In our first term, Labour embarked upon the most far-reaching changes to our constitution for 150 years. Devolution to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London; human rights and freedom of information legislation; rules to combat sleaze and modernising voting procedures were complemented by the ending of the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in Parliament.
The last of these met an historic commitment of the Labour Party, a policy we had advocated for a century. It was a major step forward in the modernisation of our Parliament which was justified in itself. But at the time, the Tories – many of whom were only interested in delay and preserving privilege – said we should do both stages of Lords reform together, knowing that history has taught us such attempts would be doomed to failure.
When we went ahead with removing the hereditary peers, we were told Labour was not interested in further reform and there would be no stage two, despite the formation and report of a Royal Commission to look at that very subject. In our 2001 election manifesto, we stated clearly that Labour would implement the Royal Commission’s report in the most effective way possible. The government has now brought forward proposals in a white paper to achieve just that.
Our plans, out for consultation until the end of January 2002, demonstrate Labour’s commitment to creating a modern and representative Parliament, fit for the 21st century. The key elements of the package are:
-
The removal of the remaining hereditary peers;
-
The Prime Minister to give up all power over nominations other than those of his or her party;
-
120 directly elected members to represent the regions;
-
Guaranteed representation for nations and regions, women and ethnic minorities;
-
No one party to have an overall majority, with membership to reflect balance of votes cast at the previous general election;
-
The link between a peerage and a seat in Parliament to be ended;
-
120 independent members, to bring additional expertise and experience;
-
Independent appointments commission to be on a statutory footing to appoint the independent members and vet party nominations for propriety, gender and ethnic balance;
-
Reduction in the number of bishops in the House.
The starting point for any reform of the second chamber must be an understanding of what it should do. The second chamber should be fit for its purpose, not mirror the elected House of Commons. It needs to retain the best aspects of the current Lords, such as its independence and range of expertise.
A wholly or largely elected second chamber would inevitably claim to rival the House of Commons. The primacy of the Commons is central to our system of parliamentary democracy. The Commons is the place where it is decided whether governments survive or fall; it is through elections to the Commons that legitimacy for a party’s manifesto is achieved.
A House of Lords that was wholly or largely elected would see no reason why it should not delay legislation or block pledges made in a manifesto upon which a party sought a majority in the Commons. It would see no reason why the Commons should make decisions on taxation alone, as it presently does. These are extremely serious questions which need to be answered by those who claim that a wholly elected chamber is the only option.
The government’s proposals, in contrast, maintain the primacy of the Commons and the best aspects of the current House of Lords, whilst making important improvements, such as removing the final hereditary peers, separating the peerage from a seat in Parliament, and ensuring proper representation for women, ethnic minorities and the UK’s nations and regions.
The Prime Minister will give up virtually all his powers of patronage, only having any say over the Labour nominated members, and even then will not be able to decide the numbers, which will be in the hands of the appointments commission. We are welcoming comments on the proposals the government has set out. In the white paper (available on the internet at http://www.lcd.gov.uk/constitution/holref/index.htm) we also ask specific questions: on the overall balance between the different types of member; to which other election those to the Lords should be attached; what the terms of appointment and election should be; what the rules for expulsion from the House should be and what the arrangement for remuneration should be.
The plans the government has set out to implement Labour’s manifesto pledge aim to create a House of Lords that is fit for the future. By providing a better and more effective complement to the House of Commons, we will strengthen Parliament, and that can only mean better government for our country.