House of Lords Reform

I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who, sadly, is no longer in his place, on the way in which he introduced the debate and took so many interventions. I also congratulate him on the energy that he has shown in bringing the matter back to the House so early on in this Parliament. I congratulate him primarily on admitting that he has had a rethink and come to a conclusion. I am pleased that he has done that and glad that there are others—I have it on good authority—who will do the same, although we need more if we are to get a resounding majority for change. Let me make a plea, particularly to Members who do not want any change. Parliament has failed in the past—in 1949, in 1968, and most recently in 2003. On each occasion, there was stalemate and we were not able to take matters forward. Nevertheless, recognising that historical experience, we can all say that the status quo is unsustainable and that this issue will not go away. Democracy is beating at the door of the Houses of Parliament and will not be satisfied with no change. We must avoid the fiasco of 2003 and what Robin Cook described as a legislative train wreck. Parliament must show a will, and it can do that tomorrow when we vote. I believe that we should make the second Chamber more accountable. As an Opposition Member said, those who make the laws of the land should have a mandate from the people to do so. That is a simple principle. The second Chamber should be legitimate. No one has spoken a great deal about public opinion, but it has been consistent over the years. As Conservative Members will tell us, a poll conducted in the past few days confirmed again that the electorate would like a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber. The House of Lords needs to be representative. Hon. Members have spoken of elderly men in the other place, the lack of ethnic minorities and its domination by people from the south-east. We need to change that to make it reflect our society more. The first question that I asked myself was whether our system should be bicameral. My emphatic answer is yes, but only on the basis of the primacy of the House of Commons. I am not sure why there has been to-ing and fro-ing about the matter because there is more consensus about it than any other issue. The House of Lords should reflect the diversity of the United Kingdom—its nations, regions and new communities. There is a distinct lack of women and—dare I say it—working people, who remain greatly under-represented, in the other place. Of course, it should not be a mirror image of the House of Commons. I shall revert to that point. I reject the idea of a fully appointed Chamber, which would simply mean the status quo. Those who argue for that option claim that, otherwise, it would interfere with the House of Commons. However, we are considering reform of the House of Lords, not the House of Commons. It is also argued that we already have an effective House of Lords, which revises legislation. However, if we consider the past few years, Government amendments account for 90 to 95 per cent. of those made in the House of Lords. They are made on the whim of the Whips. The other place is an effective second Chamber in which the Government can play around with legislation. In the case of an appointed second Chamber, how would we get rid of the hereditaries? We have recently experienced the abomination of an election for a vacant place for the hereditaries. We need to get rid of them, and I believe that there is consensus about that. I am worried about the appointments commission. The fiasco of the people’s peers has been mentioned. An appointments commission appoints people who reflect its members and does not fulfil the need to reflect society. I have a specific problem with the criteria for appointments. It has been suggested that they will override political nomination, which is currently the only link with democratic accountability. If the commission is set up, there will be no accountability. Let me be clear: I favour 100 per cent. election for reasons of legitimacy, accountability and gaining the support of the electorate, who understand and trust democracy. It is important that they give their overwhelming backing to the reform. However, given the speeches that we have heard today—I suspect that they reflect the views of Parliament—I recognise that the proposal for 100 per cent. election is unlikely to succeed. I shall therefore vote for a predominantly elected second Chamber. Let me repeat the plea that has come from all parties and all quarters, with reference to Voltaire, the best should not be the enemy of the good. I emphasise that especially to Liberal Democrat colleagues. I was saddened at the beginning of the debate when it appeared that the party’s formal position is to support only 80 per cent. or more election. That does not reflect a recognition of the realities in the Chamber. I hope that Liberal Democrat Members will think clearly about the need to ensure a good result tomorrow night. Of course, the proposal will result in a hybrid House. Will it change the balance between the two Houses? Let me reject all the doomsday scenarios, which the Father of the House first raised and which Members on both sides of the House have discussed. Of course, the balance will be changed over time, but the concerns expressed can be addressed. The conventions that exist between the two Houses have been drawn up and published: they are known and transparent, and at this point in time are agreed between the two Houses. The Leader of the House suggested that we have a debate about the appropriateness of the conventions; we could go further and think about legislating in relation to those conventions. If we consider the international experience, however, we will see that on many occasions there is no direct relationship between the so-called democratic legitimacy of a second chamber and the powers that it holds. Often, second chambers have a great deal of democracy with few powers; sometimes, they have a lot of powers with little democracy. We should be reassured that we can create the arrangements between the two Houses that are necessary to ensure that the primacy of the House of Commons continues to be recognised. I have a particular concern, which other Members have reflected, about the recommendation that elected Members of the second Chamber should serve for one term of 15 years. I agree with those who produced the 2005 report, who are represented by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), that a shorter term of 12 years might be more appropriate. My primary concern, however, is the lack of accountability: what happens after the person is elected? They cannot be re-elected, so they cannot be held accountable to the second Chamber or to their so-called electorate. That would undermine the legitimacy of the second Chamber. The issue will not go away. Tomorrow evening, we have the opportunity to make the change that will take the Houses of Parliament, and particularly the second Chamber, into the 21st century. That can be achieved only if we have a substantially elected second Chamber, and I commend that to the House.