Labour’s white paper on Lords reform has been almost universally criticised. A second chamber with only 20 percent of its members elected and 60 percent appointed by the party leaders fails to address the desperate need to revive our democratic institutions.
Party members, however, can do something about it. Tony Blair and Robin Cook have underlined that the white paper is genuinely consultative. One question asks whether the balance is right between election and nomination. We have until 31 January to back a democratic outcome. Already 119 Labour MPs have signed Fiona Mactaggart’s Early Day Motion calling for a wholly or substantially elected second chamber.
Legitimacy in a modern parliamentary democracy comes from election. The second chamber needs the legitimacy to perform its functions – revision, scrutiny and constitutional oversight – effectively. Yet even the Wakeham proposal that the appointments commission, rather than party leaders, should name any political appointees has been dropped.
The public support a democratic upper house: 71 percent want at least half of the second chamber elected. The other parties support a more democratic option, too. Even the Tories have said that they were ‘likely to end up favouring a higher percentage of elected members’ than the highest figure (35 percent) proposed by Wakeham. The Liberal Democrats, SNP and Plaid Cymru support a wholly elected chamber.
It is claimed that a more democratic second chamber would challenge the position of the Commons or lead to legislative ‘gridlock’. This is simply not the case. The second chamber would continue to have strictly limited powers and functions. Its members would have been elected to a different and secondary chamber, with no role in determining the government. Longer terms than MPs, a different voting system and elections on a different date – as Wakeham recommended – are commonplace mechanisms elsewhere for maintaining the pre-eminence of a primary chamber. If a minority of appointees were included, as some suggest, this position would be further emphasised.
Reference is sometimes made to the US or Australian systems. They are unusual in giving both houses equal powers. In almost every other system the second chamber has lesser powers. Experience shows that provided the powers are clearly laid down, members of second chambers respect their role and that of the primary chamber.
Good governments have nothing to fear from a more effective upper house, which would improve policy making and accountability. But a weak upper house could do little to prevent extreme policies by a future Tory government.
Consisting solely of Labour Party members, the Campaign for a Democratic Upper House strongly urges CLPs and party members to seize this opportunity to respond, and to back the call for at least 50 percent of the members to be elected. The campaign can be contacted at [email protected]. Time is short, but it is vital that we change ministers’ minds, commit Labour firmly to democracy and meet the challenge of history.