|
Jack Straw
favours a 50/50 split of elected and appointed peers Straw's statement |
The Commons leader outlined details of a White Paper which proposes a House where some peers are elected and some still appointed, as they all are now.
The Lords could be renamed - with "the reformed chamber" an interim title.
The Conservatives said the plans would not make the Lords "more democratic", while the Lib Dems said "at least" 80% of peers should be elected.
Mr Straw said the reforms would increase the Lords' legitimacy and "strengthen democracy".
The plans, an attempt to end long-term deadlock, also propose cutting the number of peers from 746 to 540, and would see the end of hereditary peers sitting in Parliament.
'Vast range of views'
The White Paper - a document which puts government ideas to MPs for consultation before a final bill is drafted - does not propose removing Church of England bishops and archbishops from the Lords.
|
REFORM
PROPOSALS
A 'hybrid'
of elected and appointed peers
Reduce size
of House from 746 to 540 members
End
hereditary and life peerages over time
Elected
peers to be voted in at same time as Euro elections
Maximum
time in office of 15 years for elected and appointed peers
Appointees
a mixture of party politicians and non-party figures
Lords may
be renamed - possibly 'The Reformed Chamber'
Anglican
bishops and archbishops to keep seats
|
Under its plans, elected peers would represent the same regional constituencies as those used in European elections, and be chosen using party lists and a form of proportional representation - "a partially open list".
A third of seats would be elected every five years, which means members being elected for 15-year terms.
The system would eventually mean the end of "life" peerages, with a third of appointees being replaced every five years and all serving a single term of 15 years.
No peers - elected or appointed - would be able to serve more than 15 years.
While there appears to be backing among MPs for an elected element in the Lords, there is no agreement on what proportion.
Tony Blair, when asked at prime minister's questions why he did not still support a 100% appointed Lords, said he had "always expressed concern about a hybrid House", but said he was willing to back proposals based on seeking a "consensus".
|
The vast majority of Lords must be
elected if we are going to go some
way to restoring public faith in the political system Sir Menzies Campbell Liberal Democrat leader |
All parties are giving MPs a free vote on the issue.
At the moment all peers are appointed, apart from the 92 hereditary peers who survived the first phase of Lords reform during Tony Blair's first term in office.
A previous attempt to bring in elected members failed in 2003.
Mr Straw said he hoped to avoid a similar "train wreck" this time.
He said the "status quo is no longer an option", adding: "Deadlock this time round would be easy to achieve. The prize of progress means moving forward gradually and by consensus."
'Range of views'
MPs will be given seven options for reform: all elected; 80% elected and 20% appointed; 60% elected and 40% appointed; half and half; 40% elected and 60% appointed; 20% elected and 80% appointed; or all appointed.
In a controversial move, instead of going through the division lobbies, MPs will indicate their preferences in order on a ballot paper.
The least popular option will be knocked out and its second preferences redistributed until one option achieves a majority.
|
HAVE YOUR
SAY
I think each party
should have an even split of seats in the Lords - to stop one party
having a majority Aiden Codd, UK |
Mr Straw said he personally preferred 50% of peers being elected, 30% being appointed from part political choices and 20% from among non-party candidates.
Shadow Commons leader Theresa May said Mr Straw's proposals gave the government "more control of patronage".
She added: "With 30% of peers appointed by the parties, and 50% elected via lists controlled by the parties, these reforms will not lead to a more democratic and independent House of Lords."
But Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman Simon Hughes said: "In a modern democracy in the 21st Century, both Houses of Parliament must have elected people."
He said "at least 80%" of peers should be elected.
Lord Strathclyde, leader of the Tories in the Lords, warned: "This is a proud House. It doesn't deserve and will not brook another botched attempt at reform.
"The White Paper ideas are still not fully thought through and are unacceptable."
Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond said Mr Straw's "hybrid House" plan was a "concoction of nonsense".
Research by the Hansard Society think-tank suggests only 6% of the public want a fully appointed House of Lords, with 82% preferring at least some elected members. It surveyed 1,980 adults.
The White Paper suggests the House of Lords might be renamed after it is reformed - what do you think it should be called? Add your suggestion using the form below.
It will probably always
be known as the Upper House, but it should officially be called the
Senate (populated by Senators). This name comes with a tradition
reaching back 2000 years, and serves very well for the citizens of the
USA and Canada, as well as for the citizens of many of our European
partners (France, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland,
Spain, Italy), and in nearly fifty countries around the world.
