RESEARCH PAPER 98/105 Lords Reform: Recent 7 DECEMBER 1998 Developments
A Bill affecting the composition of the House of Lords was announced in the Queen's Speech on 24 November.
Research Papers 97/28, House of Lords reform: recent proposals, 17 February 1997, and 98/85, House of Lords reform: developments since the general election, 19 August 1998 examined the debate on Lords reform in the run-up to, and since, the 1997 general election.
Because of the pace of developments on this highly controversial issue, this Paper seeks to bring matters up- to-date. Other than material included for completeness or clarity, the items considered or cited in the two previous Papers are not reproduced here.
Other relevant Research Papers include RP 98/102, The European Parliamentary Elections Bill, 1 December 1998; RP 98/103, Lords reform: the legislative role of the House of Lords, 1 December 1998, and RP 98/104, Lords reform: background statistics, forthcoming.
Barry K Winetrobe
HOME AFFAIRS SECTION
HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY Recent Library Research Papers include:
List of 15 most recent RPs
98/96 Economic Indicators 02.11.98 98/97 Unemployment by Constituency - October 1998 11.11.98 98/98 Lottery awards: regional and constituency analysis (to October 1998) 12.11.98 98/99 Fairness at Work Cm 3968 17.11.98 99/100 Widows' Benefits (revised edition) 23.11.98 98/101 Economic Indicators 01.12.98 98/102 The European Parliamentary Elections Bill [Bill No 4 of 1998-9] 01.12.98 98/103 Lords Reform: The Legislative Role of the House of Lords 01.12.98 98/104 Lords Reform: background statistics (forthcoming) 98/105 Lords Reform: Recent Developments 07.12.98 98/106 Local Government Finance in England 01.12.98 98/107 Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME 01.12.98 98/108 The Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill Bill 3 1998-9 03.12.98 98/109 Protocol 11 and the New European Court of Human Rights 03.12.98 98/110 Water Industry Bill Bill 1 [1998/99] 03.12.98
Research Papers are available as PDF files:
• to members of the general public on the Parliamentary web site, URL: http://www.parliament.uk • within Parliament to users of the Parliamentary Intranet, URL: http://hcl1.hclibrary.parliament.uk
Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public. Summary of main points
Reform of the House of Lords has been at the forefront of the political/constitutional agenda for a number of years, especially since Labour in Opposition produced proposals to change the composition of the Upper House by removing the hereditary element. The recent controversy of the so-called ‘Cross Bench proposal’ demonstrates the sensitivity of the issue in Parliamentary and political terms.
The general background to the complex issue of bicameralism v. unicameralism in general, and the history of Lords reform in particular, was considered in Background Paper 297, The Other Place: second chambers and the House of Lords, 7 Sept 1992. Developments in the modern debate up to the immediate pre-election period were set out in Research Papers 97/28, House of Lords reform: recent proposals, 17 Feb 1997, and 98/85, House of Lords reform: developments since the general election, 19 Aug 1998. This present Paper seeks to bring the debate up to date, in advance of the forthcoming Government bill.1 This Paper should also be read with a companion Paper, RP 98/103, Lords reform: the legislative role of the House of Lords, 1 Dec 1998, and 98/104, Lords reform: background statistics, forthcoming. Members are reminded that the House of Lords itself, through its Library and its Information Office, produces a great deal of relevant material on the composition2 and work of the House, and on the history of reform and related matters. Much of this material is available on the Lords pages on the Parliamentary Intranet.
The Labour manifesto for the May 1997 general election stated:3
A modern House of Lords The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute. This will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative. The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered. The system of appointment of life peers to the House of Lords will be reviewed. Our objective will be to ensure that over time party appointees as life peers more accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast at the previous general election. We are committed to maintaining an independent crossbench presence of life peers. No one political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords. A committee of both Houses of Parliament will be appointed to undertake a wide-ranging review of possible further change and then to bring forward proposals for reform. We have no plans to replace the monarchy.
The Queen's Speech on 24 November included the following:
A Bill will be introduced to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative. My Government will publish a White Paper setting out arrangements for a new system of appointments of life peers and establish a Royal Commission to review further changes and speedily to bring forward proposals for reform.
1 It does not consider 'internal' reforms such as changes to the ceremony of introduction. 2 See, for example, the recent House of Lords Library Note 98/005, Peerage creations 1958-1998, Nov 1998 3 New labour: because Britain deserves better, April 1997, pp 32-3 CONTENTS
I Recent party views 7
A. The Government 7 B. The Opposition 11 C. The Liberal Democrats 18
II Other recent proposals 20
A. Edward Heathcoat Amory's CPS pamphlet, 20 Lords a'Leaping B. Charter 88's policy paper 21 C. Constitution Unit study of the Canadian Senate 22 D. A territorial role? John Osmond's Fabian Society 23 pamphlet
III Recent Discussion in the Lords 25
IV Developments in the 1998-99 session 34
A. Generally 34 B. House of Lords 37 C. House of Commons 48 D. The 'Cross Bench Proposal' 60
V Selected Bibliography 64 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
I Recent party views
A. The Government
The Government's annual report published on 30 July listed progress on its election pledges. Number 125 is: “end voting rights for hereditary peers As soon as we can.”4 The section of the report on 'modern government' contained the following (p 88):
Modernising Parliament - reforming the House of Lords We will remove the right of peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords merely because of their ancestry. This will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more representative of the country as a whole. We believe that no single political party should have a built in overall majority of members in the House of Lords. We are examining reforms to the system for nominating peers to the House of Lords which retain its expertise and its role in challenging and revising legislation.
The 'what we will do next' segment at the end of that section contained the following: 'Prepare for reform of the House of Lords' (p 89).
The recent reshuffle, with the replacement of Lord Richard by Baroness Jay of Paddington as Leader of the Lords, led to speculation about the Government's plans for the House of Lords. Lord Richard was quoted in the New Statesman on 31 July:
“I have concerns about the reform now,” he said. “If all the government is going to do is abolish the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote and then kick the second stage into touch it will be a great missed opportunity.” Lord Richard intended to establish a Royal Commission to agree a second-stage reform. Now, he fears, phase two just won't happen. “Whatever you do to the House of Lords is going to make the second chamber more troublesome for the Commons. There's no getting away from that and a lot of MPs on both sides are worried.” He adds: “I have no idea what the Prime Minister's views are. I've not talked to him about it. I don't think his mind has been engaged in this in any concentrated way.” It may well be that Blair has chosen to discuss the issue with others - such as Lord Irvine and Jack Straw - but like welfare reform, the scale of the task is greater than any of the ministers involved first realised. Lord Richard briefly lifted the veil on his former cabinet committee to illustrate the problems of merely establishing an interim chamber. “The more we looked at it, the more complicated it became. What do you do with the bishops? How will Lambeth Palace react? What do you do about the law lords? Do you have a cap on the size of the interim house and what's the size of the interim house? How many life
4 Cm 3969, p 101
7 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
peers are you left with? What are you going to do with the Tories? Are they going to get more life peers, in which case how are they going to get them?”
Baroness Jay of Paddington discussed Lords reform in a Daily Telegraph interview on 8 August. She was quoted: "If you remove the hereditaries you'd already have about 500 life peers and the balance between the Conservatives and Labour would be almost equal. We must focus on that." On the Government's timetable, she said: "We have got to have a proper package. To say there is a vacuum beyond the short-term is nonsense, there has been substantial work done by civil servants and politicians. We haven't stopped at scrapping the hereditaries. The degree to which we express the outcome is something we need to think about." She defined her slogan as "More legitimacy, but no more power."5
She was also quoted as expressing a preference for life peers to be known as 'MLs' - Members of the Lords - and not to have titles as such, so as to distinguish them from hereditary peers. She also suggested the modernisation of some of the ceremonial aspects of the House, including the State Opening: "There are changes that I am sure the Queen herself would not object to, but which make the whole thing much more of the 21st rather than the 16th century."6 This last point was criticised by her Opposition shadow, Viscount Cranborne, who was interviewed on Radio 4:7
"They must stop this habit of every time they find themselves in need of justification, calling the monarch down into the political bearpit," he said. The proposal was a piece of "flubflummery" with a "radical tinge" which was trying to "cover (Labour's) retreat from going to a full reform of the House of Lords". If a "full" reform was planned, "it's an extremely good idea to remove the ethos of the hereditary peers," Lord Cranborne said. "There's no reason to keep it if you are doing full reform." But in fact Labour appeared to be sticking to a stage one of reform - abolishing hereditary peerages and replacing them with appointed life peers, "transforming the place into Blair's poodle".
Baroness Jay of Paddington was quoted in the New Statesman recently as saying of the hereditary peers: "We haven't said they're all hopeless, but quite a few of them are … The bottom line is that any chamber which replaces the hereditary peerage with the nominated peerage is better, because of the way they are appointed."8
She discussed the royal commission in response to Lords questions on 17 November:9
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the Government made clear that one of our main reasons for favouring the approach
5 "Discreet charm of Blair's aristocrat", Daily Telegraph, 8.8.98 6 "Strip peers of titles, says Jay", Daily Telegraph, 8.8.98 7 "Baroness criticised over Queen remark", BBC News web-site, 8.8.98 8 The NS Interview: Margaret Jay, New Statesman, 6.11.98, p 23. She explained her remarks in a written answer later in November, HL Deb vol 594 cWA141, 17.11.98 9 HC Deb vol 594 cc 1120-22, 17.11.98
8 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
of the Royal Commission to consider long-term reform of the House of Lords is to enable the widest possible consultation and debate to take place within a structured context. Although obviously it is not for the Government to prescribe the exact procedure for the Royal Commission to follow, we would expect it both to inform and consult the general public on the issue of House of Lords reform……
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, ….. does not the noble Baroness think that it would have been much better to have appointed this Royal Commission immediately after the previous general election? There might even have been a chance that it could have made a substantial report by now and we could be considering a full reform rather than merely the half-baked stage one reform which the Government are at the moment pressing upon us.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not wish to trouble the noble Viscount with concern about language but I think there is a difference between consensus and consultation. I believe that I have committed the Government to appropriate consultation, and we shall certainly fulfil that. As regards the timing of the Royal Commission, the noble Viscount is well aware that from the time of the election manifesto we have always said that the stage one reform--as it has become colloquially known--is a stand alone piece of constitutional reform which we seek to achieve on its own. We see the second stage, and the organisation of the Royal Commission to inform that second stage, as being a sensible way to proceed……..
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say when the Royal Commission will be appointed and whether that will be simultaneous with the publication of the White Paper? When is the White Paper likely to be published? Will it accompany the publication of a Bill following the Queen's Speech or may we expect it sooner?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, would not want me to pre-empt in any way the Queen's Speech next week. I repeat what my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn and I both said about a month ago during the two-day debate in your Lordships' House on this question: the White Paper will be published in the context of the publication of the Bill.
In his party conference speech in Blackpool on 29 September, Tony Blair said:10
People say there is no Tory opposition any more. Well there is. It's alive and well and unelected and in the House of Lords with a three to one majority over us. Not a vote to their name, but able to vote down the plans that the people voted for in our manifesto. I call that arrogance. And when we use the mandate the British people gave us at the ballot box to get rid of the power of those hereditary peers, I call that democracy. And what is more, this supposed control
10 Transcript, Labour Party Conference website
9 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
freak will be the first Prime Minister to remove from himself the sole power of patronage in appointing peers.
On 16 October, in a speech in his Copeland constituency, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Jack Cunningham, attacked the legitimacy of the present Upper House:11
Remember the election. The many, not the few. The future, not the past. Because the way the House of Lords is now, the House of Lords is the past. Preserved, penified, politically prehistoric. A relic wrapped up in a timewarp. Why? Not because of the work it does. Lots of what it does is valuable. Looking at legislation. Questioning ministers. Holding the Government to account. That's the role of a second chamber.
All around the world, in most advanced democracies, that's what second chambers do. In France. In Ireland. In Canada. In Germany. In the USA. In each of those countries. and many more, how the second chamber is constituted varies In some. members are directly elected. In others, elections are indirect. Some are appointed, on the basis of their talent and ability. The range is wide
But one thing characterises them all. One element unites them. In no other major democracy anywhere in the world does your parentage put you into Parliament. In no other Parliament chamber does the hereditary principle give you the key to passing laws which will govern the lives of others. We've looked at this, in the Cabinet Office, We've searched hard to find anywhere - anywhere at all where the hereditary principle applies. We think we may have found one example. Just one. Where tribal chiefs in Zimbabwe form what is called a 'functional constituency' which is represented in the second chamber. We're not sure. We're checking. But we think they may be it. Apart from the House of Lords, that is.
What is clear is that the continued presence and role of the hereditary peers as an element of the law-making process in Britain does one thing, and one thing only for Britain: damage. It demeans our democracy. It undermines our representativeness. And it devalues our politics. Try explaining the idea of hereditary peers to someone from a different country. They are astonished. They don't believe you. They think you're joking. It would be a joke, if it wasn't so serious. Because the hereditary peers in the House of Lords make a laughing stock of democracy. Cuba is democratising. China is democratising. Albania is democratising. But the Tories and the hereditary peers? No.
The presence of the hereditary peers makes the House of Lords the least democratic parliamentary chamber in the world. Outmoded. Out of touch. Outrageous. We will reform it. We will improve it. We will legislate to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. A right which is now illogical. Illfounded. And illegitimate.
11 Labour Party PN, 16.10.98, transcript, pp 1-5, extracts
10 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
He set out the Government's policy, built upon the election manifesto statement:12
And do you know what we're doing? Do you know what my colleague, Margaret Jay, announced in the Lords this week? I'll tell you. Abolition of the hereditary peers right to sit and vote. A review of the way life peers are appointed. Keeping the independent cross-benchers. Establishing a review of the future of the Lords. Bringing forward proposals for change. Clear. Precise. Unequivocal.
We're even adding to it, improving on our own promises. by adding in a Royal Commission on the future of the Lords so that we can have the fullest possible consideration of a key element of our constitution - and get it to the stage of bringing forward specific proposals for change as quickly as possible. If we hadn't have promised a Royal Commission, the Tories would have tried to attack us for not consulting people……
The Tories may not like it. They are trying to oppose it. They may try to block all that we're doing to carry out what the people of this country voted for. If they do, let me warn them. Clearly. Precisely. Unequivocally. To do so would be foolish. It would be a constitutional outrage. And you will pay the price for it. As you did last year. Where it counts. In the ballot box. With the people of Britain. Because the Tories' backing for the hereditary peers in the House of Lords is the unelected in support of the unelectable.
Following the demise of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill at the end of last session, because of the inability of the two Houses to agree on its provisions, the Prime Minister wrote an article attacking the composition of the Upper House:13
We should never forget, either, that the objection to the hereditaries is not simply the hereditary principle. Some of them, as individuals, do a good job in the Lords. It is the in-built, vast majority that the hereditaries give the Tory party. The Tories outnumber us three to one. In perpetuity. It doesn't matter who wins a general election; they always win in the Lords. Even if you believe in hereditaries, how can a system be justified where one chamber of a two-chamber Parliament is permanently in the control of one party?
