House of Lords Reform

I would like to, but there are time constraints and I am keen to ensure that the Government have their fair time as well, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. The arguments for legitimacy and accountability were also ably supported by the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and for Cambridge (David Howarth). While there has been consensus and good will from all three major parties in favour of reform, it has to be said that the Government’s handling of the process has been contradictory and confusing. The 1997 Labour manifesto promised to make the other place more democratic and representative. After removing most of the hereditary peers in 1999, completing the process of reform has slipped down the agenda—despite the subject being mentioned in no fewer than seven Queen’s Speeches. It is not just procrastination; there has been a serious lack of direction. The 2001 Labour manifesto promised a more ““democratic”” upper House. However, four years later in the 2005 manifesto, the word ““democratic”” had disappeared and reference was made instead to a more ““modern and effective”” House. That change is hardly surprising, given that the Prime Minister voted for a wholly appointed House of Lords in 2003, saying that a hybrid of the two options was ““wrong”” and ““will not work””. Now, with a divided Cabinet, the Leader of the House has come up with a proposal to placate his disunited colleagues. The consequence is a wholly unsatisfactory 50:50 compromise. Incidentally, I am not one to be drawn by idle talk—well, not often, anyway—but there are whispers that the Prime Minister had indicated that, if he were to continue in power, he did not intend to use the Parliament Act in this matter. Given that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to be the next Prime Minister, perhaps the deputy Leader of the House will enlighten us about whether the Chancellor will use the Parliament Act, if necessary. The White Paper goes nowhere near providing the reformed upper House required for today’s Britain. The proposal that 50 per cent. of the other place should be elected on a list system means that party patronage will continue when determining who ranks where on the list. That is appointment by any other name. Add to that the 30 per cent. who would be directly appointed by the political parties and we would have an upper House that was effectively 80 per cent. appointed. So much for lessening the influence of the party machinery and ushering in greater democracy.