The Day After – House of Lords Reform Next Steps

July 11, 2012 2:04 pm

Yesterday, Labour MPs contributed to the biggest majority in favour of House of Lords reform in history. We made good on our commitment to support the House of Lords Reform Bill in its progress to the next legislative stage. And our position on this Bill has been clear for many weeks now. We want a reformed House of Lords. It’s a principled position that Labour has held for many years, and our unparalleled track record in reforming the second chamber is testimony to this.

But just because we want to see reform doesn’t mean we will blindly throw our weight behind the Government’s Bill. As it stands, it is a sub-standard Bill – elements of it are unpalatable. So there’s no blank cheque from us. If the Bill as it stands were implemented in full, reform of the second chamber would be botched. And that would set back the whole constitutional reform agenda for a generation. This must be avoided at all costs.

So, we welcome the fact that the Government saw sense yesterday and backed down in their attempt to stifle debate in the Commons on their proposals to reform the House of Lords. The inner workings of Parliament may be a mystery to the general public at large and House of Lords reform might not be their top priority. But the Government have chosen to legislate to reform our second chamber, so it’s incumbent on MPs of all sides to ensure this inadequate Bill is moulded into one more fit for purpose. And that means ample opportunity to debate, amend, revise and improve.

Ed Miliband has already given his assurances that we want to see this Bill make progress. We would support moves to get the Bill to the next stage of the process. So our position is not about opportunism or trouble causing – it’s actually about avoiding trouble down the line by knocking this Bill into shape. And Committee Stage is the opportunity to do this. This is when amendments from Labour, and from others, will be debated and will be voted on. And we’ve been clear we will seek to amend the Bill in a number of ways, including holding a referendum, so it deals better with how the Commons and the Lords work together, and produces a system that is truly democratically accountable.

We look forward to Nick Clegg learning from the past weeks and months, and that he opens a proper dialogue with Labour on how we ensure that reform of the Lords is achieved without resorting to restricting full and proper debate by our parliamentary colleagues. What we need is a proper attempt at consensus, not just one focused on reaching agreement between coalition partners. Instead of solely focusing on satisfying the Government’s backbenchers, the Deputy Prime Minister must work with parliamentary colleagues across the whole House. And yes, I’m afraid it might be a slower process than he’d like, but it is crucial if we are to get this opportunity for reform right and if we are to avoid the plans being at the whim of future changes of government not bought into the proposals. Labour learnt these lessons the hard way during our thirteen years in Government – it’s a shame that our wisdom on this matter has been ignored.

If the Government opts to limit the amount of time available for Committee Stage, the risk is that all of the inadequacies of the Bill won’t have time to be discussed and amended. This would be a mistake. The usual opportunity for further revising of the Bill by colleagues in the House of Lords is, on this occasion, not quite the same option given the Government’s desire to use the Parliament Act to get this Bill approved. If the Act is used, then all amendments made by colleagues in the Lords are discarded – and so only amendments made by MPs will matter. So the work we do in the Commons is doubly important – all the more reason to not artificially limit debate.

We’ve been posed the question how many days does Labour actually want for the debate. That over-simplifies a complex issue – while we know what our priorities are in seeking to improve the Bill, and that we’d like the time to address them, what’s not in our control is the tactics of the rebels on the Government benches. If the rumours are true about “filibuster packs” being produced by rebel Tory MPs, then there’s the very real risk that they will simply talk and talk so there’s no time left for our genuine, constructive concerns to be aired. This is a problem for the Government to sort out.

So, while we remain committed to delivering a reformed House of Lords, there needs to be much more openness from the Government to debate and discuss our concerns, and for there to be a proper two-way dialogue about how those in favour of reform can deliver an effective House of Lords Reform Bill. So far, the Government’s obsession is with those against reform, which is a skewing of priorities. A truly pro-reform consensus can be forged if the Deputy Prime Minister breaks his habit of partisan hectoring, and actually sought to work with Labour in a constructive manner. Our door is not closed.

