³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ BLOGS - Mark D'Arcy Blog
« Previous | Main | Next »

A rocky road for Lords reform

Mark D'Arcy | 17:47 UK time, Tuesday, 5 April 2011


It was just about audible over the massed heckling from the Labour ranks at Deputy Prime Minister's questions in the Commons this morning; Nick Clegg will publish a White Paper on reform of the House of Lords encompassing a draft bill "by the end of next month".

Yes, the next exciting episode in the Coalition's sweeping programme of constitutional change is about to begin. A white paper towards the end of May, followed by pre-legislative scrutiny by a high powered committee of MPs and Peers, reporting by the New Year, followed by a Bill in the Queen's Speech (ie May) for the 2012-13 session, followed by the use of the Parliament Act to tank it through into law, if Their Lordships refuse to pass it, or insist on amendments the Coalition can't accept.

This is where the composition of the special committee to scrutinise the Bill comes in. The thinking seems to be a 22-member committee, half MPs, half Peers. I'd guess it would be chaired by a peer, so that person could sell the proposals to the Upper House.

And I suspect there would be some litmus test of reforming enthusiasm for membership - the objective of the committee would not be to re-fight a century of debate on Lords reform, but to knock the Bill into shape, so the Coalition would want members committed to moving the process forward.

There would be plenty of issues for them to ponder - not least the issue of unelected members. At the moment the leaked account of the Bill suggest 20 per cent of the membership would be appointed rather than elected and that a handful of Church of England Bishops would be retained - but the White Paper alongside the Draft Bill would contain options for an all-elected House.

Then there's the electoral system for choosing peers. The current favourite seems to be a regional list system, but the White Paper would contain other options that the Committee might prefer. Again the ultimate objective would be to put a proposal backed by a strong before Parliament.

Since Lords Reform was in the Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour manifestos, there should, theoretically, be an overwhelming consensus behind the Bill. But somehow, I doubt that's quite how it will work out.

By 2013, when the Bill will be before the Lords, Peers will be accustomed to monstoring Coalition Bills, having by then sharpened their teeth on the Health and Social Care Bill, the Police and Social Responsibility Bill and of course the earlier "Clegg Bills" on the AV referendum and fixed term parliaments.

So they may be much more inclined to savage this one, out of sheer habit. And at that point one has to wonder whether the Coalition will still have the political energy to force the Bill through - with all the consequences the use of the Parliament Act (the mechanism for over-riding opposition in the Lords) might have for the rest of their agenda. If Their Lordships turn nasty, Parliament could grind to a halt.

But since the trench warfare over the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill, iron has entered the Coalition's soul. Their high command has, I'm told, little compunction about doing whatever it takes to get a key part of their programme through. However much ermine gets ruffled in the process.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    There must be some mechanism to keep politicians out of the reformed Lords!

  • Comment number 2.

    How about taking the simple steps first and provide a mechanism so that Lords can resign?
    That way the current Lords membership could be rationalised immediately and pave the way for a smaller but more active chambers.

  • Comment number 3.

    This one almost slipped under my radar. I hope we, the electorate, get a chance to scrutinise this Bill. At least have some sort of say. I don't like the idea of 'appointed' peers, look who we've got already! I, for one, want to see the back of EU gravy trainers who won't declare their interest when pensions are discussed. They and the obstructionist awkward squad should be shown the door. The only ones I have any time for are the more sensible crossbenchers. They should also be sackable, I don't think we need convicted criminals in there. In my view the turkeys should be more than ready to vote for Christmas. After which, when they offer themselves for election, a statement of their guiding principles would be required.

Ìý

³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ iD

³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ navigation

³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Â© 2014 The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.