Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord McNally (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 22 June 2011. It occurred during Debate on House of Lords: Reform.


House of Lords: Reform

No, I am not taking any more interventions. Much has been made in this debate of the recommendation in paragraph 61 of the Cunningham committee report, which says: "““Our conclusions apply only to present circumstances. If the Lords acquired an electoral mandate, then in our view their role as the revising chamber, and their relationship with the Commons, would inevitably be called in to question, codified or not. Given the weight of evidence on this point, should any firm proposals come forward to change the composition of the House of Lords, the conventions between the Houses would have to be examined again. What would, could or should be done about this is outside our remit””." As a member of the Cunningham committee, I was happy to sign that paragraph. The conventions between the two Houses were examined on a regular basis throughout the 20th century and to say that they will be re-examined is no more than a statement of the obvious. What is equally obvious is that how they should be examined and with what outcome was outside the remit of the Cunningham committee. The idea that the Cunningham committee is somehow holy writ and that the conventions and relations between the two Houses would fall like a portcullis at the time of the passing of the Bill is simply absurd. What is clear is that the relationship between the two Houses has always evolved and will continue to evolve in the future, particularly over the transitional period. The fact remains that the relationship between the Houses is underpinned by the Parliament Acts and the conventions. The House of Commons remains the primary Chamber; nothing in this draft Bill changes that. Nor are we suggesting any short, sharp shock in these proposals; rather, there is what old Fabians will recognise as ““the inevitability of gradualness””. I am interested in the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Wills, Lord Davies, Lord Brooke, Lord Kakkar, and others, about whether codification is necessary. I hope that the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will look at that issue and take evidence. But there will be a lengthy transitional period of two Parliaments, which will allow transfer of knowledge. Noble Lords would not be prevented from standing for election or being considered for appointment to the reformed House.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
728 c1376-7 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Elections House of Lords House of Commons Disqualification House of Lords composition Electoral systems Misconduct Offenders Powers Public appointments Peers Reform Single transferable vote Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill Length of service
Legislation
Draft House of Lords Reform Bill
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk