Kavanagh et al: British Politics 5e 
Political commentary
Essay questionsKavanagh et al: British Politics 5e
Ending the deadlock over Lords reform?
The reform of the House of Lords under Labour governments since 1997 stands for many as evidence of the piecemeal, ad-hoc and unprincipled character of New Labour's programme of constitutional reform. Alternatively, the failure to progress reform further following the 1999 House of Lords Act is seen by others as evidence of the intractability and contentiousness of reform of the second chamber.
At the beginning of February, the Leader of the House, Jack Straw, published a white paper outlining the government's latest proposals for completing its reforms of the House of Lords. In it the government proposes that hereditary peerages would be abolished and that life peerages would gradually disappear in a gradual process of transition to a reformed House. The size of the Lords would decline from its present 746 members to approximately 540 members. The government "believes that the centre of gravity on opinions for a reformed House lies around the hybrid option" but proposes that a free vote should be held on the following options for the composition of the House of Lords:
1. All elected
2. 80% elected and 20% appointed
3. 60% elected and 40% appointed
4. 50% elected and 50% appointed
5. 40% elected and 60% appointed
6. 20% elected and 80% appointed
7. All appointed
If a wholly or partially elected second chamber were to be agreed upon, the government proposes that elections should take place using a partially open regional list system, using the same regions and timetable as the European Parliament elections. If Parliament accepts a wholly or partly appointed second chamber, appointments would be overseen by a Statutory Appointment Commission, which would also ensure that 20% of the reformed House should be composed of non party-political members. Members of the reformed House would serve for a maximum 15 year term. One third members would be replaced at each election.
The White Paper initially proposed that MPs should arrive at a decision on options for the composition of the reformed House via an alternative vote, in which MPs would be asked to rank options. However, opposition from MPs forced the government to withdraw these proposals. The fate of the latest proposals will be known following a two-day debate before Easter but some fear the vote generate the same outcome as the Commons vote held in February 2003 (see 'Politics in Focus 19.4'). Will the deadlock on Lords reform be finally broken?
Critical thinking questions
1) How do the proposals of February 2007 differ from the following proposals?
(a) Offered in 2000 by the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, chaired by Lord Wakeham
(b) Contained in the 2001 White Paper, "The House of Lords – Completing the Reform"
(c) Those outlined in the government's September 2003 Consultation Paper "Constitutional Reform: Next Steps for the House of Lords".
2) What do you think were the main reasons why the government withdrew its proposal to employ an alternative vote on the options for composition of the reformed Lords? What impact do you think this decision is likely to have on the outcome of a Commons vote on the composition of the reformed House of Lords?
3) The White Paper notes that "The Government believes that, with the three main parties now committed to reform, there is currently an unusual opportunity to find a lasting solution to this question". Do you agree that this latest attempt to complete reform of the House of Lords will provide a lasting constitutional settlement?
4) What would be the respective merits and shortcomings of the following options?
(a) A wholly elected second chamber
(b) A hybrid second chamber with a composition determined by election and appointment
(c) A wholly appointed second chamber.
Print this page