B. The Opposition
The Opposition constitutional spokesperson, Liam Fox, has interpreted the reported remarks of Lord Richard, following the recent ministerial reshuffle,14 as putting the 'second stage' of Lords reform at risk:15
12 pp 8-10 13 "The House of Lords is a one-party chamber", Daily Telegraph, 20.10.98 14 On which, see above, pp 7-8 15 Conservative Party PN, 30.7.98
11 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
Lord Richard's comments reflect our anxieties that there are elements within the Government who seek to create only a super quango and that the promised second stage of reform will never occur. There is still time for the Prime Minister to halt the one stage reform, which is an act of constitutional vandalism enacted for reasons of class spite and political expediency. He should now consider the good governance of the United Kingdom as more important than throwing sops to his left wing and in the interests of good Government, consider a full 'big bang' reform. The Conservatives reaffirm our previous offer to contribute constructively to such a debate, but only if the Government drop their one-stage reform plans.
On 13 July, Mr Hague announced the establishment of a commission to review options for Lords reform:16
The reform of Parliament must be above party politics. Changes we make now to the way Parliament works will affect future generations long after we are gone. Rushed and ill thought-out reform, dreamt up in the heat of party political battle, could threaten the foundations on which our freedoms and liberties are based. That is why I am so concerned about the way in which this Government seems determined to proceed with reform of the House of Lords.
The Prime Minister has announced that he intends to introduce a Bill simply to abolish the voting rights of hereditary peers in the next session of Parliament. He assures us that at some future and unspecified time he will look at further reform. In other words, he is proceeding with Stage One reform without giving any indication of when Stage Two reform will take place, let alone what form it will take. It is the worst of all possible worlds, and the Prime Minister has been roundly criticised from across the political spectrum for the way in which he is proceeding.
Now, in the face of mounting pressure, he has agreed to publish a Green Paper. But it is clear that the Green Paper is simply a palliative to accompany the Stage One Reform and that the Government has no intention of producing genuine and lasting reform of the Second Chamber in this Parliament and probably not in the next. The Government plans to remove the principal independent element from our Parliament and transform the House of Lords into a giant quango at the mercy of the Prime Minister of the day. If the Government succeeds, we will witness a significant transfer of power to the executive and take a significant step down the road to elected dictatorship.
The Conservative Party will not stand by and let the Government get away with it. We vigorously oppose the Government’s proposals. That is not to say we are opposed to any reform of the House of Lords. Indeed, we accept that in recent years government may have become too powerful and that there is a strong case for real reform of Parliament to reinforce democratic accountability and parliamentary scrutiny.
16 "Hague launches commission on the future of the House of Lords", Conservative Party PN, 13.7.98
12 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
But reform to our Parliament must be based on sound principles. Reform must be well thought through, so that we know what the long term effects on our democracy will be. Reform should be carried out with as much cross-party consensus as possible so that there is no suggestion of gerrymandering and party advantage. Above all, reform should take place in the open, after a genuine public debate, and with maximum possible support from the people of Britain.
The Government seems determined to avoid all these things. It wants to rush through far-reaching changes that have everything do with increasing the power of the Prime Minister and nothing to do with principled reform. It wants to avoid public examination and political consensus by drawing up its plans in secret, without consultation or debate. Above all, it wants to avoid real and lasting reform of the House of Lords by delaying indefinitely Stage Two reform.
The time has come for those who care about the future of our democracy, to do what the Government refuses to do and start a real public debate. Today I am setting up a Constitutional Commission to look at the reform of the House of Lords. Its terms of reference are that it should examine options for reforming and strengthening the Second Chamber of Parliament, bearing in mind six clear principles of reform which I set out earlier this year and which have received a broad measure of agreement. These principles are:
First, that any reformed chamber must be better at scrutinising and revising legislation than the present one. Second, that a substantial independent element must remain. Third, that the Prime Minister’s powers of patronage must not be increased. Fourth, that the Members must be drawn from all parts of the United Kingdom. Fifth, that reform must be considered in the context of its effects on Parliament as a whole. And sixth that the supreme authority of the House of Commons as the focus of democratic accountability in our country must remain intact.
This Constitutional Commission will not be a creature of the Conservative Party. It will start with no political instructions and no party preconceptions. There will be no nudges or winks as to its findings. It will carry out a wide-ranging public consultation involving a wide range of individuals and interested organisations. I hope it will be in a position to produce an initial report on the broad options for reform, as measured against the status quo, before the Queen’s Speech this autumn. It will then hold hearings in public to narrow down the options.
I am delighted that Lord Mackay of Clashfern - the former Lord Chancellor - has accepted my invitation to chair the Constitutional Commission. His reputation for integrity and independence are beyond question. I can also announce today that Lord Hurd of Westwell, the distinguished former Foreign Secretary, has agreed to serve on the Commission. We will announce the other members of the Commission shortly, and they do not need to be Conservatives.
I urge those of you in this room who have written and thought about parliamentary reform to take part and put evidence to the Mackay Commission. I am also today issuing an open invitation to other political parties, including the
13 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
Labour Party, to present their evidence too. I hope the Mackay Commission will kick-start the public debate on reform of the House of Lords which the Government has so far tried to avoid. The Government has refused to publish an options paper. The Mackay Commission will do so. The Government wants to keep the public out of its deliberations. The Mackay Commission will invite the public in. The Government has closed its mind to all options except the creation of a Second Chamber appointed by the Prime Minister. We have an open mind about all options.
The democratic constitution of our country is not the plaything of any one government or any one Prime Minister. It belongs to the people of Britain. The Mackay Commission will give them the chance to speak out and let their voice be heard.
The initial membership of the Commission was Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Hurd of Westwell (formerly Douglas Hurd) and Douglas Slater, a former Lords Clerk who has written on Lords reform. The Commission's first press notice stated that "additional Members may be added on the invitation of the Chairman."17 The independence of the Mackay Commission was questioned in the media following the leaking of a Shadow Cabinet briefing note written by Lord Cranborne which suggested that the party's role would not be totally at arm's length.18 Lord Hurd of Westwell was also quoted in the press as wishing for "a royal commission or some kind of body that would examine [Lords reform]. It is simply not good enough to knock the hereditary peers on the head … I think there is a very strong case for leaving it alone and many other people are saying the same thing. Unless Tony Blair says what he wants to take the place of hereditaries and there is a proper reform, all we will get is more appointees."19
The Commission's initial report was published on 17 September.20 This is summarised in the Commission's press release:
The Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Chairman of the Constitutional Commission, today stressed the need for a fundamental review of the options for a Second Chamber - covering its very purpose and functions through to its powers and composition. His comments came as the Commission published its Initial Report marking the first step towards its goal of engaging the nation in a full discussion of the potential alternatives. Ideas floated in the Report, in addition to the present range of powers exercised by the Lords, include the provision of powers to approve certain government,
17 "The future of the Lords -- options for change", 17.9.98, notes for editors 18 See, for example, "Tory memo undermines 'independent' Lords review", Guardian, 14.7.98. On the task of the commission see Peter Riddell's column in the Times of the same date, "At least the Tories are provoking reform debate." 19 "Hurd defends the Lords as a revising chamber", Times, 21.7.98. 20 Initial report of the constitutional commission to consider options for a new second chamber. This report, as well as other related information, is reproduced on the Commission's web-site: www.mackaycommission.org.uk
14 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105 civil service, Diplomatic Service and judicial appointments. The Report also explores giving statutory powers for the Second Chamber to consider draft European legislation. The Commission was established in July 1998 by the Leader of the Opposition. It is, however, operating wholly independently and the Chairman will determine its future membership by invitation. Speaking at the launch, Lord Mackay commented: "The Government has undertaken to change the Lords. However, the shape of its successor is far from clear. Our Report details a comprehensive range of options for a new Second Chamber. We hope it will prompt debate and will result in proposals for a Chamber which will enhance our constitutional arrangements and make for a stimulating and constructive relationship between the Houses. "The reform of the Second Chamber will result in far-reaching changes in this country's method of government. A clear vision for reform is needed before any changes to the present system take effect." The Report acknowledges that the Commission's work cannot replace government proposals but underlines that a wider public debate is necessary. Lord Hurd of Westwell, a member of the Commission, said: "The reform of the Second Chamber should be used as an opportunity to rebalance our constitution. Far reaching changes are underway within the United Kingdom through the creation of devolved assemblies. Our existing institutions should also be serving us better in ensuring accountability in our dealings with the European Union. Creating a new model for a Second Chamber is an important task to be done with thought, with care and on the basis of informed debate." The Report is structured so that it scrutinises each aspect of the Second Chamber in turn, with each consideration informing the next. The Report questions: The purpose of the Second Chamber: what should be its role in the constitution alongside the House of Commons and how might is interact with devolved assemblies? Might the Second Chamber provide an alternative means for representation for various interests or institutions?; Functions of the Second Chamber: to what extent should it be involved in the process of government? Should, as now, it be involved in legislation, consideration of the policy and scrutiny of government? And should it undertake greater responsibility for the Parliamentary supervision of human rights and of the constitution as a whole?; Powers of the Second Chamber: should the reformed Second Chamber retain the Lords' existing powers with respect to the passage of primary and secondary legislation? And should it be granted additional powers such as approving certain appointments or considering draft European legislation?; and finally The Composition of the Second Chamber: the Report recognises that composition of the chamber is likely to be on a representative basis, but should members be selected through either direct or indirect election or perhaps by ex officio membership or direct appointment? The Report also suggests that there might be an element of a separation of powers with government ministers being ineligible to be members. By posing questions such as these, the Commission believes its Report will act as a focus for discussion. It has invited written evidence by 11 December. The Commission will then embark on a series of public hearings in the New Year to take out to the wider public. It is intended to hold hearings in the House of Lords, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast, the North, the Midlands and the South West. Some
15 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
of those who have responded in writing will be invited to these hearings to expand on their views to the Commission.
As the Commission's work progresses and possible options become defined, it will also be engaged on a significant programme of opinion research. The Commission also hopes to encourage wider participation through the use of its website located at www.mackaycommission.org.uk. Members of the public will be able to examine the contents of the Report and submit their own views.
It was reported in the Daily Telegraph on 5 December that the Commission had dropped its planned series of ‘roadshows’ around the country, because, in the words of one of its members, Douglas Slater, “the announcement of the royal commission has taken the wind out of our sails … On the other hand, that means that we do not have to do so much work ourselves.” The paper suggested that the commission is considering publishing its final report next March, earlier than planned.21
Liam Fox, gave an interview to Charter 88 recently in which he discussed his party's approach to Lords reform:22
However, he is more circumspect about reform of the House of Lords, one of the most difficult and contentious issues for the Conservatives. For the time being they are leaving their options open.
"The House of Lords fulfils a very important function and there is a tremendous confusion between role and composition of the second chamber. The Government’s reforms are based on composition. That seems to be entirely the wrong point at which to start this debate, which is one of the many reasons why we oppose their stage one without stage two."
As with many of the other constitutional reforms, Fox believes the Government is rushing into reform of the Lords without having thought out the consequences. Nevertheless, although undoubtedly there are some Tories with an interest in retaining hereditary peers, a growing number of Conservative MPs recognise that they cannot sell this policy to the electorate. Fox, however, does not accept that this issue is the Conservative’s Clause 4.
"We have always said that we are open to ideas about reform of the House of Lords. With Clause 4 Labour ditched one of their core beliefs. I hope that our vision for the reform process of the House of Lords is actually in tune with all our past beliefs. It may result ultimately, in us thinking of a different structure, but we won’t be ditching our core values and that is a fundamental difference.”
21 “Lords roadshows dropped”, Daily Telegraph, 5.12.98 22 "Turning blue?", Citizen, issue 4, Autumn 1998, www.charter88.org.uk/pub/citizen/issue4/blue
16 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
This, he insists is why they have set up a commission under the chairmanship of Lord Mackay to look at all the options and make recommendations to the shadow cabinet next year. The independence of the Mackay Commission has been questioned by a number of commentators and particularly by the Labour Party who see it simply as an exercise in party management.
"Only those who have never worked with him could accuse Lord Mackay of not being independent. I have absolute confidence in his ability. But the commission will also include others with experience and a wide interest in constitutional issues. It does not help us if we are seen to be drawing all our ideas from a small Tory clique. For our long-term political health, it is advantageous that we have a genuinely independent grouping and that is what we have set out to do."
Viscount Cranborne was interviewed by John Humphreys on BBC 1's On the record on November 15 on the Lords' treatment of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill:23
HUMPHRYS: But it is Alice in Wonderland anyway isn't it in a sense because you could argue that you're playing into the government's hands. I mean if they want to represent this, indeed they have represented this as a group of hereditary peers, I mean after all you wouldn't have your majority if it weren't for the hereditary peers...….. But that's the way the arithmetic works. If you did not have the hereditary peers to give you support on this issue you would not be able to keep sending it back and doing your damndest to stop it happening. Now you're actually here playing it because they want to get rid of the hereditary peers, of course we know that, you, I gather, are sort of saying 'Yeah, well why not....?'
CRANBORNE: I recognise perfectly well that hereditary peers must go but what I just want to make sure, of course, is that we are replaced by something independent rather than Mr Blair's poodle.
HUMPHRYS: But you are playing into their hands here aren't you?
CRANBORNE: But why? Nobody agrees with the government except for the government's own members …… [Y]ou know and I know that of course the government must win in the end - that is the way the British constitution works and quite right too. But equally because of the power of the whips office it is very important that you have a second chamber which says, 'Come on, this is silly. before you really force us to push it through, then please think again.'
The recent report of the Scottish Conservative Policy Commission, chaired by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, contained a policy proposal that "The proposed Royal Commission on the House of Lords must consider whether a reformed Upper House should include some direct representation for the countries of the United Kingdom in the manner of the US Senate or German Bundesrat."24
23 www.bbc.co.uk/otr/frames/interviewsf.html 24 Scotland's future, November 1998, p 11
17 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
C. Liberal Democrats
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Lords, set out his own, and subject to detail, his Party's view in a speech to the recent ICR/Daily Telegraph.25 Paddy Ashdown dealt briefly with Lords reform in the context of wider constitutional developments during his speech to the party conference on 24 September:26
You see, the reform of our constitution to empower our people is not an optional extra for a modern Britain. It is the essential foundation stone upon which a modern Britain must be built.
Let me make this absolutely clear. Our work with the Government on the Cabinet Committee is about a programme. It's not about picking and choosing. The historic Cook/Maclennan Agreement before the election is a set of proposals which can only work effectively if they work as a whole.
So, there can be no backsliding on Lords reform. What place is there in a 21st century Parliament for people with 15th century titles upholding 19th century prejudices? And there can be no diversion from the final destination. An upper house based not on patronage, but on democracy.
The conference approved the policy document, Moving ahead: towards a citizens' Britain, which contained, in the constitutional affairs section:
3.3 The Reform of the House of Lords
3.3.1 A Second Chamber is an important check and balance on the House of Commons, even after decentralisation and proportional representation. When the legislation is introduced to remove the rights of hereditary peers, a consultation paper on the subsequent stage of reform should be published. A reformed Second Chamber should take on additional functions, for instance, greater scrutiny of delegated legislation and representing the nations and regions of the UK. 3.3.2 Liberal Democrats reaffirm the recommendations of the Cook-Maclennan Report that a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament should then be established to bring forward detailed proposals on the structure and functions of a democratic and representative Second Chamber. 3.3.3 Legislation should be introduced to implement the committee’s proposals in the next Parliament. The reformed second chamber should be called "the Senate", and its members "Senators".
Powers and Role of the Senate
3.3.4 The powers and role of the Senate should be consistent with our constitutional principles:
25 This reproduced in the first edition of this Paper, RP98/85 26 All conference material is reproduced from the relevant pages of the party's web-site.
18 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
(A) Representative Government and Separation of Powers
(i) There should be a predominantly directly elected element in the Senate. Elected membership should be drawn from the nations and regions, which should have a direct voice in Parliament to protect their positions against centralisation.
