Downing Street Says » House of Lords Reform Debate/Vote

The Leader produced a list of tables, analysing the breakdown by party, of the votes in the Commons last night. Drawing comparison with the votes on the issue in 2003, which are contained in the Government’s recent White Paper, the Leader said that he found it interesting that there had been a shift in the attitude of MPs on the Government side. It had to be borne in mind that the total number of Government MPs was larger in 2003, while the Opposition (Conservative) MPs were fewer.

Asked if the option of an 80pc elected element of a reformed Upper House was still on the table as an issue which the Government might support, the Leader pointed out that it had been passed by the House of Commons by a lower majority than the 100pc elected option, which had also been approved. He said that the decision-making process on the issue was different from normal Government business for two reasons: firstly, that it had been the subject of a free vote and, secondly, that he had been seeking to work on a consensual basis with the other parties.

Mr Straw said that there would now be a meeting fairly soon of the Cabinet’s constitutional affairs committee, which he chaired, once the result of the votes in next week’s debate in the House of Lords was known. There would then be a meeting of the cross-party group. After that, a decision would be taken on the next step. The Leader said that, as he had commented earlier today, neither of the results for an elected element could be ignored – and nor would they be. Self-evidently, Ministers would take account of the fact that the biggest vote – and majority – was on the fully-elected option.

Asked if that meant that the 100pc elected option was now the Government’s preferred course, the Leader said that it was plain it had been a free vote, and the Government did not have a formal preferred option. The 50pc option had been his own preference – not that of the Government. Mr Straw said the important point was that the fully-elected option was the preference of the House of Commons by a large majority, and that had to be the starting point. In response to a suggestion that it would appear extraordinary to the public that such a big vote for 100pc was not taken as read, the Leader agreed.

Mr Straw said that, while the House of Commons had primacy, it was a bicameral Parliament, and Ministers were bound to take account of the views of the House of Lords – and would do. Asked about the issue of tactical voting last night, Mr Straw said he had heard such reports. However, votes meant what they meant. He had spelt out to MPs twice that they would be voting for the words on the Order Paper and he had to assume that every single MP, who voted for a fully-elected House, meant what they did. There could be no other interpretation, he added. From experience of over 40 years in active politics, he knew that "fancy tactics" never worked. Asked if there would be a draft Bill, Mr Straw said that it was on the Government’s agenda to publish one. Whether it was possible before the end of the current session, he said that remained to be seen. He was not going to announce the content of a Queen’s Speech in advance.

Pressed to say if such a Bill would set out how members of a reformed Second Chamber would be elected, whether a "big bang" solution would be presented and whether it would be a manifesto commitment at the next election, the Leader said the responsibility now was to produce a draft Bill of the kind which, once it was enacted, would give full effect to Parliament’s full decisions. A decision on composition had been taken in principle and account would be taken of the opinion of peers. The Leader said he thought it would be unacceptable to produce a Bill which was merely "loose framework". He said that a major issue for those who supported the options of a fully or partially elected Second Chamber was how the electoral system should operate. There had been a lot of criticism during the debate of the semi-open list system suggested in the White Paper, and the Government would have to heed that. He did not wish to speculate about the contents of a manifesto.

Mr Straw then commented on the views of Lord Strathclyde on the issue. Asked about the prospect of further deadlock and the suggestion that, if there was, there would be little point in proceeding, the Leader said the issue would not be shelved. What he could not indicate was the speed at which it would proceed. There had been a very clear commitment by the Commons, by a very clear majority. He said that embarking on such constitutional change took time. Reform of the Lords was now on the track and moving.

The other point was that he favoured strong Government, and the perception was that it had grown stronger. Mr Straw said that required a strong Parliament. He did not have a problem with a reformed House of Lords which was strong, and said it could be achieved without challenging the primacy of the House of Commons or undermining good governance. He believed it was in the hands of the Commons to preserve its primacy through the Parliament Act, which gave it the final say in all legislation apart from the length of a Parliament. Asked if the votes last night had ended the prospect of a "minimalist" Bill in the interim to remove the remaining hereditary peers, Mr Straw agreed. Pressed to say if he believed that the appointment of new peers should be suspended, the Leader said no.

Asked about the "value for money" cost of a reformed Upper House, the Leader said it was very odd to argue that, in a modern-day democracy, elections cost money. He described a report by a peer this week on the likely costs as "a total confection" and "nonsense". He pointed out that the Government was proposing to reduce the total number of peers in the Upper House, but there was no proposal to pay elected members a salary. Remuneration would be on a per diem basis. The White Paper had made it clear that the advice of the Senior Salaries Review Body would be sought on the level of remuneration. Mr Straw rejected the suggestion that election to the Upper House would be open only to wealthier individuals. Since a reformed Chamber would not be a rival to or a replica of the Commons, it should enable individuals to combine the role of membership with other functions. Asked what name of the new Chamber would be, he said that was a consequential issue.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Thursday, March 8, 2007

House of Lords Reform Debate/Vote

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries