Straw publishes ‘compromise’ plans on Lords reform
The government has published plans to scrap the remaining hereditary peers in the House of Lords and to elect half the members through direct elections.
In a new white paper, leader of the House of Commons Jack Straw set out proposals to finish the reform of the Lords that Labour started when it came to power in 1997.
But he stressed the document’s recommendation for a chamber made up of half elected members, 30 per cent political appointees and 20 per cent non-political nominations was only his view, and was not endorsed by the cabinet.
Several government ministers are thought to want a greater proportion of elected members, something that is backed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, although Tony Blair today confirmed he would be supporting Mr Straw’s proposals.
Because the issue is so contentious, MPs will have a free vote when it comes before parliament some time before Easter. Today Mr Straw proposed that members list the proposed options in order of preference, until one emerges victorious.
The white paper is the result of months of cross-party talks, and Mr Straw told MPs today that there had been a consensus on some key issues, including the fact that decisions made in the House of Commons would always take precedence over those in the Lords.
He said all the parties were in favour of reforming the Lords, all believed there should be at least 20 per cent of members from non-political backgrounds, all thought the remaining 92 hereditary peers should go, and all agreed the reforms should be introduced slowly.
Mr Straw said his proposals, which would also see the House cut down to 540 members and the bishops keep their seats, would provide the “most effective balance” and retain the House of Lords’ role as a scrutinising and advisory body.
However, shadow Commons leader Theresa May warned that with only 20 per cent non-political members, the reforms would “put parties even more in control of the upper House and risk the independence that has seen it defeat the government 415 times”.
“Mr Speaker, this proposal does not strengthen parliament. We want a House of Lords elected by the many – this will be selected by the few,” she told MPs.
“Far from making the Lords more independent, it puts it in the gifts of political parties. Far from strengthening parliament, it risks losing the benefits of the Lords today. Far from removing cronyism it perpetuates it.
“It is a lowest common denominator solution that will satisfy no-one.”
However, Mr Straw insisted that parliament must find a compromise to avoid the “train wreck” that happened last time MPs tried to reform the Lords, in 2004, when they were presented with seven different options and could not agree on any.
He said plans to elect half the Lords through an open list system would not result in cronyism, and stressed it was necessary to maintain some party appointments to take account of the “great expertise” of many members.
The prime minister would lose his power to nominate people for seats in the House of Lords, he added, thereby breaking the link between honours and the upper House that led to the cash-for-honours police investigation.
In addition, Mr Straw said the current appointments commission would be made a legal body and have a new duty to scrutinise political appointments not only for propriety but also for “suitability”, to ensure the House of Lords was full of the right people.
Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman Simon Hughes welcomed the plans, saying they were a “serious effort” to complete Lords reform that actually began in 1911, although he said his party would be voting for a wholly or substantially elected chamber.
“In the 21st century the only way that both Houses of Parliament can be legitimate is for them to be made up of people elected directly by the people,” he said.
A survey published yesterday by the Hansard Society reveals that 42 per cent of the public would support a fully elected House of Lords, and 40 per cent want a mixture. Just six per cent think the House should be fully appointed.