(B) Open and Accountable Government
(i) The Senate should have a general watching brief, and powers of advice and consent, over public appointments like the Chairman of the BBC, the Chief Executives of the Next Steps Agencies and the utility regulators. (ii) The Senate should have a role overseeing the activities of UK quangos and enhanced functions in scrutinising delegated legislation and European laws, directives and regulations.
The Structure of the Senate
3.3.5 The Senate must complement the House of Commons not duplicate it. We therefore believe that the majority of members of the Senate should be elected by STV for six year terms with one third facing re-election every two years, with the constituencies being Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and each English region. 3.3.6 If the Senate is to have a constitutional "watchdog" role, it should not be too heavily dominated by party politics. We endorse the conclusion of the Cook- Maclennan Report that no one political party should have a majority in the Senate. There is a role for a small number of appointed Senators, possessing broad experience and proven integrity. A committee of both Houses should appoint such individuals to sit as cross benchers. 3.3.7 The present House of Lords, with more than 1200 members, is much too big. The Committee should consider the optimum size for the Senate. Liberal Democrats propose that the Senate should have some 300 members, around 250 of whom would be elected.
This was summarised as follows in the conference resolution:
5. Reform the House of Lords by:
a) Establishing a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament to bring forward detailed proposals on the structure and functions of a new predominantly directly elected "Senate" to replace the House of Lords. b) Providing that the majority of members of the Senate be elected by the Single Transferable Vote for a six year term. c) Reducing the number of members of the Second Chamber over time by around 900 members to some 300, around 250 of whom would be elected.
19 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
II Other recent proposals27
A. Edward Heathcoat Amory's CPS pamphlet, Lords a'Leaping28
• The organic development of the House of Lords has taken a wrong turning. The very qualities of restraint, moderation and detachment that make it admirable, limit its ability to restrain the Commons. • Labour's proposals for two-stage reform are unacceptable: they will result in the creation of a giant quango under the patronage and control of the prime minister of the day. They would damage British democracy for the sake of short- term political expedience. • The Conservatives - who have a strong tradition of initiating reform of the House of Lords - must now propose a package of reform not as a reluctant retreat from the current arrangements, but as a positive step that will create a new institution dedicated to freedom and limited government. • The assumption that the House of Commons, and therefore the executive, should always get its way is a historical accident. • The Conservative Party should propose a wholly elected 'Senate', with the legitimacy to restrain the government. • The Senate would be elected by a system of national proportional representation. It should have 240 members, elected for nine years, with elections for one third of the chamber every three years. • The second chamber would be a purely legislative body, and provide no ministers to the government. Ministers from the Commons would visit the Senate to manage the passage of legislation, and to answer questions. No Senator could subsequently become an MP. • This second chamber, free of the power of prime ministerial patronage, would in time inevitably challenge the Commons. The resulting disputes would revitalise Parliament, and reduce the volume of legislation that could be forced onto the statute book: a welcome development. • The Senate would have powers to delay the passage of legislation - except for money bills - for two years; thereafter disagreements would be referred to a national referendum. • Law Lords and Bishops would not sit in the Senate. A new Supreme Court would be created. • There would be a transition period, with only one third of the new Senate elected for the first three years, and two thirds for the first six. The rest of the new Senate would be drawn from the current House of Lords, chosen by internal ballot.
27 Earlier proposals of this kind are summarised in RP 98/85 28 Centre for Policy Studies, September 1998, summary (pp iii-iv)
20 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
B. Charter 88's policy paper
Charter 88 published a policy paper on Lords reform in September.29 A summary was published on its web-site:30
Reform of the House of Lords: Policy Paper
Summary Charter88 believes that the case for radical reform of the House of Lords is overwhelming.
A Second Chamber whose membership is based on appointment and entitlement runs counter all notions of democracy. As a result, the membership of the House of Lords enjoys little public support or legitimacy.1 But the case for reform is much broader than arguments about the legitimacy of hereditary peers.
The Second Chamber should provide a counterweight to the House of Commons. It should also perform a broader constitutional role, reflecting the UK’s evolving constitution. The current House of Lords does neither job effectively. Its powers are used sparingly, because it fears for its own legitimacy, and it is increasingly distanced from developments elsewhere in government.
The Second Chamber should itself evolve and reflect other political, social, and economic changes. Therefore a detailed and prescriptive plan for a new Second Chamber will, by definition, be flawed.
However, it is possible to set out clear principles and guidelines upon which reform should be based. That is the aim of this paper.
Charter 88 believes that: The UK needs an effective Second Chamber to act as a check on the House of Commons The Government’s ‘first stage’ reforms removing the voting rights of hereditary Peers do not go far enough. The bill abolishing the voting rights of hereditary Peers should be accompanied by a timetable and guidelines for Second Stage reforms.
The Second Chamber should perform three principal functions.
It must act as check on the powers of the House of Commons. The Second Chamber should be a scrutinising body, responsible for revising and, if necessary, delaying legislation. The legislative process in the Lords should be substantially different from that in the Commons to ensure proper scrutiny of legislation. The Second Chamber should also be equipped with a properly resourced system of Select committees. It may have a specific role in pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny. The Government should examine whether it is necessary for the Second Chamber to have the power to initiate legislation.
It must be a more deliberative body than the House of Commons.
29 Reform of the House of Lords, September 1998 30 www.charter88.org.uk/pub/policy/9810_lords_sum.html
21 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
The Government and Opposition in the House of Commons are principally concerned with the passage of legislation. Consequently there is little attention given to long-term policy development. This is a role that a deliberative Second Chamber could perform.
The Government is also often subject to populist whim and legislates in direct response to a moral panic. Some of the most poorly drafted legislation in recent years has been as a result of such events (for example, the Dangerous Dogs Act). Such legislation often creates more problems than it solves. A deliberative Second Chamber could guard against legislating on the hoof.
It must integrate the different parts of the UK into a central institution. The decentralisation of power to different parts of the UK creates the need for an institution which binds the new tiers of government into the centre. The Second Chamber should represent these interests and act as a Chamber of the union.
Given these functions elections to the Second Chamber should be by a different electoral system and on a different cycle to the House of Commons. A proportional electoral system will help to ensure that no one party has an overall majority. The system of PR should be regionally based and weighted to give equal representation to all parts of the UK. The Second Chamber should have the ability to co-opt outside experts.
C. Constitution Unit study of the Canadian Senate31
The government has announced that the House of Lords is to be reformed in two stages. First, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote will be ended. This will result in a transitional upper chamber which is wholly appointed. The second stage of reform will follow after a Royal Commission has considered the options.
Canada has the only wholly appointed second chamber in the western world, and therefore provides some insights into how the transitional chamber in Britain might operate. Canadian parliamentary traditions are modelled on the British and many simililarities remain.
Members of the Canadian second chamber are effectively appointed by the Prime Minister, nominally to represent the provinces of the country. However, appointments are actually made on a purely party-political basis. Despite general agreement on the need for change to the Canadian Senate, successive reform packages have failed over the past decades.
The key points about the Canadian Senate which will be of interest in the UK include:
31 Meg Russell, An Appointed Upper House: lessons from Canada, November 1998, summary. The report prepared by the Unit for the Scottish Office's Consultative Steering Group on unicameral chambers, Checks and balances in single chamber parliaments : a comparative study, February 1998, CSG(98)(7), available on the CSG Papers section of www.scottish-devolution.org.uk
22 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
• Although the Senate has almost identical powers to the lower house - making it stronger than our House of Lords - it rarely uses them. This is largely because it is seen as undemocratic for an appointed house to challenge the will of an elected one. • The appointment system in Canada, where Prime Ministers are in control and rarely appoint from outside their own party, creates particular cynicism amongst Canadians about the Senate. • The appointed nature of the Canadian Senate, coupled with the use of political patronage in appointments, means that it has little respect amongst Canadians. Its work is largely ignored, and even ridiculed, by the media and political commentators.. • This suggests that the UK government's commitment to review the appointments system so it is open and fair, and so that no party has a majority in the transitional House of Lords, will be very important to maintaining public confidence. • Reform proposals in Canada have failed because, despite dissatisfaction with the current arrangements, there is no one model for the Senate which has majority support. In particular the different provinces of the country are not in agreement and use Senate reform proposals as an opportunity to vie with each other. The government have little incentive to resolve the situation, as a reformed Senate will be more powerful and more liable to challenge their programmes. • If the UK wants a well respected upper house, it is essential that we move on to the second stage to create one which is "more democratic and representative"'. A long drawn out debate on options, allowing entrenched positions to develop, could result in the process being stalled. It is therefore important that the Royal Commission generates a wide debate, and that the government maintains momentum thereafter on the way forward.
D. A territorial role? John Osmond's Fabian Society pamphlet
One possible configuration for a second chamber is to provide a different form of territorial representation for the component parts of the UK, especially its nations and regions, so as to complement the developing pattern of devolution and regionalism. A recent detailed contribution to this perspective is Reforming the Lords and changing Britain, written by John Osmond, Director of the Institute of Welsh Affairs, and published in the Fabian Society's Redesigning the state series.32 His approach is neatly summed up in the pamphlet's conclusion:33
The creation of the British-Irish Council, as the third strand in the recent Irish Agreement, has unconsciously pushed Britain towards a quasi-federal constitutional settlement. A question immediately raised is whether in this
32 Fabian pamphlet 587, August 1998. A similar approach is also adopted in Charter 88's recent policy paper, cited above 33 pp 29-30
23 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
process we have to create completely new institutions. Surely the British way is to build on what we already have? And in this rapidly moving picture what we have is a very old institution indeed, and one that is currently searching for a new role.
The House of Lords is in the frame for constitutional change, but the government is unsure what direction it should take. Apart, that is, from removing the hereditary peerage and converting it into a completely appointed, but still undemocratic and unrepresentative chamber. The British-Irish Council suggests the kind of new central institution that is needed within the newly emerging polity of the British Isles - one that represents its constituent parts. Scotland is to have its Parliament, Wales its National Assembly, and now Northern Ireland a legislative chamber. All that leaves is England.
But England is already moving in a regional direction. London is to have its own elected mayor and authority, confirmed in the recent referendum. The Government is committed to creating development agencies for the English regions which are likely to be closely followed by English regional assemblies, referendums permitting. All experience elsewhere, and especially in Spain, shows that once a centralised state starts devolving in some directions, a movement begins in which everywhere is anxious to catch up and compete on equal terms.
The sensible approach therefore, is to start thinking of a reformed Second Chamber at the centre which can hold together and mediate between the constituent parts. Within such a framework the British-Irish Council could sit quite comfortably, as the Second Chamber operating, so to speak in its international mode, embracing Wales and Scotland as well as the North and South of Ireland.
And after all, the kind of issues that the Irish Agreement suggests as suitable for early discussion in the British-Irish Council fit very well with traditional House of Lords preoccupations, namely "transport links, agricultural issues, environmental issues, cultural issues, health issues, education issues, and approaches to EU issues."
Though a reformed Upper Chamber should be representative of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, this should not be its sole function. It cannot just be a question of transplanting a European model, such as the German Bundesrat, to Britain. Given British traditions this would be too big a political and cultural shift. Representing the regions and nations should be one function of the reformed Second House. Maybe it will evolve into its most important function.
24 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
At the same time other, more traditional functions would persist for the reformed House of Lords. It would need to continue as a revising chamber. Equally important it would need to expand and elaborate the role it has already begun, of developing as a constitutional and human rights watchdog. If Britain is to develop a written constitution the Second Chamber should be the place to locate the legitimacy for the legal structures that would be required to oversee it. That legitimacy would be enhanced if the Chamber itself was rooted in a mandate derived from the nations and regions rather than in a more centralised all-British election.
III Recent Discussion in the Lords
There was extensive discussion on Lords reform in the Upper House before the summer recess, which is reproduced in the first edition of this Paper:34 The major opportunity for peers on all sides to set out their views came in the two-day debate on 14-15 October.35
Opening the debate, the new Leader of the Lords, Baroness Jay of Paddington, set out the purpose of the debate (c921):
Perhaps I may emphasise again that the purpose of this debate is to take stock and to listen to your Lordships. It may not be possible to respond immediately to each and every argument but the Government will listen carefully and with consideration to noble Lords who are, after all, the experts on this House: experts on its role, its customs, its strengths and of course, its weaknesses. It is right that those most affected by proposals for change should have a proper opportunity to contribute.
She said that "the enormous, undemocratic problem is that so many hereditary Peers are of one political persuasion. The overwhelming bias in favour of one party -- the Conservative Party -- means that the House as a whole is unrepresentative and unresponsive to changes in public opinion" (c 922).
Baroness Jay elaborated on the unrepresentative basis of the present composition, especially the hereditary peers, in terms of factors such as social class, occupation, gender and race. For example, there were only 16 female hereditary peers: "These kinds of facts make a mockery of the claim that hereditary Peers are a representative body and therefore can claim legitimate seats in Parliament" (c 923).
34 Research Paper 98/85, pp52-58: HL Deb vol 591 cc 344-8, 25.6.98 (extracts); cc1368-71, 9.7.98 (extracts); vol 592 cc5-8, 13.7.98, (extracts) 35 HL Deb vol 593 cc921-1042, 14.10.98; cc1052-1166, 15.10.98. For reasons of space, this section concentrates on front-bench contributions. See also Lord Pearson of Rannoch's Hereditary Peerage (Election) Bill [HL], HL Bill 156 of 1997-98
25 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
The two-stage nature of the government's approach was explained (cc 923-4):
The manifesto makes clear that ending the right of the hereditary Peers to sit and vote is a stand-alone reform. We believe that the reform is an initial self- contained step and that it is sufficiently important and necessary to our policies of modernising our constitution and democracy to be worth doing in its own right. That is what we intend.
After challenging the Conservative Opposition on their adherence to the Salisbury Convention,36 she continued to set out the Government's approach, including the announcement of a white paper and a royal commission and the role of Prime Ministerial patronage during the 'transitional' phase (cc 925-6):
Of course, the next steps are very important. We must "get on with it" to achieve an improved transitional Chamber of appointed Peers, and then develop an appropriate second Chamber for the next century. We will be bringing forward more detailed proposals in a White Paper, but let me make clear some of the immediate elements of future reform so that it is understood what we have in mind.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has said this week that he is primarily concerned with mechanics. Following the removal of the hereditary Peers, approximately 510 life Peers will remain. As I said earlier, there will still be fewer Labour Peers than Conservative Peers. We are committed, as the manifesto states, to maintaining an independent Cross Bench presence, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced in his recent speech to the Labour Party conference that he will no longer have the sole power of patronage in appointing Peers. In spite of all this, Conservative spokesmen persist in asserting that the transitional House will be a new and alarming Chamber of patronage.
Frankly, again the reaction seems out of touch with reality, and indeed, in this case, history. After all, Prime Ministers have always had the power to propose peerages, hereditary or otherwise. Lloyd George notoriously recommended vast numbers for political ends and before him Asquith had persuaded the King that if necessary he should create hundreds of Liberal Party hereditaries to pass the 1911 Parliament Act. More recently, during the 18 years of Conservative government in the 1980s and 1990s, the huge Conservative majority in this House was made even bigger by double the rate of Conservative to Labour creations of life Peers. There has been nothing constitutionally inhibiting Prime Ministers from behaving like this.
