---

House of Lords: Reform

My Lords, this is a debate on the whole of the Government’s White Paper, with a view to the House giving, on Wednesday, its opinion about its future composition. It is a debate not just about arithmetic. We could do quite a lot of it by looking at the votes in the other House and at recasting them in certain ways, but I am not talking about that. I want to stress that there are many other elements in the White Paper which have not been debated but should be because they determinethe nature of the House when any changes are made.I refer, for example, to the role of the statutory Appointments Commission, the method of timing of voting, which is absolutely essential to the nature of the House, and how to ensure diversity. That has not been mentioned today, but it is an objective and it would be much more difficult in a wholly elected House. All those points are of importance. In the earlier discussions and in the White Paper, the Government expressed themselves in favour of the search for consensus. For example, the foreword to the White Paper stressed that broad agreement on some of the key issues is highly desirable. It also stated: "““Deadlock would be easy to achieve; the prize of progress means moving forward gradually and by consensus””." Indeed, the model presented in the White Paper was intended to be one around which consensus on the issue might be achieved. I strongly hope that the Government have not gone back on their commitment to seek consensus. One might get the impression that that will be very difficult to achieve following votes in the House of Commons last week and votes here this week. However, in the aftermath of the votes in the House of Commons, it would be quite wrong to forget that what we are trying to achieve is consensus. It may take time, but that is what we should be trying to do. I shall concentrate my remarks on some key points in the White Paper which go wider than, but are directly relevant to, the all-appointed, all-elected or part-elected composition of the House. It will be no surprise that, as Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, I shall make reference to the value of the independent element in our dominantly political parliamentary system and to the generally favourable public opinion of the independent role. The House of Commons decided last week not to have a preferential vote, but simply to vote for or against a number of Motions, giving its opinion on the composition of the House. It voted in favour of two Motions; one for a largely elected House—the 80-20 option—and one for a fully elected House. We are quite entitled to take account of both those decisions in our debate today and tomorrow, although our decisions are for this House alone. My first point is that there would be a substantive difference in the relations between the two Houses if we were to move from an appointed to an elected House. Although the House of Commons would retain the powers given by the Parliament Act, the public would quite soon begin to judge the prospects of new legislation by the likely reception not only in the House of Commons but also in this reformed House with its new democratic mandate. We might not be given more power, but it would obviously accrue to this House. Secondly, the Labour Party manifesto of 1997, which is of course engraved on my heart, said: "““We are committed to maintaining an independent cross-bench presence of life peers””." Then the Royal Commission report of 2000 said that all the various bodies, government White Papers and proposals agreed that at least 20 per cent of the membership of a reformed House should be independent, non-party political Peers, who would be appointed under a new system by a statutory appointments commission. I think that most of my colleagues on these Benches are strongly in favour of that, as it would be a step forward; but the definition of an independent Peer and the role of the statutory appointments commission are very important points for the future. The most recent statement is in the WhitePaper that we are debating today, which says in paragraph 6.20: "““As to the proportion of non party-political members to form part of the reformed House, the Wakeham Commission suggested this should be at least 20%, and the Government agrees””." We see no reason to doubt that the Government’s agreement would be reflected in any legislation that they might put forward. I note that Mr Gordon Brown voted for the 80:20 option and did not vote for the fully elected option. Wise man! Thirdly, we have to recognise that if there is to be any elected element, almost all the most important questions are not settled by the simple vote on membership. For example, how long would the transitional period be? For practical purposes, it would obviously be very long, although some of us older folk might want to compare it with our likely lifespan, which does not seem to be totally clear. Then there are all the elements that are the essence of a democratic system. For example, do the public vote for their Members in the second Chamber on the same day as the vote for their Members in the other House? Why not? I am in favour of that, as it would maximise the public’s participation, which we should be in favour of. Should there be a list or a first-past-the-post system? Should it be done on a regional or group-of-constituencies basis? Where would the Ministers come from, if we ever did have a fully elected House? Obviously, they would come from the Members of this House—they could not come from the Members of the House of Commons. Finally, while ending any hereditary-basis membership of the House, how do we ensure that continued membership on a non-hereditary basis is possible for those Peers? It would be quite crazy in my view—and I am not a hereditary Peer—to lose their experience and ability. To sum up, treating with only a few major points, consensus must remain the Government’s objective as they have always stated, despite the vote in the House of Commons last week. Let us see whether this can be achieved. We need some time, because we have many things to settle, to which I have referred. We should stand by the commitments that at least 20 per cent of the membership of a reformed House would be independent, non-party political Peers, and any move to a partly elected House could be properly judged only when the essential questions of the timing, the type of election, the length of transition and all the remaining points that have hardly been debated have been looked at and agreed. The answers to those questions are the preconditions to any sensible discussion of an elected House and any argument for change.