THE END OF THE PEER SHOW?

What next for House of Lords Reform

In a detailed analysis of this week's votes in the House of Commons on the future composition of the Lords, Paul Tyler implores Peers not to give heart to the abolitionists by taking up a trenchant position against any reform of the second chamber.

Paul Tyler writes:

As the long debate on Lords Reform moves into a more decisive phase it is important to examine carefully the voting pattern of MPs last week.

For example, although Tony Blair voted for the Government’s preferred option – 50% elected: 50% appointed – Labour MPs voted against him by a majority of 60 (188 to 128).

Similarly, David Cameron supported his party’s policy (80% elected), but his colleagues declined to follow him, or support their own manifesto commitment, by 98 votes to 80.

Gordon Brown voted against the fully appointed motion, was not present for the Government’s 50:50 option, but was back a few minutes later to support the winning 80% vote.    That may be encouraging for us reformers.

Naturally, all the Liberal Democrat MPs followed their Leader and voted for party policy – 80% or 100% elected – and carried the day.

Meanwhile, Peers of all parties should examine closely the tactics of the 163 abolitionists.  Their core argument during the debates was that any challenge to the primacy of the Commons from the second chamber was to be resisted.   Nevertheless 37 of them later voted for the 80% option.   Having voted to destroy the Lords, they then voted to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the House.

However, much more significantly, a remarkable total of 107 abolitionists – most of them leftwing Labour MPs – subsequently voted for the 100% elected option.  

Why did they do it?  Some of them explained, after the vote, that their purpose was to so provoke recalcitrant Peers into defiant, last-ditch, foot-dragging resistance to all change that the case for abolition would be strengthened.

In the coming debates – and especially when detailed legislation comes forward – those Peers who value our bicameral system should think carefully about the trap that has been set for them.   If the public think that groups of Labour and Conservative Peers are deliberately filibustering in a forelorn attempt to save a widely rejected anachronism they will not be forgiven.

Meanwhile, if Jack Straw needs to make rapid progress with pre-legislative scrutiny of a Draft Bill, I am happy to lend him the one I prepared with Robin Cook, Ken Clarke and others two years ago!