However, this Government intend to move in the other direction. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is proposing under the new, transitional arrangements, to reduce his patronage, to ensure that no one political party should
36 On which see section IV of the companion Paper, RP 98/103
26 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105 seek a majority in the House of Lords and to maintain an independent Cross Bench element. I have no hesitation in asserting that the transitional Chamber will be more legitimate than that we have today. It will also be a prelude to wider reform.
We think it right to consider the next longer term steps in the context of the other constitutional changes which are taking place. Establishing an effective and appropriate second Chamber for the next century needs proper deliberation-- deliberation which includes, for example, the impact of devolution within the UK, of changing relations with European legislators, and also perhaps of changed methods of voting in this country. In that context I welcome the approach of the initial report of the commission chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that the objective at this stage should not be to limit the debate but to structure it and that the first need is thorough analysis of the issues. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, the other member of the commission, who is to speak in the debate, will be able to tell us something of the commission's future endeavours.
The Government recognise that the broader constitutional settlement is both relevant and complicated. It will take time to bed down and assess. For those reasons we want to build on our manifesto proposal for a committee of both Houses of Parliament to consider further reform. We intend to appoint, first, a Royal Commission to undertake a wide-ranging review and to bring forward recommendations for further legislation. When the Royal Commission is formally established, we will set a time limit for it--a time limit for it to do its work and a time limit for it to report back to the Government. The Royal Commission is not a delaying tactic but it is right that there should be wider debate and further analysis before the long term is settled. Our detailed proposals on the role and working operations of the Royal Commission will be announced in the forthcoming White Paper.
I hope I have said enough to reassure your Lordships both about the nature of the transitional Chamber and that the Government are serious about a step-by-step approach to longer term reform. We are not inviting noble Lords to step off a precipice into a dark abyss. The next steps have already been considered. Those that we need to be immediately precise about will be announced shortly and the process by which we explore the further steps will also be clear. We will remove the hereditary Peers from Parliament as a self-contained act of reform.
Repeated attempts this century have shown that abolishing their right to sit and vote will simply not happen if it is tied to the search for the perfect long-term solution. The Government are no longer prepared to accept that that is necessary or desirable--to do nothing just because it is not yet possible to do everything. Dealing with the issue of the hereditary Peers will free everyone to concentrate their energies on the future, not the past. I look forward to the properly focused debate on the future being started where it should be, in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
27 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
For the Opposition, Viscount Cranborne set out his party's view of the functions of a second chamber, relating this to composition (c 927):
Underlying our approach will be our own appreciation of what seems to us above all others the purpose of the second Chamber in our Parliament. I again venture to suggest to your Lordships that that purpose is to ask the House of Commons from time to time to think again, to say, "That seems a bit silly to us. Do you, the House of Commons, really want to do it"?
I believe that that function has been central to our purposes in this House since the party system developed in another place….
If anything, that primary function of ours has become more important in recent years as government after government of both complexions have hurried through vast indigestible puddings of ill-prepared legislation based on ill-thought out policy, which increasingly has in large measure not even been considered at all in another place…..
If this House is to perform its primary function adequately, its memberships needs above all two characteristics, independence and authority. There, of course, lies the kernel of the argument for reform of our House. We are certainly independent as at present constituted, as any Chief Whip in this place not only knows to his own cost but to the cost of his refreshment bill, but we do not feel we have the authority to ask the other place to think again except over relatively minor matters, and then despite what the Government Front Bench frequently tries to assert--only relatively rarely.
Some say that in our weakness lies our strength--that, were your Lordships through reform possessed of greater authority and therefore felt able to challenge another place more frequently and over weightier matters, legislative gridlock would ensue. I reject that argument. I believe that perhaps the time has now come for a little more legislative gridlock to obstruct the legislative inadequacies of governments of both parties which arise from their domination of the House of Commons. That is the great argument for reform. Our present composition does not allow us to do that job adequately for we lack the authority to do so.
He was extremely sceptical of the Government's two-stage approach (c 928):
As your Lordships know, I have always thought that the two stage process the Government are pursuing will guarantee that we shall never get beyond stage one. To me the reasons are clear and obvious. The first of those reasons is that there will be no incentive whatsoever for the government of the day, whatever its political complexion, to implement stage two once stage one has been introduced and passed. An entirely nominated Chamber is no more legitimate than a hereditary one, perhaps less so as its members owe their presence to the living rather than the safely dead. We all know the power that patronage confers--none better than a former Leader of your Lordships' House--whether through the filter of an intermediary committee or not. No prime minister would be in a hurry to give that up.
28 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
Secondly, it is difficult to find a stage two on which there is general agreement. I believe that the noble Baroness acknowledged that earlier this afternoon…. If the presence of hereditary Peers in this place offends the Government--which clearly it does--paradoxically I think the best way to ensure that they proceed to stage two at all would be to keep us here until stage two is agreed and introduced. The third reason is perhaps the strongest of all for this Government. They do not like independent-minded bodies with rights and obligations to question them and hold them to account. For this Government in particular a legitimately independent Chamber would not do at all. The fourth reason--it is perhaps the most powerful reason of all--which my predecessor discovered in 1968, is that another place would hate, beyond anything else, a more powerful and a more authoritative second Chamber.
So I have always known that stage two would never follow stage one unless the two stages were taken together.
He suggested how matters could proceed by consensus (c929):
If we are to overcome the obstacles to reform--some of which I have enumerated- -we shall have to establish machinery which can build a consensus in public strong enough to generate a momentum able to overcome them. I believe these mechanics would be relatively simple: an options paper and hearings conducted in public by an authoritative body--perhaps a Royal Commission--whose conclusions could be reviewed by a joint committee of both Houses, and certainly no change to this House until its conclusions are implemented.
Viscount Cranborne gave "at least one cheer" for the concessions he claimed had been extracted from the government so far, in respect of Prime Ministerial patronage, and of the proposed royal commission, but he did not believe that those moves themselves were sufficient guarantees of the Government proceeding to 'stage two' (c930):
I have to say that, so far as I can see, there is no guarantee that will prevent the Government kicking stage two into touch whenever they feel it is a matter of political expediency to do so. In fact, to the contrary, there is plenty to suggest that they have no intention of proceeding beyond stage one--or at least, stage one- and-a-half, the so-called rebalancing which in itself poses a threat to much of the life peerage.
The most compelling piece of evidence seems to me to be the fate--and I commiserate with him--of the noble Lord, Lord Richard; or at least until Monday last it did. I have always felt that the noble Lord genuinely wants a more authoritative Chamber. He made the mistake of saying so and the Prime Minister, showing his impatience with honesty, cut an honest man down.
For one moment I feared for the noble Baroness's future too as she advocated full reform in principle. However, I suspect she has saved herself by the second admission which I referred to a moment ago--although in making her admission she has finally let the big cat out of the bag. The second admission, as reported in
29 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
the Guardian on Monday 12th October and foreshadowed by the noble Baroness today, is that,
"the Government would move swiftly to abolish the rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote, but would hold off further change while other constitutional reforms 'bedded down'"-- in other words, in black and white, what we have always suspected: the Government are in no hurry whatsoever to proceed to stage two. They would be happy to see this House become a wholly nominated Chamber for the foreseeable future. The Prime Minister's game has been made plain by the very honesty of the noble Baroness, which has so rightly earned her the respect and affection of this House.
In conclusion, he said that he would "go quietly if a properly independent Chamber takes our place. To be asked to go without that guarantee is to be asked to connive at the final victory of the executive over Parliament" (c930).
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for the Liberal Democrats, said that "the hereditary composition of this House would be indefensible even if it did not secure the dominance of the Conservative party. The issue of principle, of legitimacy would be the same" (c 932). He challenged those, like Viscount Cranborne, who had argued that Lords reform should be tackled only after the Commons was reformed, to state specifically what reforms they proposed. He also tackled the Government's two-stage approach, and warned that his party's support was conditional (c 934):
First, it is conditional upon there being clear signposts from a wholly nominated House to a predominantly elected second Chamber, with a precise timetable for the transition. Secondly, it is conditional on the Prime Minister of the day, whoever he or she may be, not being free to make the nominations to the transitional House of all parliamentary Peers but only those of his own party; or being able, by the arbitrary choice of numbers, to determine the overall political balance of the House.
He was anxious that progress towards 'stage two' should not be protracted: "The gap between the first and second reform Bills should not be more than five years … If stage two is not clearly in view and is without a timetable, that may unite those who see tactical opposition to stage one as the key to blocking any change with those who want an elected Chamber without unreasonable delay" (cc 934-5). On his second condition, he said (c 935):
I turn briefly to my second important condition, that a wholly nominated second Chamber should not become the personal quango of any Prime Minister. Let us not be naive about the present system. Prime Ministers have always dictated the timing and numbers of new Peers and their party affiliations and vetted their personal suitability. That is as true of Tony Blair as it is of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher; it is as true of the appointment of life Peers over the past 40 years as it is of hereditary Peers for all time. Therefore, a wholly nominated Chamber, if it did not last too long, would at worst carry over more completely only what
30 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
has long been the habit of No. 10. But that would be wrong. An independent standing commission should be responsible for determining the political composition of your Lordships' House in the transition period between stages one and two within the terms agreed by Parliament, and for that matter within the spirit of the Labour Party manifesto, as the noble Baroness reminded us. One could begin to move towards a balance that reflected the votes cast for each party in the previous election. The commission would also be responsible for the appointment of Cross-Bench Peers during the transition period and beyond and the overall regulation of the process of appointments.
The former Leader of the House, Lord Richard, warned that legislative opportunities for such major constitutional reforms were rare, and supported the two-stage policy. However he stressed that "it is important that the mechanism for moving to the second stage is clearly and unmistakably spelt out" and that the royal commission should be set up "earlier rather than later." He made suggestions as to the membership of the royal commission (c946):
Membership of the commission will be crucial. It should contain people who are not overtly attached to any political party. There is clearly a case for having some academics in the field. Industry, the trade unions and the regions should also have a voice. The chairman has to be someone of undoubted and recognised stature and integrity. It will have to take evidence widely. It will have to take evidence from anyone who wishes to give it. Indeed, it will have to be a massive exercise in public consultation if it is to do its job properly.
He explained his disagreement with current policy in so far as he wished the government to state officially the type of reformed second chamber it envisaged: "My preference -- there is no secret about it -- is one in which two-thirds are elected and one-third is nominated. I am anxious to preserve the role of the Cross-Benchers … The political element would be the elected two-thirds and the independent element would be the nominated one-third" (c 948).
Winding up the first day's debate for the Opposition, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish put the Government's Lords reform plan in the context of its overall programme of constitutional change, and scoffed at the notion that the hereditary peers were a threat to the Government (c 1042):
I think it was the noble Baroness the Leader of the House who accused us of "picking and mixing". But that is what the Government are doing with constitutional changes: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the voting systems, referendums. In all of those proposals there is no logic, no symmetry and no coherence. Their policy for the reform of this House falls into exactly the same category: composition and powers, powers and composition. They go together, they must be answered together and addressed together.
The hereditary Peers in your Lordships' House are not a great threat to the Government. I do not believe that government Ministers wake up screaming in the middle of the night worried about what hereditary Peers will do. The noble
31 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
Baroness the Leader of the House seems to think that she does. My goodness, she does not have much else to dream about, if I may say so!
I am sure that the Government could easily live with the hereditary Peers until they had a fully thought out reform, properly worked out and presented to us. They have already wasted 18 months. I do not think they need to be in quite such a rush. They should start now with the Royal Commission and proceed from there.
Opening the second day's debate, the shadow Lord Chancellor, Lord Kingsland, made similar points about the validity of the Government's claims for its reforms, and went further: "… the whole of the Government's approach to constitutional reform seems to me to have been a story of shifting insincerities based on no reason at all".37 He criticised the grounds of the Government's argument, claiming that its proposals were not more legitimate, more democratic, or more representative. He praised the 'part-time' nature of the House of Lords, which allowed peers to bring expertise to bear on their deliberations. In addition, the Government's constitutional programme was flawed because it did not contain reform of the House of Commons, which was necessary to the proper balance between legislature and executive. For these reasons he had "formed the view that the only way in which that balance can be successfully redressed is by a more powerful second chamber in the form of your Lordships' House", which was a question of functions and powers rather than composition. He concluded by warning that "in my submission nothing less than the clear commitment of another place to stage two will do before Her Majesty's Opposition can contemplate support for the stage one Bill" (c 1057).
Lord Strathclyde, winding up for the Opposition, sensed two clear themes in the debate: "how little the Government know about how to continue the debate" and "the desire from so many of your Lordships to see a real reform of this House and not just limited change" (c 1154). He questioned the Government's real motives for Lords reform, believing that it was an example of their desire to neuter all sources of criticism:
This is a debate about obedience. The Labour Party wants a House that will do its bidding as much as the Commons does. The Labour Party wants an obedient House. Yet what the country needs is not a House that will always do what it is told, but one which, by its very existence, is institutionally independent. Achieving a measure of institutional independence is central to the Conservative view of the future of this House.
Replying for the Government, Lord Williams of Mostyn, summed up the Government's case (cc 1160-1):
What are the bleak, implacable facts with which we need to deal. One: there was a clear, unambiguous manifesto commitment. I recite it in part:
37 c 1043, 15.10.98. The passage of his speech dealing with the Salisbury Convention is examined in the companion Paper, RP 98/103, pp 41-3
32 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
"As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute".
Some among us say, "Ah, the common sort never read the manifesto. If they did, they would not be able to understand it. We fought the election on a pledge that was so plain and unambiguous that in all conscience and all constitutionality we are entitled to bring it before Parliament and respectfully ask for its passage.
This will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative.
No one party should seek a majority in the House of Lords. Two: that is what we intend to deliver. Three: in this House there are 472 Conservative Peers, and 168 Labour Peers.
Four: when the hereditaries have gone off to spend more time with their acres, there will still be a Conservative majority of 22 over Labour.
Five: the vast Conservative majority here--and it is no good saying that this is nonsense or misrepresentation; these are the facts that cannot be denied and shall not be forgotten--was increased by a double ratio of 2:1 Conservatives to Labour in the 1980s and 1990s. I should not myself, nor would my colleagues behind me, be inclined to take lessons about a fair distribution of appointed Peers or a fair representation in this House.
He emphasised that there was a need to consider Lords reform in the context of the rest of the Government's constitutional programme, but was clear about the immediate timetable (cc 1163-4):
I repeat that the Government are intent on the immediate abolition of the right of hereditaries to sit and vote. Your Lordships are aware that it is not proper for me to anticipate the Queen's Speech, and therefore I do not. But I believe that our intentions have been made pretty plain. We are intent on the publication of a White Paper. That will take place in the context of the publication of that Bill. A Royal Commission will be appointed. The details of its chair man or woman, members and terms of reference will also be in the White Paper. There will be a timetable within which the Royal Commission will be required to work. There will be new transitional arrangements. I say without any partisan overtone and, I hope, without irritating anyone opposite, that it is a rare Prime Minister who has the confidence and moral standing deliberately to shackle his discretion. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, says that he has not done so. He announced his intention to do it as recently as the Labour Party conference. My noble friend Lady Jay repeated it…. There is no question of a 15-year delay or an intention to stop at a transitional House.
33 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
He concluded (cc 1165-6):
The noble Baroness, the Leader, said that we would listen and look forward to a wider debate. I repeat that. We will not change our minds on the fundamental aspect of stage one. As regards the future, I believe that we have a conjoint duty to see what are the best reforms that can be brought about. That is why we want a Royal Commission. That is the burden upon our shoulders. It is a yoke, because we shall have an independent commission, quite separate from government, able to take evidence, to hear submissions and--I stress this above everything--to produce disinterested conclusions and proposals.
