead Margaret Thatcher Historical Perspective radical agitators who emerged used her powers of patronage to create the first during the English Civil War, held hereditary peers since 1964. In his John Smith Memorial that authority could only come from lecture in February 1996, Tony Blair advocated a two the people, not from kingly patronage. In 1646, their stage approach to reform, the first being the immediate leader, John Lilburne, accused of insulting the Earl of removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords and Manchester, told the Lords that the people of England the second, a comprehensive reform of both composition had given them no authority to judge him. In 1791, and powers. It is to his credit that he was able to deliver Thomas Paine, wrote in “The Rights of Man” that the on stage one, where so many had failed before him. idea of hereditary legislators is as absurd as that of hereditary mathematicians. After centuries of aristocratic rule, the power of the hereditary peers dissolved overnight in November 1999. The Chartists took on the power of House of Lords in Labour implemented stage one of 1837, demanding a more representative and democratic Lords reform and their numbers parliament. Resolutions condemning the hereditary were cut from 758 to 92. A The Royal Commission right to a seat in the legislature were debated in 1886 ‘transitional house’ was created and 1888, although neither was carried. An elected wherein the remaining few could upper house was recommended to parliament by the await their fate as decreed by stage two of the reforms. Roseberry Report in 1907. A bill proposing indirect To this end, the Labour Government set up a Royal election was introduced in 1911. Election was again Commission, chaired by Lord Wakeham, a former recommended in 1918 and the King’s Speeches of 1920, Conservative minister. The terms of reference as set out 1921 and 1922 referred to reform. Three private in the Government White Paper were: member’s Bills were introduced in 1929, 1933 and 1935 Having regard to the need to maintain the position of but none was taken up by the government. the House of Commons as the pre-eminent chamber of Parliament and taking particular account of the present The Labour government of 1945 convened talks nature of the constitutional settlement, including newly between party leaders over both the composition and devolved institutions, the impact of the Human Rights powers of a reformed upper house when trying to pass Act and developing relations with the European Union; the 1949 Parliament Act. Talks broke down over the to consider and make recommendations on the role and period of delay the Lords could impose on Commons functions of a second chamber; Bills. The 1966 Labour Government also intended to make recommendations on the method or reform. The Queens Speech for 1967-68 spoke of combination of methods of composition required to eliminating the hereditary basis of the Lords “thereby constitute a second chamber fit for that role and those enabling it to develop within the framework of a modern functions. Parliamentary system”. 6 7 The two chamber, or bi-cameral, system of parliament that exists in Britain works on the principle that one house has primacy over the other. Whilst both houses can initiate legislation, our second chamber, presently called the House of Lords, must eventually accept the will of the primary chamber, the House of Commons. Traditionally, the two houses were divided along class lines, the Lords representing the landed aristocracy and the Commons representing those considered to be below them in the social order. As universal adult suffrage was achieved in the first decades of the 20th century, the nature of the bi-cameral system was changed. Democracy proffered a legitimacy on the Commons that the Lords could not compete with, as they were only there by accident of birth. The introduction of life peers in 1958 brought in a semblance of modernity the bi-cameral system - women were allowed in for the first time - but the spectacle of the prime minister of the day ‘creating’ Lords and Ladies to sit in the legislature only served to further undermine their legitimacy. In the 50s, when deference to ones betters was still the social norm in Britain, peers were created on a wink and a nod. In the present climate of media scrutiny, elevation to the Lords is a potent source of cynicism. The term “Tony’s Cronies”, levelled at those friends of the Prime Minister who have been ennobled, has been used to great effect by newspaper commentators looking for weak spots in the Labour administration. Despite several attempts to make the Lords more attractive to the public, legitimacy has leached away 8 9 from the upper house - a state of affairs which has repair. Lord Wakeham’s task was to find a way to inevitably had a corrosive effect on our parliamentary restore the balance between the two Houses.