MARCH 29, 2010
House of Lords Fights Reform Effort
Labour proposal hits resistance from within the party and the Lords; questions over Church of England's role
By ALISTAIR MACDONALD
Britain's House of Lords, which has staved off a century of efforts to bring more accountability to its unelected members, is once again fighting a government reform effort.
Less than two weeks ago, the Ministry of Justice said it would lay out proposals for a new effort to reform the 700-year-old institution and force its membership to be elected to their positions, rather than be appointed to them or inherit them. The proposal would shrink the body to 300 members from more than 700 and subject members to a U.S.-style recall system if they are deemed incompetent, a person familiar with the matter said.
But as the Labour government raced to win approval for a proposal on the reforms before it formally calls a spring election—rendering Parliament inactive—the plans ran into a familiar combination of problems. Many members of the House of Lords are protective of their status, and they and some members of the elected House of Commons fear that creating a second elected chamber would weaken the Commons' authority. Now it is "fifty-fifty" whether the proposal will go ahead, this person said.
"We are in a very clear majority" opposing the reform, said David Lipsey, a prominent opponent to such reforms. "We are much better off with a complimentary expert house than a rival democratic house," Lord Lipsey added.
Among democracies, the U.K. is almost alone in having an unelected upper chamber. The Lords, which traces its history back to the 13th century, has 679 so-called peers—most appointed by political leaders—who serve in the Lords for life, as well as 25 appointed by the Church of England, and 92 who inherited their titles. Its primary role is to scrutinize government and amend legislation passed up from the Commons. Unlike the U.S. Senate, it can't directly kill bills, though it can delay and amend them, and the Lords has little say on budgets.
A century of slow modernization by various governments hasn't achieved the often-stated goal of democratizing the body. In 1911, after the Lords repeatedly rejected a budget that taxed wealthy landowners, the Liberal government passed a bill that effectively ended the Lords' ability to directly reject legislation. The Lords could hold up a bill for three successive Parliamentary sessions before Commons could force it through.
In 1958, the then-ruling Conservative Party increased the ability of a government to create peerages, diluting the predominantly hereditary makeup of the Lords. In 1999, after a titanic battle, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair managed to whittle down the number of hereditary peers to 92 as what the government called the "first stage ... to make the House of Lords more democratic."
The Justice Ministry's latest attempt to publish draft legislation came after almost three years of consultation and argument. Janet Whitaker, among supporters of the reform from the Lords, says it is wrong to argue that an elected second chamber would rival Commons. "If you are elected to a position to scrutinize legislation and get Commons to think again, that is what you will do," Baroness Whitaker said.
Minister of Justice Jack Straw had hoped to publish his proposals early this week, but they are being held up amid disagreement from within the Lords and from within his own Labour party.
The biggest disagreement has been over whether the Lords should be fully elected or whether 20% should be appointed. That would allow the Commons still to claim greater legitimacy from the electorate and allow the government to place nonelected members into government by appointing them as Lords, in the way the current business secretary, Peter Mandelson, has been. In the U.K., members of the ruling government must also be members of Parliament.
Other areas of contention have focused on losing the Church of England's 25 representatives, which would effectively question the church's role as the country's established faith.
The battle also involves more trivial arguments, such as what to call the new body. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is against calling it the Senate, the person familiar with the matter said, meaning a reformed Lords may be called something more generic, like the Second Chamber.
A snag in pursuing the latest reform effort came last week when Lord Mandelson—whose place in the government would be in jeopardy without his appointment to the Lords—raised questions at a Tuesday cabinet meeting and later at a meeting Thursday of a government group called the Democratic Renewal Council, the person familiar with the matter said. Lord Mandelson has raised questions about the role of the Church of England bishops who are members, among other worries. Other cabinet members see little point in publishing the draft, given it can't become legislation and will either way be in Labour's manifesto—its official platform for the next election.
The reform process is being led by Mr. Straw, a political veteran who had hoped to get the reforms proposed before the election is announced. That could leave it in the hands of the opposition Conservative Party, which has backed the idea of Lords reform but could have a different agenda if it wins power.
Write to Alistair MacDonald at
alistair.macdonald@wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...284240522.html
Keep The House of Lords? Or Double-Down On It?
Reply With Quote