The relationship between your Lordships' House and the hereditary principle has to come to an end. I think that I have listened to virtually every speech apart from two, when I left the Chamber for a moment or two yesterday. In a moving speech the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, who regards his ancestors with affection and fondness, said that this House was disfigured by his presence upon that basis. That is a courageous thing to say.
We shall not be moved from this first stage. We intend to limit the power of patronage of the Prime Minister. We intend to look for the best possible outcome for a thriving, revived second Chamber. Whether one has been here for a moment or two like me, or perhaps since before the last war as in the case of the noble Earl, we all feel regard, affection and devotion towards this place. But it is not perfect. It can be improved; and that is we are intent upon doing.
IV Developments in the 1998-99 session
A. Generally
The present session, while only a few days old, has already seen much debate on the House of Lords, both in terms of Lords reform generally, and in particular in relation to the treatment last session of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
For example, it has been made clear from Buckingham Palace that the Queen would, in accordance with constitutional practice, accept her government’s advice that its plans for Lords reform would remove the five royal peers38 – the Prince of Wales, and the Dukes of Edinburgh, York, Gloucester and Kent -- from the Upper House.
The BBC News website on 29 November quoted a Palace spokesman as follows: "Formal advice has been received from the government on reforms and in line with established constitutional practice and the Queen has accepted that advice. The peers of first creation - the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duke of York - would lose their seats. There would be no separate arrangements for the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke
38 For a discussion of this term, see D Shell, The House of Lords, 2nd ed., 1992, pp31-2
34 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105 of Kent. They would not be able to remain in the House of Lords." Liam Fox, for the Conservatives, was quoted in the Independent on Sunday of 29 November as criticising this development: "This has the symbolic effect of reducing the role for the monarchy in Parliament. There is undoubtedly a very large republican element in the Labour Party which would take comfort from such a step."39
Quite a lot of publicity has been given to an ICM telephone poll in early November on Lords reform. 40 It asked: "As you may know, the government has decided to introduce major reforms to the House of Lords. It has already decided in principle to remove hereditary peers, but it has not yet settled the other details. If you had to choose between these two options, which do you think would be better?…"
Abolish hereditary peers now before deciding on the other details of the reforms 25%
Leave things as they are at the moment until all the details of the reforms have been decided 68%
Don't know, etc 7%
A poll published in the Observer on 6 December, also by ICM, contained the following results:
Which of these options do you favour most for the House of Lords? All Lab Con %%% AEnd the voting rights of all hereditary peers as soon as possible 25 34 8 B Allow a minority of the most active hereditary peers to keep their voting rights until the long-term future of the House of Lords is decided 29 32 33 C Allow all hereditary peers to keep their voting rights until the long term future of the House of Lords is decided 15 10 23 D Leave the House of Lords as it is, and let hereditary peers keep their voting rights permanently 27 22 36
Do you think that in the long-term, the House of Lords should A be wholly elected by the public 44 42 33 B be mainly elected, but with a minority of Life Peers appointed by the Prime Minister 40 46 40
39 "Labour throws Royals out of Lords" Independent on Sunday, 29.11.98 40 Source: ICM. ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,222 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 6-7 November. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results were weighted to the profile of all adults. As with polling of this nature, the form and context of questions put are crucial to the outcome. For example, although the preamble talks of 'removing' hereditary peers (ie from the House of Lords), the first option uses the much wider terminology of 'abolition', which could have been construed by some respondents, as meaning abolition of the hereditary peerage as such, rather than simply their exclusion from the House of Lords.
35 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
The Queen's Speech on 24 November included the following:
A Bill will be introduced to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative. My Government will publish a White Paper setting out arrangements for a new system of appointments of life peers and establish a Royal Commission to review further changes and speedily to bring forward proposals for reform.
The Downing Street background press briefing note on this measure stated that: "The bill to reform the House of Lords will remove the voting rights of hereditary peers who are in place because of birth not merit, and who have power over the lives of the British people." The Cabinet Office's more detailed press briefing was as follows:
The Government said in its manifesto that as an initial self-contained reform, not dependent on any further reform in the future, it would end by statute the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. A Bill will be brought forward to fulfil that commitment. The Bill would also provide for hereditary peers to vote in elections for, and stand for election to, the House of Commons. The Bill would not affect the other attributes of a peerage, such as names, degrees or rules of succession. The Bill will be short.
In relation to the transitional House, the hereditary peers will not be replaced by equivalent numbers of life peers. The size of the transitional House will be smaller than the present chamber, with no one party having an overall majority. The Prime Minister will no longer have the sole power of patronage. The strong independent element of the cross-benchers will be preserved. The arrangements of the transitional House will preserve the best of the present House and remove the worst.
The Government has already announced (14 October) that it intends to establish a Royal Commission to consider options for longer-term reform of the House of Lords. The Royal Commission will be asked to report to a tight timetable. The Government will decide on the timetable for any future reforms following the Commission's report.
The Government will publish a White Paper setting out the transitional arrangements and further details on the timetable and work programme of the Royal Commission.
36 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
In a speech to a House Magazine conference on 3 December, the junior Cabinet Office minister, Peter Kilfoyle, said:41
If there was any need of a reminder that there was unfinished business on Lords reform since the 1911 Parliament Act, we were given it in the final days of the last session a fortnight ago.
It is widely known that we were elected with a manifesto commitment to remove the rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. This session we will bring forward a short bill to achieve this. We will also set up a Royal Commission to report within a fixed timetable on the composition and powers of the second chamber. A White Paper setting out our plans will be published and it will identify some of the key issues to be addressed by the Royal Commission. In the meantime, the transitional House will comprise existing life peers, the vast majority of whom were appointed under previous administrations. Further appointments will be made under a new appointments commission, and the Prime Minister's powers of patronage will be much reduced.
The Lords reform bill will be introduced in the House of Commons. It will be a short bill and much of the detail will cover matters such as enabling hereditary peers to vote in elections and stand for election themselves to the Commons. We will proceed on the basis that both Houses will want to give proper scrutiny to a bill which seeks to enact a major manifesto commitment. We expect opponents of the legislation to make reasonable use of the opportunities available them to contest the bill, but we hope that it will eventually be passed without having to resort to the Parliament Act procedure.
Some recent newspaper reports suggest that the Conservative leadership is considering (or being urged to consider by its Members) a proposal for a predominantly or fully elected (directly or indirectly) House of Lords. This may be connected to reports that the Mackay Commission is being asked to produce its final proposals in three months or so.
B. House of Lords
In the brief exchanges following the Queen’s Speech on 24 November, the issue of Lords reform inevitably arose, both directly and in the context of the new session’s proceedings, which Viscount Cranborne described as one “likely to prove even more controversial than the last, particularly, I fear, in your Lordships' House.”42 He described the Queen’s Speech as “an emotional occasion tinged with great sadness, hearing as we did the news
41 Cabinet Office transcript, 3.12.98 42 HL Deb vol595 c 13, 24.11.98
37 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105 of the Government's expected intention to abolish the right of hereditary Peers to sit in this House,” and continued:43
I shall return to this subject tomorrow and, I fear, many times over the coming months. However, I cannot but record my own additional sadness that the Government have chosen to proceed with a two-stage reform in the way that they have, instead of trying to build a consensus for reform in public and then implementing it as a whole. I fear that in spite of all the talk of a Royal Commission--an announcement that I greatly welcome--the likelihood now is that we shall never proceed to stage two, or at least for another 87 years.
….. As I have already observed, it will inevitably be a difficult time for all of us. Emotions will run high, and the measured judgment in great matters that the public have come to expect of this House will require an extra effort of will on the part of all of us to impose. I am sure that the House can look forward to the noble Baroness acting as Leader of the whole House in all matters except those of Government policy. ….. For our part, your Lordships would expect me to promise to give that particular Bill an especially rigorous examination when it reaches this House. I have to confess that we have not lost hope of persuading the Government to accept some form of compromise on this transitional phase and will play our part accordingly.
The Lord Privy Seal, Baroness Jay of Paddington, referred briefly to the issue of Lords reform:44
I have not so far mentioned a particular item in the gracious Speech that I know is of particular concern to your Lordships; that is the Bill to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships' House, which will be introduced as a first stage-- I emphasise again "as a first stage"--in a process of reform to make your Lordships' House more democratic and representative. I will of course deal with this Bill in greater detail in my speech tomorrow. All I will say today is that I hope your Lordships will, while considering the Bill with your normal due care and attention--to which the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has already referred--not depart from the adherence to long established customs and conventions which have successfully characterised this House for many generations. I am afraid that I cannot, however, give a cast-iron guarantee that the Government will introduce the Bill into your Lordships' House.
The House’s detailed consideration of the issue came the following day when it dealt with constitutional and legal affairs. Baroness Jay of Paddington, opening the debate, recognised that “for some Members of your Lordships' House there is only one issue of real interest: the Government's plans to reform the House itself. It would, clearly, be ridiculous to pretend that these proposals are not significant. They are matters of serious
43 c 14 44 c 20
38 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105 constitutional change”45 She put Lords reform in the overall context of the Government's constitutional reform programme, which are “a major part of our proposals to modernise the institutions of this country. The key principles of the programme are clear: the decentralisation of power, real rights for citizens, openness--and modernising Parliament to improve its effectiveness. It is integral to our approach that we start from what is already there, such as the existing administrative responsibilities of the Scottish and Welsh Offices or the European Convention on Human Rights. Our proposals are radical, but they are also firmly rooted in our existing arrangements.” Changes made in the first session were “a start in our determination to reform and renew British institutions. It is a good start.” Apart from the Greater London Authority Bill, “there is only one major constitutional measure in the programme: the Bill to begin the reform of your Lordships' House,” which she then considered in detail, as a free-standing measure:46
As the gracious Speech makes clear, there will be a Bill to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. That was promised in our manifesto--and it will be delivered by this Government. The Bill will be a self- contained measure, not dependent on any further reform in the future. It means that the removal of the hereditary Peers is compatible with any option for further reform which might sensibly be proposed. It works as a reform in its own right, and it will work as a reform in conjunction with any further reform. As I have said on several occasions in your Lordships' House… the Government are entirely determined on further reforms, properly considered. The gracious Speech underlines that that next stage will be speedily progressed.
In the previous Session of this Parliament, we had an illuminating two-day debate on the Government's manifesto proposals. The main message I received from those two days is that most noble Lords opposite, most noble Lords who oppose the manifesto provisions, are fully signed up members of what one could call "The St. Augustine school of Lords reform"--it is a good idea in principle, but not yet, not yet. The problem with that approach, as those noble Lords know very well, is that "not yet" has, in the past, always become "never". Indeed, it is on those very grounds that they choose to attack the Government's step-by-step approach. They claim that the removal of the hereditary Peers will remove an "independent" element of this House, and will therefore be a retrograde step, while the Government's incentive to further reform will have gone, along with the hereditary Peers.
Baroness Jay rejected the independent nature of the hereditary element:47
Our view, on the contrary, is that the hereditary Peers are not independent and therefore their removal is essential before any further changes can be made. The Government's position remains simple and unchanged. We acknowledge the contribution of individual hereditary Peers, but we reject the hereditary principle
45 c 24, 25.11.98 46 cc 27-8 47 c 28
39 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
as a basis for membership of this House of Parliament. We have heard much in the recent past about the value of that hereditary principle in providing an independent voice in legislation. Hereditary Peers, and indeed some public commentators, may believe they are independent but the record tells otherwise.
I hardly need to rehearse in your Lordships' House the simple facts that the Conservative Party in this House has an in-built majority of three to one over the Government; or that the block vote has been deployed to defeat the Labour Government more times in the previous Session than in any during the 18 years of Tory rule; or that the contentious issue of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill would have been carried in each and every Division if only life Peers had voted. These are the unassailable facts.
I accept that some Cross-Bench hereditary Peers are independent. For them, independence is real. It is prized. It is valued and the Government are committed to maintaining that genuinely independent voice. But this House knows what the reality is for the majority. This House knows which Lobby they go through time after time after time. "Independent" they may call themselves; well, independent by name--but not independent by nature or behaviour.
One further point: many of the hereditary Peers who claim a reserved seat in your Lordships' House actually take no part in its proceedings, in its important work. Nearly 200 hereditary Peers failed to attend the House at all in the 1996-97 Session--not counting those who had sought leave of absence. As we approach the 21st century it is simply a nonsense to pretend that every hereditary Peer can automatically expect the right to serve as a Member of Parliament.
The status quo is simply unacceptable. It must be changed. Only then will it be possible to engage in constructive debate on the role, functions and composition of a fully reformed second Chamber, taking proper account of the whole of our evolving constitutional settlement.
She explained further the scope and role of the proposed Royal Commission:48
The gracious Speech repeats our commitment to establish a Royal Commission to look into the issues in depth. The Government wish to ensure that a full range of options is examined and that everyone who wishes to contribute has the opportunity to do so. We hope to proceed further by consensus. Perhaps I may stress to your Lordships that the Royal Commission is not a delaying tactic. It will work to a tough and tight timetable and its recommendations will be promptly considered.
I have heard it suggested that had we appointed a Royal Commission when we first came into office 18 months ago, we could have had the full reform package ready by now. That is simply unrealistic. The Royal Commission will have to undertake its deliberations in the light of the other constitutional changes I have
48 cc 28-9
40 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
already mentioned. The devolution process and the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights are significant and relevant changes. If the Royal Commission had started its work 18 months ago, it could quite legitimately have said that it needed to see the final form of those changes before it could even begin to assess their implications for the House of Lords. Those changes are now on the statute book: their final form is clear. Now is the right time for the Royal Commission to start its work.
So I say again to your Lordships: the Government are as committed to the second part of their manifesto proposals on the House of Lords as they are to the first. We have reviewed the system for the appointment of life Peers in the future. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he is prepared to relinquish his sole power of patronage in this area. This will reform the systems by which in the Conservative Government of the 1980s and 1990s appointed twice as many Conservative as Opposition Peers. We will stand by our propositions that no political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords and that there should continue to be a significant independent element on the Cross-Benches.
We shall spell out in detail how we intend to fulfil those commitments in the context of this Session's Bill. Again the more we can achieve by consensus the better. I should also confirm that the Government will be re-introducing the European Elections Bill. I do not need to address the substance of that Bill--we are all well aware of it. How much of your Lordships' time it will occupy depends on the Opposition.
She concluded by considering the possible form and extent of opposition in the House to the Government’s policies and proposals:49
Perhaps I may simply observe that I have difficulty in following the principle, the logic, or indeed the political tactic, of opposition in this House to the elections Bill, which appear in some instances at least to be based on a perceived inexactitude in our general election manifesto, while opposition from the same quarters ignores the absolute precision of the manifesto commitment on the future of your Lordships' House. Perhaps someone in this afternoon's long list of speakers will be able to help me.
I am sure that we shall see challenge in this Session. The events of the last few weeks have left us on this side of the House in no doubt about that. But I believe, too, that we shall see change. And those on the other side of the House should be in no doubt about that either. It is change that we expect to see reflected in reform across the country--not just in Parliament.
As I made clear, I understand the interest of this House in the one measure of reform. But I believe that the House for its part must understand the interest of the people of this country in the Government's whole package of measures. The
49 cc 29-30
41 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
Government's programme contains a range of far-reaching steps which will benefit everyone through modernising the welfare state, improving healthcare, tackling crime and strengthening the UK's competitiveness.