Sadiq Khan MP is Shadow Secretary of State for Justice with special responsibility for constitutional reform

  • Rob

    Labour are quite right to try to build consensus on this historic opportunity for reform. I hope the Government respond “sensibly”.

  • KeithN

    ‘Labour learnt these lessons the hard way during our thirteen years in Government’. I don’t recall an elected Lords ever being discussed during those 13 years.

    The fact is that Labour has colluded with the Tory rebels to protect the House of Lords, to put privilege and patronage over democracy. The ghosts of the great old socialists of the past will be disgusted.

    • ThePurpleBooker

      Shut up Keith. We voted for the House of Lords Reform Bill in Second Reading but if the abhorrent parts of the Bill are not dropped then we will block it come Third Reading. How about shut up and accept the facts. The Lib Dems never wanted Lords reform in the past. They never voted for it. They are hypocrites.

      • Vicky Seddon

         No need to be rude.

  • Geraint

    Lets hope that the opporunity is used to get a decent reform of the House of Lords. I do not agree that any reform is good reform, it is not. We need to see a upper house that is truly democratic and accountable, that means a proper electoral system, 100% elected and 4 year terms with cannidates able to stand for re-election.

    We also need the right to recall all elected representives, no matter what insitution they sit in.

  • KayCarson

    Thank you for stating Labour’s position. I cannot see how such a massive change to our constitutional arrangements can be passed without a referendum so I welcome that condition. I would also like to see effort to find a better way to elect members to the House of Lords than party lists. One of the reasons the House of Commons is so dysfunctional is that is is needlessly confrontational when most good law needs balanced judgements and not ideology. The whip system is abhorrent to anybody with any sense of freedom of thought and to see it transferred to a revising chamber is appalling to me; I am sure it will be to others. Party affiliation has a place but  members of the legislature are there to use their own judgement not to parrot party lines; that is worse than group thinking. Of course politicians like a system in which once they achieve power they can dicate for 5 years, but that does not lead to good governance and it leads to the polarisation of politics. Please consider an upper chamber in which independent and wise thought is encouraged – it should be a check on the executive, not an enabler to an already powerful one.

  • franwhi

    Funny how Labour want to build consensus  on this particular and historic opportunity on constitutional reform. Why have they failed to seek democratic consensus on another timely piece of constitutional reform which is equally historic i.e. the referendum in Scotland ?
    Labour may sound conciliatory now after the vote but all the arguments Sadiq Khan musters conflict with what Labour tells us in Scotland. For example  the referendum is a distraction from bread and butter issues, why do we need to wait to 2014 and why not bring the referendum forward ? He calls for a proper dialogue with Labour but his party won’t extend this collaborative approach to either the SNP as the largest party in the Scottish Govt nor to meet the democratic aspirations of a majority of Scots who want a referendum vote on more powers for the Scottish Parliament. In terms of constitutional reform I think “democracy” is a word Mr Khan uses very loosely.

  • franwhi

    Funny how Labour want to build consensus  on this particular and historic opportunity on constitutional reform. Why have they failed to seek democratic consensus on another timely piece of constitutional reform which is equally historic i.e. the referendum in Scotland ?
    Labour may sound conciliatory now after the vote but all the arguments Sadiq Khan musters conflict with what Labour tells us in Scotland. For example  the referendum is a distraction from bread and butter issues, why do we need to wait to 2014 and why not bring the referendum forward ? He calls for a proper dialogue with Labour but his party won’t extend this collaborative approach to either the SNP as the largest party in the Scottish Govt nor to meet the democratic aspirations of a majority of Scots who want a referendum vote on more powers for the Scottish Parliament. In terms of constitutional reform I think “democracy” is a word Mr Khan uses very loosely.

  • ThePurpleBooker

    If I am honest I could not support the Bill. It seeks to create a House full of unaccountable Senators staying in post for 15 years without having to face the public again who want to challenge the primacy of the House of Commons and claim a bigger mandate than MPs with patronage and privilege remaining through open lists without ever consulting the people on whether this should continue. A Bill calling for GOOD reform of the House of Lords, would hold a REFERENDUM on whether the House of Lords should be fully elected through the SECONDARY MANDATE. If that eventuality arises then Labour can comfortably campaign for a Yes vote. But this Bill as it stands should be blocked at Third Reading.  

