None of the Above: the UK House of Commons Votes on Reforming the House of Lords, February 2003
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
d:/1polq/74-3/mclean.3d ^ 24/6/3 ^ 16:6 ^ bp/sh None of the Above: The UK House of Commons Votes on Reforming the House of Lords, February 2003 IAIN MCLEAN, ARTHUR SPIRLING AND MEG RUSSELL The preamble to the UK's Parliament Act cent) of the members of a future house be 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. 5 c.13) states that that Act elected, but rejected the Royal Com- is a temporary measure only: mission's proposal that all appointed members be chosen by an independent Whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second appointments commission. Chamber constituted on a popular instead of This White Paper had a poor reception. hereditary basis, but substitution cannot be The Lord Chancellor's Department, immediately brought into operation . which issued it, later analysed the re- sponses to it. Of the 82 per cent of Attempts to bring the substitution into respondents who discussed election, operation in 1949 and 1968 failed. The 89 per cent `called for a house that was Labour Party's 1997 manifesto states: 50per cent or more elected'. Of the 17 per The House of Lords must be reformed. As an cent of respondents who discussed the initial, self-contained reform, not dependent future of the Church of England bishops, on further reform in the future, the right of 85 per cent opposed their continued pre- hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House sence in the house. Of the 12 per cent of of Lords will be ended by statute. This will be respondents who discussed the law lords, the ®rst stage in a process of reform to make 72 per cent thought they should leave the the House of Lords more democratic and house.2 representative.1 Its parliamentary reception was no The ®rst stage of reform was enacted in better. An early day motion (EDM) call- 1999, although ninety-two hereditary ing for a `wholly or substantially' elected peers remained. The Royal Commission house attracted 303 signatures. The on the Reform of the House of Lords Public Administration Select Committee (Cm 4534/2000) recommended that the issued a unanimous report, pointedly second-stage house should have a small entitled The Second Chamber: Continuing proportion of elected membersÐits pre- the Reform (HC 494-I, Session 2001±02), ferred option was 87 out of 550(16 per which called for a predominantly elected cent), elected from regional lists. A com- second chamber. The government with- mitment to reform the second chamber to drew its White Paper and turned the make it `more representative and demo- matter over to a joint committee of both cratic' and to implement the Royal Com- houses, comprising twelve MPs and mission's proposals `in the most eective twelve peers. It charged the joint commit- way possible' was in the Labour Party's tee with proposing a range of options, to 2001 manifesto. The subsequent govern- include all-elected and all-appointed, and ment White Paper The House of Lords: announced that these would be subject to Completing the Reform (Cm 5291/2001) a free vote in both houses. recommended that 120out of 600(20per The committee issued its ®rst report in # The Political Quarterly Publishing Co. Ltd. 2003 298 Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA d:/1polq/74-3/mclean.3d ^ 24/6/3 ^ 16:6 ^ bp/sh December 2002, for debate in each house abolished and that the Commons become in January and votes in February 2003. In a unicameral parliament. The Speaker the run-up to the debate, ®rst the Lord accepted this as an amendment to the Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg) and `zero elected' proposition, and the vote then the Prime Minister let it be known on this was taken ®rst. that they opposed a partly elected House The almost wholly appointed House of of Lords on the grounds that it would be a Lords voted for a wholly appointed hybrid of elected and appointed mem- upper house by a substantial margin, bers. This was a new objection, which and defeated the six options for election, had not appeared in the Royal Commis- each by a substantial margin. In the sion report, nor in either of the govern- Commons, the amendment to abolish ment White Papers. The second of those the upper house was defeated by 392 White Papers had followed the Royal votes to 174. In succession, each of the Commission's lead in proposing a hybrid seven composition resolutions was then upper house, and had emanated from also defeated. The proposals for 20per Lord Irvine's department. cent, 40per cent and 50per cent elected On 4 February 2003, both houses voted were defeated without divisions. Table 1 on the seven resolutions put forward by summarises the Commons results. As 595 the joint committee. In the order in which MPs voted on at least one of the contested they were presented in the Commons, propositions, we determine the vote on they proposed that the future upper the three propositions rejected without house be: divisions as 595±0against. Table 1 lists the propositions in order of the propor- . wholly appointed; tion to be elected, not in the sequential . wholly elected; order of voting. 20per cent elected and 80per cent This was a surprising result. Robin appointed; Cook, Leader of the House, who in open- . 80per cent elected and 20per cent ing the debate had suggested `it is in the appointed; interest of the other place, as well of this . 40per cent elected and 60per cent Chamber, that we reach a clear decision appointed; this evening on the way forward to re- . 60per cent elected and 40per cent form of the second Chamber,' advised appointed, and Members to `go home and sleep on this . 50per cent elected and 50per cent interesting position'.3 The joint commit- appointed. tee was left rudderless. A group of MPs added the eighth The outcome contradicts the wishes of proposition that the House of Lords be the elected house. The Commons voted Table 1: Votes in the House of Commons (including tellers) on Lords reform, 4 February 2003 Abolish Elect Elect Elect Elect Elect Elect Elect zero 20% 40% 50% 60% 80% all Aye 174 247 000255 283 274 Did not 29 23 00022 26 30 vote No 392 325 595 595 595 318 286 291 Majority ±218 ±78 ±595 ±595 ±595 ±63 ±3 ±17 Base: All who cast at least one vote; n = 595. Source: Division lists in Hansard (online version) for 4 February 2003. # The Political Quarterly Publishing Co. Ltd. 2003 The Commons Votes on the Lords 299 d:/1polq/74-3/mclean.3d ^ 24/6/3 ^ 16:6 ^ bp/sh against a wholly appointed upper house This procedure is really the alternative by 325 to 247 (an absolute majority of vote (AV). It is used for elections to the those present). But the outcome is that a Australian House of Representatives and wholly appointed upper house continues, frequently in club and society elections. It albeit with the leaven of ninety-two would have ensured that one option hereditary peers and a number of law would be seen to `win' by getting over lords and bishops. By defeating eight 50per cent of the vote against its last resolutions to amend the status quo, the remaining rival. Some members of the Commons was left with the status quoÐ joint committee preferring a largely but the status quo is barely distinguish- elected house had proposed this method able from one of the eight defeated out- of voting, fearing that the popularity of comes, and one of the more decisively elections for the second chamber would defeated at that. This was an unusual otherwise be obscured by the vote being parliamentary occasion, in that the House split among dierent options for election. of Commons was being given the oppor- If it was common knowledge on the joint tunity (at least ostensibly) to express a committee that a substantially elected free opinion on a major policy issue Lords was the most popular option which was not an obvious matter of among MPs, then those opposed to this conscience. The vote was not subject to outcome had an incentive to oppose AV. the normal rigours of party discipline. They may have hoped, as seems to have This article explores how the occasion proved the case, that multiple resolutions could have led to such a paradoxical would reduce the likelihood that agree- outcome. It is structured as follows. The ment would be reached. next section introduces and tests six hy- Why did the Commons reject all seven potheses which might account for the composition options? We have thought of paradox. The third section identi®es and the following possibilities: analyses the properties of the main blocs . A majority-preferred composition of of voting MPs. The fourth section con- the upper house existed, but was never cludes. put to the vote. Some of those who voted for abolition Six hypotheses of the upper house then felt entitled, after the defeat of their favourite posi- The format of each composition motion tion, to vote against all the proered was options on composition. That this House approves Option xx [k per . No individual MP voted in a prima facie cent. elected/100 ± k per cent. appointed] in illogical way, but the aggregation of the First Report from the Joint Committee on votes led to a collectively illogical re- House of Lords Reform (HC 171). sult.