These may seem mundane issues to those seduced by dramatic headlines of "warfare" over parliamentary traditions, but they matter a great deal to a great many people whose lives are led far from the political hot house. Members of this House often speak properly of duty. I hope that in this coming Session your Lordships will recognise their duty not only to themselves, to their own interests, but to the country as a whole. I enthusiastically commend the Government's programme to the House.
Viscount Cranborne, for the Opposition, criticised the quantity and quality of the legislation passed in the first session: “I fear that much of that legislation was damaging in principle to the political and economic health of our country; it was based on policies that were almost universally ill-thought through and included innumerable provisions that were both illogical and inconsistent, as well as wrong. Furthermore, such is the control that the Government have established over another place--thanks to a combination of their vast majority and their determination to ride roughshod over the right of Parliament to hold them to account--that much of that legislation reached this House undiscussed by another place even for one split second at Committee or Report stages. Lest anyone dispute that, I pray in aid the example of the Welsh Bill as a classic case in point.”50 He praised the role of the Upper House in exposing the flaws in the government’s proposals:51
In spite of their best efforts, the institution of Parliament, helped by a free press, has begun to expose the shabbiness of the Government's approach. And, if I may say so, the role that this House has played in that exposure has been a glorious one. …. As always, this House has been at its most effective when speaking and voting across party lines and demonstrating that independence of thought and action that has been the despair of Chief Whips of both main parties in this place throughout our modern existence. It is an indication both of our effectiveness as a revising Chamber and of the state of the preparation of government Bills that during an admittedly long Session we passed 3,963 amendments in 228 sitting days, which consumed 1,605 long hours of debate. Another place admittedly sat for 11 more days, but is not yet in a position to tell us for how many hours.
After strongly criticising the extent and what he saw as the incoherence of the government’s constitutional programme, he turned to Lords reform in particular:52
Nowhere is the Government's lack of forethought more evident than in the case of the Bill that in the current Session will most directly concern your Lordships' House: the first stage of the change in the composition of this place …...
50 c 30 51 cc 30-1 52 cc 33-5
42 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
The Government have tried to reassure us that they really do intend to proceed swiftly to a full stage two reform by promising us a White Paper and by undertaking to establish a Royal Commission. It would be useful to know when we can expect the White Paper and what it will cover. I welcome the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the first historic time to the Front Bench rather than the Woolsack. I hope that when he comes to reply he could also tell us whether the White Paper will confine itself to the mechanics of the stage one House. Will it cover how Peers will be appointed from now on? Will it address itself in any way to the timing of stage two? Will it set out the terms of reference of the Royal Commission? Will it tell us who will sit on the Royal Commission? Will it set out the options for stage two which the Government wish the Royal Commission to consider? Will the Royal Commission consider the powers a stage two House might enjoy? Will the Royal Commission hold public hearings? Despite what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House told us this afternoon, I cannot but feel that none of that is as yet at all clear. The Government owe it not only to the House but more importantly to the public to enlighten us.
It would be even more useful if the Government could give us some guarantee that the Royal Commission's report will not gather dust in some Whitehall pigeon-hole, apart from the clear assurances that the noble Baroness gave us this afternoon. …. After all, pigeon-holing has all too often been the fate of Royal Commission reports in the past. Since the noble Baroness is constantly assuring us that she regards stage one as a satisfactory stand-alone reform, we cannot help wondering on this side of the House whether the Government will kick stage two into the long grass with the same sense of relief as they have kicked the elegantly phrased report of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
In the absence of such a guarantee, I cannot help feeling that my noble friends will find it increasingly difficult, as I tried to indicate yesterday, to view the Bill with anything but the greatest of suspicion. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will be able to reconsider so that we can avoid a bruising contest in the weeks to come. The noble Baroness rejected the idea that we could by now have had stage two had the Government proceeded as I originally suggested some 18 months ago. In spite of what she said I repeat that it could have been so very different if only the Government had done as we suggested. If they had set up the Royal Commission immediately after the last general election, we might by now have been considering its report.
As I have consistently undertaken, and the Government in their own interests have consistently disbelieved when I have said it, the official Opposition would have been entirely constructive in their response. There would have been no room for doubt that the Government intended to proceed to stage two. Above all, there would have been an opportunity to build a public consensus for reform that would have encouraged another place to overcome its distaste for a more authoritative second Chamber and so enabled us to navigate around the rock upon which all attempts at thorough reform have so far foundered. I refer to another place, not your Lordships' House. After all, in 1968 we voted by four to one in favour of reform.
43 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
I am not alone in this. The public overwhelmingly think so too if a recent ICM finding endorsing an earlier MORI poll is correct. When asked, 68 per cent. of the public said that we should leave things as they are for the moment until all of the details of the reform have been decided, as opposed to a magnificent 25 per cent. who supported the Government's approach--almost as much as the present Tory opposition's standing in the polls itself. We are witnessing a great wasted opportunity, born of the fatal failure of this Government to think through the consequences of what they have begun to undertake. As I said yesterday, governments and politics being what they are, this Government in particular will be tempted to kick stage two into touch no matter what the Royal Commission recommends, in spite of what the noble Baroness has said today. In the absence of guaranteed progress to stage two, it will be extremely difficult for my noble friends and me to accept the Government's proposals.
He concluded with a vehement warning about the dangers of the government’s plans for the British constitution:53
The kings of spin cannot fool us for ever as we begin to see that "devolution" means control of candidates from London; that "positive Europeanism" means the loss of national independence; that "directly elected mayors" means centrally vetted candidates: that "fair elections" for Europe means closed lists that give more power to the party apparat rather than the electorate; and that "a more democratic Lords" means a wholly nominated House. We are being sold snake oil by snake oil salesmen who want to perpetuate their hold on power only by rigging the system. They want nothing to do with genuine reform centred on a parliament that works better. As a House we should use the next Session to expose them ruthlessly.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for the Liberal Democrats, attacked the House’s treatment of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill in the last session:
Let us repeat time and time again--this is the core of the matter--that in so doing a wholly unelected House will be challenging a wholly elected one about the nature of democracy. That is the issue, and nothing could be more topsy-turvy. I suppose that we should have expected the hereditary Peers to go down fighting and made allowances for that fact. But most of all I am puzzled--my remarks are directed at the legislation we debated last week and will shortly see again but they may also apply to the debates we shall have on the reform of this House--by the judgment of many Conservative life Peers with experience of the other place who lent themselves to the war of attrition last week and before, and who did not know where to stop .. Our view from these Benches of what should be done has not changed even though we feel that the hereditary Peers were pushing their luck last week, and perhaps the Cross-Benches, too, in not following the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and the view of the Lords Spiritual on some
53 c 36
44 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
essentially temporal matters about the relationship between this House and another.
I join with the noble Viscount in saying that we still know very little about how the Government intend to proceed on the first stage of the House of Lords reform. We do not know precisely when the Bill will be published. We do not know when the White Paper will appear. We do not know what will be the terms of reference for the Royal Commission. We are presented again with a great deal of vagueness about a timetable which this House should know. We understand that the Lord Privy Seal is now in charge of these arrangements, and I hope that we shall see some acceleration of the process and greater clarity about what the Government intend.
It is important to make this point because again the noble Baroness said--I noted her words--that the Prime Minister made clear that the Government intend special arrangements to be made for the system of nomination of life Peers. That is stated in the Queen's Speech. But--it is the largest gap--we must not only have a better system of nomination. There must be a rational basis for the composition of this House when the hereditary Peers have gone. We still do not know what that will be. I hope that it is not too much to expect the Lord Chancellor at least to lean in the direction of giving us some hint this evening. It is not sufficient to leave matters as they are. This is the last outstanding issue which needs to be clarified irrespective of what the White Paper may seek.
The Bishop of Bristol considered the reform proposals, especially from the viewpoint of ecclesiastical representation:54
As a leasehold Member of your Lordships' House and a Bishop of the Church of England, the issue of reformation is life and breath to my life. But I recognise the unease in parts of your Lordships' House in relation to its proposed reform. That unease represents not only the shock it entails for the status quo but also uncertainty and legitimate concern about embarking on a journey for which the destination is not clear at the time of departure.
One declared stop along the way is the transitional arrangements for a House whose numbers may be made up by appointed Peers. We may well ask, as has already been asked, how that will be done. My friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, on 14th October in your Lordships' House suggested the model of the Crown Appointments Commission as a useful starting point. I hope that that will be kept in mind and become part of our deliberations.
For the rest of the journey, much will depend on the Royal Commission, not least on its membership and terms of reference, which we await with interest. There is an opportunity to contribute to an important process. It will clearly be important for the membership of the commission to be sufficiently broadly based to
54 cc 40-3
45 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
consider effectively all aspects of that complex matter, including the future of faith community representation in your Lordships' House. …..
I wish to underline the issue of representation. The Church of England is happy to see a broadening of that representation, but the key question concerns the framework in which that representation is set. At present, Bishops not only strengthen the spiritual dimension of the work of your Lordships' House--at least, I trust they do that although I heard the rebuke of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, as to whether we should be involved in certain aspects--they also contribute to its regional diversity. The fact is that the Bishops in your Lordships' House represent diverse parts of the country in a manner unmatched, perhaps, by any other element in your Lordships' House. Bishops are related to parishes, local communities and dioceses and they have local knowledge and points of reference which enrich debate and inform the legislative review.…….
The Bishops and the Church of England, because of their parochial and diocesan system, are able and willing to contribute to that important aspect of debate on the future of your Lordships' House. We commit ourselves to ensuring, to the best of our ability, that the reform will be such that it will be for the sake of good government of the whole nation, for all its people, so that they may participate fully in the life of our country.
Winding up, the Shadow Lord Chancellor, Lord Kingsland, emphasised what he saw as the lack of overall strategy in the Government's constitutional agenda: “We do not know what that strategy is. We do not think the Government know what that strategy is. Of course, it has not been a question that any government needed to answer during the previous few centuries--because our approach to constitutional change has been gradualist. Since Oliver Cromwell no government have dared such an adventurous programme. Therefore, it is not surprising that the noble Lord should pose such a fundamental question.” He pressed the government to provide more details of its longer- term plans for Lords reform:55
… Therefore perhaps I may remind the noble and learned Lord what those questions were. First, will the Royal Commission deal with the issue of powers as well as the composition of your Lordships' House? Secondly, when does the noble and learned Lord anticipate that the Royal Commission will report? Thirdly, when does the noble and learned Lord anticipate that the Government will react to the Royal Commission's report? Fourthly, does the noble and learned Lord believe that the Government will adopt the Royal Commission's recommendation, whatever it is? Fifthly, do the Government feel bound to introduce stage two immediately after the Royal Commission has reported?
I ask those questions because they are important to the Opposition. The Opposition have said that if there is a guaranteed stage two, our attitude to stage one will be different from the attitude that we adopt now. It must therefore be in
55 cc 122-3
46 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
the interest of the Government to give clear and unambiguous answers to these questions.
Lord Irvine of Lairg commented relatively briefly on Lords reform, in his speech:56
I do not repeat what my noble friend said at the outset of this debate about the reform of your Lordships' House. But it is as well to remind the House that this Government won a majority of 179 at the last general election. We have an unambiguous mandate to remove the hereditary Peers. Let me read it:
"As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute. This will be the first stage in a process of reform".
Nothing could be clearer. Nothing I say would become the hereditary Peers less than if they fail to go quietly and respect the clear will of the people. I hope that they will accept the dignified judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, and reject the invitation to mark their departure by hooliganism.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked various questions about the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, had no need to repeat them, I was busy scribbling them down. I can give some assurance to the noble Viscount. The White Paper will cover how Peers will be appointed in the interim House; it will cover the timing of the Royal Commission. I can say, quite unequivocally, that there will be a stage two. The noble Viscount is afflicted by the most advanced state of suspicion that I think I have ever observed. I do hope that it is not terminal. It is very extreme.
The White Paper will cover the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, including its anticipated timetable. I hope that in the White Paper it will be possible to name the chairman of the Royal Commission, if he has not been named earlier. The White Paper will set out options for the Royal Commission to consider; it will address the role and functions of the House and it will consult widely. The White Paper will come in the context of the Bill. Noble Lords will have to wait only a little longer. Patience, therefore, should replace the noble Viscount's advanced state of suspicion. Quite apart from anything else, I rather think it will be good for his health.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asks: why such a hurry? The answer is absolutely plain--because the presence of hereditary Peers is a centuries old state of affairs which this Government have a huge mandate to eradicate. I say this to him: the case for not combining stage one and stage two is that we won the general election on the opposite proposition.
56 c 130
47 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
C. The House of Commons
William Hague, in his speech on the Loyal Address, believed that the legislative passage of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill “has made the strongest case possible for a second Chamber, with independence and integrity, which can stand up to the Prime Minister of the day, and which the Prime Minister wants to neuter.”57 He attacked the government for making Lords reform the centrepiece of its legislative programme:58
None of the Bills in the Queen's Speech addresses the pressing priorities of the British people. That is especially true of the Bill which I suspect will dominate this Session. That Bill will hang like a millstone around the Prime Minister's neck and show that the Government are more interested in fiddling with our constitution than addressing the real priorities of the British people. …. The Bill replaces an independent second Chamber with a house of cronies.
The Prime Minister thought that the House of Lords was an independent second Chamber when it defeated the previous Government. Indeed, he congratulated it and said that that was a victory for common sense. He has now set up a royal commission to consider alternatives to the present House of Lords. Given that it will report in just two years' time, why will he waste the coming year on a piece of constitutional vandalism that will be obsolescent in 24 months? All sensible people want to wait for the royal commission. They are not prepared to embark on reform of the House of Lords until they see where the Government are going with it. They do not want stage one without stage two.
The reason the Prime Minister does not want to wait for the royal commission is clear: he has never intended to carry out proper reform of the House of Lords, but wants to create a house of cronies beholden to him alone. We know what his vision of the future is: Lord Draper of Lobbygate; Lord Robinson of Offshore Funds; Lord Mandelson of Rio; and the Prime Minister will be Baron of Ideas.
The Director of Charter 88, who is not normally an ally of the Conservative party, said that the Prime Minister plans
"to create an Upper House that is so pliant and illegitimate that it will expose the Government to the charge of dictatorship".
It is time that the Prime Minister listened. The public and the press are against him on this matter. Why does he not do the commonsense thing and wait for the royal commission? He can waste an entire year trying to ram a Bill that no one wants through Parliament and trying to increase his powers of patronage, or he can spend that year getting on with real people's priorities, such as jobs, schools and hospitals.
57 HC Deb vol 321 c 24, 24.11.98 58 cc 34-5
48 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
The Prime Minister dealt at length with his proposals for the House of Lords:59
Yes, we do believe that it is important that the House of Lords is reformed. We believe that it is important because we believe that it is important to deliver on the pledge that we made to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Leader of the Opposition called it an independent body. Let us examine this independent body that we have…..The House of Lords is dominated by the 750 hereditaries. The vast bulk who take the Whip take the Tory Whip, with the result that in our bicameral system, the Houses of Parliament, one House is in the permanent hands, in perpetuity, of one party--the Tory party. That may suit the interests of the Tory party, but it does not satisfy the interests of the country.
Look what the Leader of the Opposition says about the House of Lords, this independent representative body. Out of 750 of them, there is one black and one Asian and there are 14 women. How can the Tories seriously say that that is representative? Almost half the 750 went to Eton. I have nothing against people going to Eton--
Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield): Or private schools.