DM, Paris, Paris
Keep it the "House of Lords". This is a traditional name and we are
loosing enough of our British identity without loosing something else.
I say elect 50% and have the rst appointed but all should be classed as
"lords" for the period they sit
Andew W, Falkirk, Scotland
The House of Lords! Why the need to rename (or change...)
Nick Delfas, london
House of Straw?
W George Preston, United Kingdom
Name should remain, Members should be 80% elected and all members
should become Life Peers, even though only elected or appointed for 15
years. Hereditary Peers should be able to elect a small proportion from
existing Hereditary Peers this would maintain continuity with our past
history.
Alan Rumble, Balmaclellan, Scotland
Straw's Folly
Tony Mayer, Swindon
obviously - the House of Straw
Clive S, Crowborough
The Senate. And with the same number of senators as the US or
Canadian Senates.
Andrew Dundas,
The House of Reform
Tom C, Oxford
The Archbishop of York, the Most Rev John Sentamu, said elected peers would be less independent and a hybrid, half-elected house might not work.
His views were echoed on all sides, with only a handful of peers backing the fully elected chamber demanded by MPs in a vote last week.
Peers are expected to reject the MPs' proposals when they vote on Wednesday.
That would trigger a fresh debate about the composition of the Upper House, as Commons leader Jack Straw battles to reach a compromise with the widest possible backing.
|
We have no reason to fear that if we are removed, the world would come
to an end Lord Desai |
Much is likely to depend on what Gordon Brown, who is expected to take over as prime minister later this year, wants to put in Labour's next manifesto.
Mr Brown supported an 80% elected and 20% appointed upper house in last week's Commons vote but the majority of MPs backed a wholly elected second chamber.
There have been suggestions their ranks were swollen by opponents of reforms who wanted to scupper the plans by ensuring an option unacceptable to either the government or peers was chosen.
'Self-interest'
The Archbishop of York was among those peers to question whether the suggested changes would lead to a better House.
"Despite the apparent fairness of an elected House, seemingly in the interests of democracy, it may ultimately fail this nation in its desire to value freedom."
The archbishop is among 28 senior members of the Church of England sitting on the cross benches and who would no longer be included in a fully elected house.
|
REFORM
PROPOSALS
A 'hybrid' of
elected and appointed peers
Reduce size
of House from 746 to 540 members
End
hereditary and life peerages over time
Elected peers
to be voted in at same time as Euro elections
Maximum time
in office of 15 years for elected and appointed peers
Appointees a
mixture of party politicians and non-party figures
Lords may be
renamed - possibly 'The Reformed Chamber'
Anglican bishops and archbishops to keep seats
|
Labour's Baroness Symons said she would vote for a 100% appointed Lords, as an elected House would threaten the primacy of the Commons.
She said it would be "misleading to give the electorate the right to vote, without the right of the elected to deliver on that vote".
"So I shall vote against all the options on hybridity. Hybridity is not a connection to democracy, it's a connection to constitutional uncertainty and electoral unfairness."
Labour's Lord Desai, who supports a fully elected House, described the MPs vote as "revolutionary".
"If we have an all-elected House it will be a new constitutional arrangement.
"All the conventions we have fashioned will have to be carefully examined and we may have to face up to a written constitution. "We have no reason to fear that if we are removed, the world would come to an end. Perhaps there are other people who could be as good. Let's give the reforms a chance."
Conservative elected hereditary peer, Lord Trefgarne, said he is not opposed to reform but only when it is presented in a more considered manner by the government.
'Momentous change'
Speaking of the White Paper on Lords reform, he said: "Nothing is said about the role of the new chamber, or its powers, the place of the bishops, and many other important matters.
"There should be no more piecemeal reform until the government is ready with thought-through plans, agreed by the Commons and on a cross-party basis, for this momentous change."
Hereditary peer and Liberal Democrat the Earl of Glasgow said: "As a hereditary peer, I have already been abolished once and I don't particularly want to be abolished again. Not quite yet anyway. It really is very unsettling."
He argued for the House not to be turned into a chamber of "professional politicians" but to continue to have "wise men and women and experts and representatives of minority interests".
His preference was for an appointed House - "with perhaps 20% elected, if that would make us feel better".