    • Vicky Seddon

       The question is, not whether this proposal is perfect (it isn’t; it was put together to maximise support for it) but whether it is better than the current Lords, of either hereditary presence or appointees by prime ministers. No contest!

      Waiting for a perfect solution merely plays into the hands of the do-nothing dinosaurs.

      • ThePurpleBooker

        It’s got to be perfect! This is the Constitution, the way the country is governed and cannot just be resolved by the Lib Dems low politics! Do-nothing dinosaurs? People who have different views to reformers should not be disregarded as dinosaurs. Lords Reform is no priority and we should not be focusing on it right now and the reason Clegg is trying to avoid a referendum is because he will lose because the British people will be asking why is it that the Government cares so much about a constitutional reform which really does not matter right now when we are losing our jobs, when the economy is in recession, when it’s harder for our children to go to uni, when our taxes are rising, when our bills are going up and when our living standards are under pressure.

  • Vicky Seddon

    A clever piece that masks Labour’s part in defeating the programme motion. Where was the consensus building then?

    We need to see some real leadership that works beyond party point scoring; we haven’t seen it yet from Miliband and Eagle on this and Khan’s smooth words do not convince. 

  • John Ruddy

    ” I dont recall an elected Lords ever being discussed during those 13 years”????
     
    On 7 March 2007, members of the House of Commons voted ten times on a variety of alternative compositions for the upper chamber.  The House of Lords, soon after, rejected this proposal and voted for an entirely appointed House of Lords.

  • Pingback: House of Lords reform is not going to happen this Parliament | Liberal Conspiracy

Latest

  • News Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    From: HERBERT, Nick Sent: 20 May 2013 16:29 To: HERBERT, Nick Subject: Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill – voting today   Dear Colleague Thank you for your support for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at Second Reading. You will be aware of the amendments tabled by Tim Loughton and others (new Clauses 10 & 11) to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples I have no issue with the principle of this proposal, but I am very worried that adding this measure to the [...]

    Read more →
  • News Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

    Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

    Whilst the Westminster village has been working itself up into a lather over the rise of UKIP and when/if there should be an EU referendum, the DWP snuck out a report on the evidence of DWP league tables that we brought you recently. It’s a total whitewash. The report – which you can read here – argues that claims of a league table are entirely down to individual managers at a number of job centres. You could call it the [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

    Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

    So after toying with support for the Tim Loughton amendment over the weekend, Labour has decided to abstain on that particular amendment, and propose their own. Let’s be clear – the most important news today is that Equal Marriage will pass through the commons, and that’s a cause for huge celebration for all but an isolated minority in the Labour Party. I made clear this morning that I didn’t buy the argument that supporting the Loughton amendment would stop or [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour’s Equal marriage Bill amendment on Civil Partnerships

    Labour’s Equal marriage Bill amendment on Civil Partnerships

    Labour MPs will be encouraged to back this amendment – rather than that of Tory backbencher Tim Loughton – today: House of Commons Monday 20 May 2013 CONSIDERATION OF BILL New Amendments handed in are marked thus * MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) BILL MANUSCRIPT AMENDMENT (a) As an Amendment to Secretary Maria Miller’s proposed New Clause (Review of civil partnership) (NC16):- Kate Green (a)(a * Line 8, leave out from ‘practicable’ to end of Clause, and insert ‘and include a [...]

    Read more →
  • News Is Ed Miliband picking a fight with Google?

    Is Ed Miliband picking a fight with Google?

    In his interview with the Observer yesterday, Ed Miliband singled out Google as a company who aren’t “living up to their responsibilities” on tax, saying: ” I don’t think [Google] are living up to their responsibilities at the moment, and I will be very clear about that on Wednesday. It is part of a culture of irresponsibility. If everyone approaches their tax affairs as some of these companies have approached their tax affairs we wouldn’t have a health service, we wouldn’t [...]

    Read more →