The Prime Minister: Or private schools, no, but we were elected; that is the difference. For the Leader of the Opposition to make support for the hereditary peers the centrepiece of his attack on the Government only indicates, I am afraid, that whatever the jokes and the debate, when it comes to the issues of big strategic judgment, he gets them wrong every single time.
What is more, we have made it clear that no party, whatever its view, will have an overall majority in the House of Lords. A strong, independent Cross-Bench element will be preserved. We are suggesting the first change to the sole right of the Prime Minister to recommend life peers. Before the royal commission--which will have a time limit--is established, we will set out as the Labour party our submissions about what the final stage of reform should look like. We will let other parties do the same. The more that can be done by consensus, the better. It is time to end the feudal domination of one half of our legislature by the Tory party, which claims a divine right to govern Britain and makes a hash of it every time that it does.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): How many times during the 18 years of Conservative Government did the House of Lords defeat the Government? What is the difference between a life peer appointed by the Prime Minister or by the Labour party, with the Whip, and a hereditary peer, who at least is independent?
59 cc 33-4
49 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
The Prime Minister: As I keep saying about independence, the vast bulk of the hereditary peers are Tories. Those are the people who turn up. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the House of Lords used to defeat the Conservative Government as much as it defeats the Labour Government. That is emphatically not the case, I am afraid. In the past Session, the Lords defeated the Labour Government about three times more often than they defeated the Tories. They always do that. In any event, a system in which one part of the Houses of Parliament is perpetually in the ownership of the Conservative party cannot be justified. That is the position that the Conservatives stand for and it cannot be right. It is certainly the only policy on which the Leader of the Opposition evinced any real passion. If the Conservatives wish to make that the centrepiece of their opposition, let them.
Paddy Ashdown claimed that the Conservative Party’s treatment of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill made the case for Lords reform: “It uses a constitutional impropriety to overturn the will of the people. This issue is again one of the peers against the people. There is no other way to look at it. ….. We shall see whether the Conservatives, once again, will stand against the will of the people and use the hereditary peers to do so …. The question is whether we are prepared to allow hereditary peers to overrule the wishes of the people and the wishes of the elected Chamber. I am not prepared to put into position a case where we ask the hereditary peers to overturn the wishes of the House. That would be constitutionally improper.”60 He continued:61
It is scarcely surprising that the Government and the rest of the country welcome the proposed reform of the House of Lords. If there was any doubt about the necessity for this reform there can be none now as a result of what has happened over the past few weeks. Surely there can be no place in a 21st century Parliament for people with 15th century titles and 19th century prejudices. We shall support the Government in the abolition of the sitting and voting rights of hereditary peers. We shall urge them to make early progress on setting their plans and a timetable for the second stage of reform. To fail to do so would be to give unnecessary ammunition to those who seek to defend the otherwise indefensible. The Government have announced the establishment of a royal commission. We welcome that. However, its work should be time limited and it should report no later than the spring of the year 2000.
The main discussion of Lords reform came in the constitution and Parliament debate on 30 November.62 Opening the debate, the shadow Home Secretary, Sir Norman Fowler, having discussed the continuing legislative battles over the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, said:63
60 cc 40-1 61 cc 41-2 62 HC Deb vol 321 cc 559-646, 30.11.98 63 c 564
50 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
This is an important constitutional proposal. It is precisely the sort of constitutional proposal that any self-respecting second chamber should challenge. The suspicion is developing that it is not only that the Government want the hereditary peers out; they also do not want an effective second chamber…. As a replacement for the House of Lords, the Government are offering us another form of closed list: a closed list of appointees and placemen. That is the only proposal in front of the House. If some people have their way, that is exactly how it will remain.….. The Government are proposing an appointed quango; there is no doubt about that. No one knows where they will go next--there is no doubt about that because they have no idea where they will go next--but one thing is certain. They will come under no pressure from their appointees and their placemen, who are very content with their lot.
He attacked the Government's approach to and timetable for Lords reform, which he contrasted with the Opposition's approach:64
What is utterly absurd about the Government's position is that the legislation is being introduced before the White Paper and before the royal commission. That is the scandal. It is a nonsensical proposition. The sensible way--the only way of making progress--is for the Government to set out their proposals for reform and then to legislate…… However, that puts the Government into a deep difficulty. They have no idea of what comes next. The Government do not know, the Home Secretary does not know and the Prime Minister certainly does not know…… The Government have had to be pushed into even giving the appearance of going beyond an appointed chamber. We Conservative Members set up our own inquiry. We have set out the principles on which that inquiry will operate. The Government are now to set up a royal commission. Why have the Government done that? The answer was given by the Minister for the Cabinet Office:
"If we hadn't have promised a Royal Commission the Tories would have tried to attack us for not consulting people".
That does not sound like a Government who are committed to sensible reform. Not only have the Government been forced into a royal commission; they have also introduced legislation before that royal commission has had the opportunity even to take any evidence. That cannot make sense as a way of approaching the constitution.
What we know for certain is that we are being offered not an independent second chamber, but a chamber that depends on appointment and Government patronage. I do not believe that the British people will have any time for such a body. I do not believe even that many Labour Members will have time for such a body. It is a constitutional disaster and it should be rejected.
64 cc 565-6
51 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
Responding, the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, identified "two fundamental objections in the present position of hereditary peers", ie the hereditary nature of their right to be in the Lords and the fact that they overwhelmingly support one particular party:65 The first is that they are hereditary--an idea that is as absurd as it is offensive….. I was saying that the hereditary principle is seen to be preposterous and risible when it is applied to any other walk of life. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has graphically put it, imagine inquiring of the pilot of an aeroplane about whom one was a little worried what his qualifications were and being told, "It was my grandfather who acquired the pilot's licence. I inherited it." Or imagine lying open-mouthed in the dentist's chair as the dentist drilled into the gum instead of the teeth. That would raise questions about his skills. Imagine if, when asked to produce his certificate of competence, he brought out one awarded in 1860 to his great great uncle William, but said not to worry because the skills had been transmitted through the genes.
He quoted Conservatives - including Viscount Cranborne and William Hague - who had, in the past, questioned the place of hereditary peers in the Lords, but when challenged, denied that his opposition to the hereditary principle applied to the monarchy itself: "There are overwhelming arguments for constitutional monarchy. Every other country with a constitutional monarchy does not have hereditary peers with legislative power" (c 572). He went on to his second objection:66
The second, which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield missed altogether, is that they give one political party--the Conservative Party--an in-built 3:1 majority in the Lords, regardless of which party has the most popular support in the country.
Fifty years ago, a party leaders' conference on the future of the Lords agreed a memorandum that was signed for the Conservative party by the late Anthony Eden. Although there was not consensus on every aspect of reforming the Lords-- hon. Members can read the full text in the Library--it was agreed that no one party should have a permanent majority in the Lords. That was in 1948, but one party does have a permanent majority. What exposes the Conservatives' complaints about our two-stage process as utterly hollow is that in the intervening period since 1949 they have done absolutely nothing to change that in-built majority. We know why--it has not suited them.
We all acknowledge the important work of the other place as a revising Chamber, but that function requires neither hereditary peers nor an in-built 3:1 Tory majority. We also know that when push comes to shove, the Conservative party has always been ready ruthlessly to exploit that majority in its favour.
65 c 571. He had earlier described the existence of hereditary peers in the Lords as "the greatest offence to the very idea of democracy in the 20th century": c 567 66 cc 573-4
52 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
On any basis, the poll tax was an issue of rather greater significance and popular controversy than the question of closed lists for the European parliamentary elections. As many of us recall, it was opposed by so many Conservative Members that the then Government's majority fell from more than 100 to just 23. What role did the 3:1 in-built Tory majority in the Lords play? Was it to stand up for the democratic will and to challenge the ambiguity of the Conservatives' 1987 manifesto commitment? No, it was not; it was to drive the Bill through regardless of the arguments.
The Conservatives' use of their in-built 3:1 majority has differed when Labour Governments have been in power. In an average Session when the Conservatives have been in power, there have been 13 defeats of Government business in the other place. In an average Session when Labour has been in power the figure has been five times that--on average 60 defeats, including the recent decision in the other place to override the elected will of this democratic House on five occasions in respect of the European parliamentary elections, forcing us now to use the procedures of the Parliament Act 1911.
I pose this question to Her Majesty's Opposition: if, by some freak of nature, the vast majority of hereditary peers had been overwhelmingly Labour or Liberal Democrat supporters and the in-built 3:1 unelected majority had been against their party, not in favour of it, would the Conservative party have been quite so relaxed about the reform of the other place? Of course not. The smile on the face of the shadow Home Secretary speaks for itself.
He warned the Opposition that the Government plans had been clearly set out in their election manifesto and were supported by the electorate, and he sought to turn the Opposition's argument about the application of the Salisbury Doctrine in the case of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill back on them:67
On the issue of the manifesto, two years ago Viscount Cranborne--now Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords--made a keynote speech on the constitution. It is worth re-reading, not least for its quaint assertions. He claimed that the "hereditary peerage"--more than half of whom went to Eton--
"are coming to represent the common man in Parliament".
I tell the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that I do not think that half the members of the average jury will have gone to Eton.
The noble Viscount made an important admission in his speech. He engaged in an argument about our two-stage proposal, which had been well aired. He said that
"we should examine what Labour is proposing and test the justifications they give for their policy. It will then be for an informed electorate to decide".
67 cc 574-5
53 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
At the general election, an informed electorate did decide. Our commitment to a two-stage process could not have been clearer. We said in our manifesto:
"As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute."
By continuing to say that they will refuse to accept the will of the electorate on the two-stage process, the Tories put themselves in an entirely false position. As we have heard today, they have used the reverse of that argument on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill….
The Opposition justify what they are doing on that Bill on the ground that the provision of closed lists was not included in our manifesto. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is right about that--we were committed to a proportional list, but we did not specify which kind of list. However, by using that argument, he is also saying that the manifesto should be treated as gospel and that, where it is detailed, there can be no doubt that the Government should be allowed to secure their business. If the Salisbury doctrine is to have any meaning, that must be the minimalist interpretation of it, but we are now told that both it and our manifesto are to be ignored. That is undemocratic and unconstitutional; it will not remotely impress the British people.
The Home Secretary made clear the Government's support for a bicameral Parliament, with a second chamber having an important legislative role:68
The Government believe that a second chamber can and should play a most important role. We value its wisdom and its work as a revising Chamber, as I hope we showed when we accepted a number of its amendments to two key Bills- -the Crime and Disorder Bill and the Human Rights Bill. However, we believe that we must have a second chamber whose members sit in it by their own right, not by virtue of the acts of their ancestors.
On the value of appointed life peers, he prayed in aid the then Home Secretary Rab Butler's second reading speech on the Life Peerages Bill in 1958, and continued:69
We have always believed that life peers add great quality and diversity to Parliament, but we question why those who do not bring those values to Parliament on their own merits should be allowed to continue to sit in it. There is a world of difference between people who are appointed to a position on their own merit and people who are appointed to a position on the merits of their forebears.
68 c 575. On the legislative role of the Upper House generally, see Research Paper 98/103, 1.12.98 69 c 575
54 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
He concluded by setting out the Government's timetable for Lords reform:70
As the Gracious Speech made clear, we intend to legislate in this Session to remove the sitting and voting rights of hereditary peers. We also intend to establish a royal commission and then a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the longer-term future of a second chamber.
We shall be publishing a White Paper setting out our proposals, including those for a new system for the appointment of life peers. We have made it clear that under the new arrangements, contrary to the wild and inaccurate assertions of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, prime ministerial patronage will be reduced. We will seek to ensure the maintenance of a substantial Cross-Bench element in a second chamber, so that no party has an absolute majority--we shall be implementing the agreement between the parties that was signed in 1948. Even when we have done that, the Conservative party will continue to be the largest party in the other place. What more does it want?
For the Liberal Democrats, Robert Maclennan also believed that the difficulties over the European Parliamentary Elections Bill caused by the Opposition's attitude and actions would assist the government's plans for legislating to reform the Upper House:71
There have been conventions in respect of the use of power by the upper House. There has been a convention--known as the Salisbury convention--that the upper House will not overturn, or prevent the passage of, legislation that has been foreshadowed in the manifestos of incoming Governments. That convention has been rudely shaken by the actions of Lord Salisbury's grandson and his colleagues in the other place, in respect of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. We cannot place any weight on such conventions in the face of such casuistry as has been shown in the discussion of that measure.
The Bill, as was its intention, would have clearly imported into our law the principles that had been foreshadowed in the manifestos of the Government and, incidentally, of the Liberal Democrat party. ….
The Bill clearly set out that there would be a move to a proportional system for elections to the European Parliament. The precise detail of the system was not a matter on which the Labour party or we had given a firm or final view, but the fact that a specific system was not favoured has been used by the upper House to defeat the clear and, I believe, authorised view of the Government that they have a mandate to introduce that legislation--and soon. ……
In opposing the measure, the House of Lords is abusing its position. There is no doubt in my mind that it is a violation of a long established convention; and it is good reason, and could be described as the occasio belli for the war against the
70 cc 575-6 71 cc 590-1
55 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
hereditary peers that is about to break out--alas, for I would have preferred them to be removed by something other than outright war.
It is highly questionable whether it is appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to seek to unleash those forces--once again, in defiance of the undertakings given by the party in government to the electorate before the general election. Nothing could have been clearer than the Labour party's commitment to reform the House of Lords in two stages, and it was right to take that view, for there is no conceivable reason why the hereditary peers should have any say whatever in the shape, functions or membership of the House of Lords that will replace them.
Winding up the debate for the Opposition, Liam Fox criticised Mr Maclennan analysis:
I was astonished to hear the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) say that the Salisbury convention had been badly shaken by the decision to reject the closed list. There is nothing in the Labour manifesto about closed lists. The Liberal Democrats did not say that they would change from open to closed lists when it suited them. This was a properly constituted matter: the House of Lords decided that the House of Commons should think again.
The House of Commons can get its way through the Parliament Acts, and the Government have made it clear that they will do so. That is the correct process. For some reason, the idea has been put about that there has been undue process and an abuse of Parliament. This is how Parliament is supposed to work. We have a system of checks and balances to ensure that the House of Commons gets its way, but does not rush through legislation if the other Chamber believes that it should think again.
He then turned to the issue of Lords reform itself, which had dominated the day's debate:72
The debate is not about the Government's right to have stage one without stage two, which is clearly in their manifesto; it is about whether the Government are wise, or correct, to have stage one without stage two. It is not about the Conservative party's blindly defending the rights of hereditary peers--although that is what the Labour party would love us to do, because it would make its job so much easier. It is very unlikely that, if we started with a blank piece of paper, we would end up with the constitutional position in which the United Kingdom currently finds itself.
I do, however, defend the public service of men and women in the other place, over many years. That has been cheaply denigrated today by too many Labour Members,
72 cc 634-6
56 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105 many of whom have been in Parliament for only a short time. Above all, Conservative Members defend the right of the people to know how they are to be governed. In saying that they want stage one without stage two, the Government are, in effect, saying, "We are going to change the way in which you, the people of Britain, are to be governed through Parliament, but we are not going to tell you what that change is to be".
We need, first, to determine whether there is a need for a second Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) presented a passionate defence of our two-Chamber system today. Next, we need to decide on the role and function of a second Chamber: we must do that before we decide on its composition. To decide who is to sit in a Chamber before deciding what it is to do is rather like setting up a factory, employing staff and then deciding what the factory will make. It would be ridiculous to put us in such a position.
