Member News
By Tony Grew - 12th October 2010
The government may not give peers enough time to scrutinise plans for reform of the House of Lords, a senior Labour peer has said.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said during yesterday's debate on the purpose of the upper House that the use of the parliament act to force changes would be unacceptable.
"In a paper slipped out by the government just before the recess, it is stated that the reform bill will go to the Commons in November 2011," he said.
"I assume that that would mean the bill coming to your Lordships' House in or around February 2012.
"However, the session is due to conclude at the end of April 2012, so there will be little time to consider the bill, particularly taking into account half term, Easter and the pressure of other legislation.
"Under the terms of the Parliament Acts, if a bill has had longer than a month in the Lords and has not been agreed to, or the Lords has passed amendments that are not agreed between the two Houses, the Parliament Acts could be used to force the bill through.
"I do not think that that would be acceptable."
However, Lord Hunt said he is a supporter of "a more assertive House".
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) condemned plans for elected peers.
"Codification will not work," he told the House.
"We have seen how the European Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have all gradually gained powers.
"Elected chambers will always seek to do that.
"For the umpteenth time in these debates, I ask the essential question: how will the replacement of an appointed House by an elected House improve the performance of Parliament?
"To say that it will make the second Chamber more democratic or legitimate does not answer the question. "
Lord Bilimoria (CB) said the government should heed an old saying.
"'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'.
"To change the nature of the House would be completely to devalue it.
"The whole purpose of this House as a check and balance would be diluted and destroyed.
"This cannot happen, because-ironically-it is the appointed House that is the guardian of our nation, the unelected House that is the cornerstone of our democracy."
Lord Grenfell (CB) said an assertive elected second chamber "would demand greater powers.
"If, as is likely, the primary Chamber refused the demand, the scene would be set for a continuing and bitter struggle between the two Houses."
Baroness Howe (Con) said the difference between the Houses is fundamental.
"If either of the two Houses was to lose its distinctive quality, which is what would happen if elected Members began arriving here, the mother of Parliaments would become a much less effective place and much less of a model to the world, and the British constitution would suffer a gravely damaging blow."
Lord Haskel (Lab) predicted the change would come eventually.
"I know that the public's attitude to the House of Lords is very mixed, but for how long will they put up with unelected peers, in a majority, with real power over their lives?"
Former Commons Speaker Baroness Boothroyd (CB) told ministers that "vague assurances on a vital issue of constitutional reform simply will not do".
"Until we know precisely what powers a reformed second Chamber will have, we cannot subscribe to the wanton destruction of this House in the interests of a new political class that lacks the acknowledged expertise and cherished independence of this institution."
She added: "I have heard many clarion calls for radical change in my time, but never one as feeble and unconvincing as that reply that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
"He might just as well have said, 'I know this is topsy-turvy but it's part of our deal with the Lib Dems so we are stuck with it.'"
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.