House of Lords Reform

There were many thoughtful and enlightened contributions among the 23 Back-Bench speeches that were made in our debate on the latest constitutional reform proposed by the Government. In the past decade, we have achieved human rights legislation, a freedom of information Act, devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and an elected city government in Edinburgh. We began the reform of the House of Lords with the removal of most of the hereditary peers. That anomaly is simply not justifiable now, if it was in any age. We have presided over the most significant reform for eight decades. We established the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission, under the chairmanship of Lord Stevenson of Coddenham. We now propose to establish a statutory appointments commission. Almost everyone accepts that there is unfinished business in respect of the House of Lords. Let no one be in any doubt that what unites us in this House—across the political divide—and that what unites us with the House of peers is an unshakeable belief in the primacy of the elected House of Commons over any second Chamber, howsoever that is shaped. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House set out precisely how we have sought to secure that. Proposals were made by the royal commission that was chaired by Lord Wakeham, the Public Administration Committee and the Breaking the Deadlock group, which all favoured a part-elected, part-appointed second Chamber. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and others for their words of thanks to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for his genuine responses to those reports. The Labour party has been committed to root-and-branch reform of the House of Lords for 100 years; others are more recent converts to the cause. The Conservative party and its manifestos were silent on the issue until 2005, although the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has told his Back Benchers that this reform is a third-term priority. Perhaps that is new Tory speak for ““manana””, and the matter would be placed in the to-do file for about 12 years after his party formed some future Government. Was that what the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) meant when she said earlier, ““We want a House of Lords elected by the many,”” although given the contributions of some of her Back-Bench colleagues, she seems to have used the ““royal we”” a little prematurely? Indeed, one experienced and senior Conservative Back Bencher called his party’s proposals a crackpot idea. I noted that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead ignored the advice of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who told the House last month:"““There is absolutely no demand for this change or reform anywhere in the country.””—[Official Report, 7 February 2007; Vol. 456, c. 856.]" Her counterpart in the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, asked that House to ““pause for mature reflection”” and requested time to consider the matter in ““far more depth””. The diversity of opinion in all parties was illustrated by the contributions to today’s debate. At least three official Opposition Members called for a fully elected second Chamber. The hon. Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) argued for not changing the House of Lords at all. At least they were being true to their principles of conservatism, although I wondered whether some filial loyalty had crept in with the hon. Member for North Essex and thought that he had perhaps been listening to someone along the corridor. As I listened to his speech, I was reminded of Mark Twain—or was it Samuel Johnson?—who said that at 16 he thought that his father was stupid, but in the intervening period—four years in the hon. Member’s case—he was surprised by how much the old man had learned. I make no criticism of the hon. Member for North Essex for changing his mind—that would be more than my job is worth—and many hon. Members have shown a refreshing honesty in stating how they came to hold the position that they are urging hon. Members to vote for tomorrow. We heard a clear call for a unicameral Chamber from my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, was reminded of the views of the former leader of his party, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who last month said:"““I think the worst thing would be the hybrid that has been suggested. The minute you have an elected second Chamber, I think it will destroy the relationship between the two Houses.””" That is the Liberal Democrats all over: they say one thing here, and another thing 300 yards away. I urge hon. Members to heed the plea of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who accepts that ““predominantly”” embraces the 60 per cent. proposal. That may be the way for hon. Members to achieve a considerable proportion of what they want. The royal commission that met under Lord Wakeham produced an option under which 87 of the 550 Members of the second Chamber would be elected. The White Paper that followed proposed that a higher proportion—120 out of 600, which is the 20 per cent. figure—be elected. It was not my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, or the Government, who proposed a very long term of office for Members elected to the other place. A term of some 15 years was proposed by the royal commission.