After that, we should decide on our criteria for the Chamber. We have set out six criteria for any change to the upper House. It should hold the Government to account better than the present Chamber; it should have a substantial number of independent Members, free of any political party; the Prime Minister's power should not be increased; Members must be drawn from all parts of the United Kingdom; the impact of reform on both Houses should be considered; and the House of Commons must remain supreme. Those are clear criteria, set out by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Straw: Do those criteria include an end to the built-in 3:1 Tory majority in the other place?
Dr. Fox: It is typical of the Home Secretary to ask such a question. We are talking about engaging openly in a process of reform, which, as the Home Secretary knows, we have offered to do on several occasions. We have wanted to take part in a full, one-stage, coherent process of reform. We are talking about the better governance of the United Kingdom--and what does the Home Secretary talk about? He talks about the Labour party's interests. The Labour party can see any part of constitutional change only in terms of what is in its interests. Only when we have decided what the role of the Chamber can be shall we be able to decide what its composition should be……
Last week, Lady Jay referred, in the other place, to Cross Benchers' being independent "in name only". That betrayed the fact that, under the current Administration, people are either with the Government or against them. It is not possible to be independent: you are either "them" or "us". As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood pointed out, they do not understand the danger of patronage.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester said, unusually in this Government, the new life peers being created are predominantly Government peers--54 per cent. so far. It is clear that the Government intend to pack the upper House, to increase the Prime Minister's power and to increase the Executive's power when we should be bringing it under check.
57 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
What is the demand for the constitutional change that is being put forward? Are our voters stretching out in constituencies demanding constitutional change? Are lorry loads of petitions making their way into the House at this moment to be dumped on our desks? Do barges sail up the Thames, with the people of this country demanding that we have constitutional change? No, they do not. That is not what people are interested in, as many hon. Members have pointed out.
The trouble is that the Government believe that history began on 1 May 1997. They have little respect for our traditions or our heritage. [Interruption.] Labour Members may well roar their approval because that is exactly the perspective. They see us not as a nation state, but as a conglomeration of regions, just as they see the electorate not as a whole, but as a coalition of minorities. As they say, they want us to be governed by modern European mechanisms of government, but we are not a modern European nation. [Laughter.] We are a strong, independent nation state that twice this century, because of the values that we have held, has been able to get Europe out of trouble of its own making. It is typical of how little feel the Labour party has for our country's traditions that it can mock them in such a way….
The European Parliamentary Elections Bill tries to gag the voters and to boost the party bosses. The House of Lords reform is to bolster the Prime Minister, not to improve how we are governed. The nationalists are resurgent. The United Kingdom is in peril.
There is more that unites us as a nation than divides us, but the Labour party refuses to see it. The Government's approach is piecemeal, vacuous and superficial. It is all about Labour. It may be good for Labour, but it is bad for the United Kingdom. It should be opposed. We will relish that opposition.
Responding, the Welsh Secretary, Alun Michael, said:73
Let us apply to the House of Lords and the arguments made by the Opposition the same test of success that I will apply to the Welsh Assembly. What does it do for our people in terms of a strong economy, jobs, better education, opportunities for all, a better health service and healthy, safe communities? The Assembly and the House will be judged by those criteria, which should also apply to the House of Lords. We should consider whether the retention of the rights of hereditary peers can do anything to help.…..
We shall engage the Conservatives in a full debate only when the rights of hereditary peers have been removed. The Conservatives will not seek to restore such a barmy constitutional anachronism, so let us remove the appendix and get on with improving the health of the body politic.
73 cc 640-2
58 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
Mr. Clarke: I thank the Minister for giving way. He listened to some of the debate, in which I heard no Conservative Member defend our right to a permanent majority in the upper House. Will he address the question that the Bill would make the present Government the first for almost 200 years accountable to a second House entirely appointed by the Executive? Does he have a solitary argument in favour of that in terms of the accountability that he is now talking about?
Mr. Michael: No. The composition of the House of Lords will be changed by the removal of the hereditary peers, so the form that it then takes will be a matter for constitutional debate and consultation…..
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe made a quirky claim to be a close ally of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which sounded like another vicious personal attack. Other than that, his position was illogical and untenable. He argued that the outrage of the hereditary peers' genetic veto should continue while we build a consensus on how to construct a second Chamber that retains and improves what is good about the House of Lords and removes what is bad. When we published our proposals in opposition, I found it extraordinary to behold the instant conversion of hereditary peers to the wholesale democratisation of the House of Lords provided that we waited until every detail had been worked out and agreed before we removed their votes.
The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) is usually a thoughtful man, but he made the ridiculous assertion that the hereditary peers are independent and not merely Conservative. Of course we need a balance in the constitution, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe rightly said, but how will parliamentary democracy be reduced if we make the House of Lords more democratic? Reforming the House of Lords is like eating an elephant; it must be done a bite at a time. That suggestion seems to contain much wisdom….
I remind Conservative Members that we made clear in the general election our intentions for the House of Lords. Our manifesto said:
"As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute. This will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative. The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered."
Our intentions were clear and we have pursued them in government.
59 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
D. The 'Cross Bench Proposal'74
On 3 December a proposal from several Cross Bench peers was made public. It sought to suggest a way in which the Government's proposed House of Lords Reform Bill could be amended:75
The debate surrounding House of Lords reform has clearly shown signs of being far more bitter than it needs to be. The Government has a manifesto commitment and has indicated a desire to move forward in a more consensual way than currently seems possible.
As three Cross-benchers we wish to put forward a specific proposal which, in our view, will allow this consensus to be built. Equally, it will allow the Government to fulfil the commitment, while reassuring the Opposition of the Government's seriousness of intent in proceeding to Stage 2 of House of Lords reform.
Our proposal, which we would table as an amendment to the; Bill outlined in the Queen's Speech, is as follows:
Both Government and Opposition accept the Government intends to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
During the transition to a reformed Upper House, a block of hereditary peers - one tenth of the total - will be elected among its number, and will remain until the transition to Stage 2 is complete.
A group of 14 hereditary peers, elected by the whole House, will sit during the transitional phase being available to serve as deputy chairmen and in other capacities in the scrutiny of legislation and the workings of the House.
The Lord Great Chamberlain, as The Queen's representative, and the Earl Marshal, who is responsible for ceremony, would retain their seats until Stage 2 was implemented.
This means that 659 hereditary peers will immediately lose their right to sit and vote as part of Stage 1, while 91 hereditary peers would remain as part of the transitional House.
74 The internal ramifications in the Conservative Party are beyond the scope of this Paper. See, for example, the remarks of the new Opposition Leader in the Lords, Lord Strathclyde (who replaced the sacked Viscount Cranborne) on 3 December during tributes to Viscount Cranborne: HL Deb vol 595 c 604, 3.12.98, and his interview in the Sunday Telegraph on 6 December 75 Press Notice, 2.12.98, “Cross-bench peers' initiative on House of Lords reform: The Cross-bench Peers - Lord Weatherill. Lord Marsh and the Earl of Camarvon - offer proposal to breach impasse on Lords Reform”
60 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
We would assume that the normal conventions of the House would apply during the transitional period
The issue became public at Prime Minister’s Questions:76
Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks): Can the Prime Minister confirm that he is happy to see nearly 100 hereditary peers continue to sit in the House of Lords after his forthcoming Bill on the Lords has been enacted?
The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman's question. It is an indication that he is now prepared to agree to what would remove hereditary peers altogether, in the two stages, in the House of Lords. If he is now prepared to agree that, we are certainly prepared to agree it; and we shall then have the chance of getting a fully reformed second Chamber without any hereditary peers at all.
Mr. Hague: Will the Prime Minister confirm, because his party may not be aware of what he is talking about on this subject, that for some weeks the Lord Chancellor has been approaching the Conservative party with a proposal to keep a proportion of the hereditary peers, explicitly sitting as hereditary peers, not as life peers, in exchange for my party's acquiescence in the rest of his ill-thought- out change? Although we welcome the huge climbdown on his part, we are not prepared to acquiesce in that change, because we are not prepared to join forces with him on major constitutional change that is based on no comprehensive plan or principle.
The Prime Minister: That is extremely interesting. Yes, we are certainly prepared to agree to a proposal that would allow us to remove the hereditary peers altogether, in two stages. We are perfectly prepared to agree that in the first stage one in 10 hereditaries stays, and in the second stage they go altogether. It is also entirely true that we were prepared to discuss that with the right hon. Gentleman's party. I thought that we had the agreement of the leader of his party in the House of Lords. Indeed, I believe that we have that agreement. [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us whether we have his agreement?
Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has just had the answer to that. ….The Prime Minister said in the Queen's Speech debate last week:
"We believe . . . that it is important to deliver on the pledge that we made to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.--[Official Report, 24 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 33.]
He said that their existence was a "democratic monstrosity". [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] His party still agrees with that. Now he is proposing to keep
76 HC Deb vol 321 cc 874-7, 2.12.98
61 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
hereditary peers in a stage 1 reform--[Interruption.] It is no good Labour Members shaking their heads. What they do not know is that the Prime Minister proposes to keep hereditary peers in a stage 1 reform of the House of Lords. Where does that leave his principles?
The Prime Minister: I take it from that that the right hon. Gentleman opposes the deal that has been agreed by the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords. As a result, we will indeed remove hereditary peers. We will do it by consensus, stage 1 and then stage 2, so that we can ensure that there is room in the legislative programme for other measures as well.
We are agreed on our side. I believe that the party of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will agree also. His party in the House of Lords has now agreed. It is clear from this exchange that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) no longer speaks for the Conservative party in the House of Lords.
Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister need be in no doubt who speaks for the Conservative party. Clearly, he is in no doubt that he speaks for the Liberal party and takes its acquiescence for granted. While we believe that his agreement to retain hereditary peers after stage 1 is a huge climbdown on the part of the Government, let me make it clear to him that we believe it is wrong to embark on fundamental change to the Parliament of this country without any idea where that will lead.
We have said before and we say now: no stage 1 reform without stage 2. Do not the Prime Minister's total lack of principle and his horse-trading confirm that it is common sense to put that reform on hold and await the report of the royal commission?
The Prime Minister: No. What is common sense is to get the thing done with as little fuss and as easily as possible, which we can now do. It is fascinating that the right hon. Gentleman is disowning the agreement that has been entered into by the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords. He may want to be in that position, but I doubt very much whether his party wants to be in that position. When he is provided with the means of getting reform through and agreed, he is more interested in playing games about the House of Lords than getting it done. Does he disown the deal made by the leader in the House of Lords, or does he agree with it? We should be told.
Mr. Hague: No deal has been made with the Conservative party. The deal to keep hereditary peers that the Prime Minister has tried to negotiate with the Conservative party does not address the fundamental point that the Government should not embark on major constitutional change without knowing where it leads. His proposal does not even satisfy the one principle in which he said that he was always in favour: the removal of hereditary peers.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have approached reform of the House of Lords on the basis of a clear principle. Our position was "No reform without knowing where it is going"; until today, theirs was the removal of hereditary
62 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
peers. Does that not demonstrate that the Prime Minister never had any principle on the matter at all?
The Prime Minister: In fact, it proves that, even when hereditary Conservative peers are prepared to agree to change, the right hon. Gentleman is not. That is the absurd position to which he has reduced himself. If anything demonstrates the way in which the right hon. Gentleman gets every major strategic judgment wrong, it is this.
We have the opportunity to reform the House of Lords properly, and to establish a programme that will remove hereditary peers, but will allow us to do that on the broadest possible basis of agreement. It is clear that nowadays, even when we speak to the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords, we cannot be sure that the leader of the Conservative party in this House is of the same mind. Mr. Hague: What we know is that the Prime Minister intends to turn the House of Lords into a house of cronies, and that he is now prepared to engage in any horsetrading that is necessary to achieve that end. It is beyond his comprehension that any politician can stand on a principle, and stand firm in his beliefs. …..I stand on the principle that it is not advisable for anyone to blunder in regard to the constitution until they know where they are going. After today, it will be clear that the Prime Minister stands on no principle whatever.
The Prime Minister: I cannot prevent the right hon. Gentleman from engaging on a kamikaze mission. I can only tell him that even his cronies in the House of Lords agree with me that we should try to get this reform through. If we can manage to get it through with the minimum difficulty, it will be in the interests of the country that demands such action.
The following day, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister:
Yesterday at Prime Minister's Questions you confirmed that you were happy to see a proportion of hereditary peers remain after your proposed Bill on the House of Lords had been enacted.
This is, of course, a staggering u-turn from your position just one week ago when you said in the debate on the Queen's Speech that "we believe it is important to deliver on the pledge we made to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords". By putting forward a proposal to keep hereditary peers, you have completely abandoned the one principle that you said motivated your reform - namely that hereditary peers were, as you said a fortnight ago, "a democratic monstrosity".
That you have abandoned your principles is no reason for me to abandon mine. The Conservative Party has rejected your attempt at horse-trading because we
63 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
have always believed in principle that there should be no stage one reform of the House of Lords without stage two.
Until now you have justified wasting valuable Parliamentary time on your House of Lords Bill on the grounds that hereditary peers were such an affront to democracy that they had to be abolished immediately,, before any plans had been drawn up for a comprehensive reform of the Second Chamber. Now you propose to keep hereditary peers. What is the point then of proceeding with your House of Lords Bill?
Can you confirm that Baroness Jay is speaking for the Cabinet when she said last night on Channel 4 News that stage two reform of the Lords will be completed before the next election? Assuming she was, why are you still trying to push ahead with your ill-thought out stage one reform? It defies common sense.
Why not wait for the Royal Commission to report rather than blundering into totally unnecessary constitutional change which is now motivated by no principle and which simply wastes valuable Parliamentary time that could be better spent helping save jobs, improve schools and create better hospitals?
V Selected Bibliography
• Barnett, Anthony and Carty, Peter, The Athenian option: radical reform for the House of Lords, Demos, June 1998.
• Brazier, Rodney, Constitutional reform, 2nd ed., 1998, chapter 5.
• Constitution Unit, Reforming the Lords: a step-by-step guide, Jan 1998
• Constitution Unit, Rebalancing the Lords: the numbers, Jan 1998
• Constitution Unit, Meg Russell, An Appointed Upper House: lessons from Canada, November 1998
• Constitutional reform in the United Kingdom: practice and principles, Proceedings of a Cambridge University Centre for Public Law conference, 17-18.1.98, esp Part III.
• Hague, William, Change and tradition: thinking creatively about the constitution, speech to Centre for Policy Studies, 24.2.98
• Hicks, Andrew, Reforming the Lords: proposals for a peoples' peerage, 5.5.98
• House of Lords 'reform': recent proposals, Research Paper 97/28, 17.2.97.
64 RESEARCH PAPER 98/105
• Labour and the House of Lords, proceedings of an ICR/Daily Telegraph conference, 8.6.98
• Liberal Democrats, Policy Review Commission, Constitutional affairs, June 1998
• Lords Reform, series of articles, House Magazine, 3.8.98
• Peerage creations 1958-1998, House of Lords Library Note 98/005, November 1998
• Shell, Donald, "The second chamber question", (1998) 4 Journal of Legislative Studies 17-32
• Shell, Donald, The House of Lords, 2nd ed., 1992
• Shell, Donald & Beamish, David, The House of Lords at work, 1993
• The Other Place: second chambers and the House of Lords, Background Paper 297, 7.9.92
• Tory Reform Group, Enhancing our democracy: reforming the House of Lords.
• Tyrie, Andrew, Reforming the Lords: a Conservative approach, CPF No. 1, June 1998,
• Wyndham, William, Peers in Parliament reformed, 1998
65