Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform Second Report

PART FIVE : CONCLUSIONS

(xxviii) For all of the above reasons the Joint Committee believes that - despite the inevitable cloud of pessimism cast by the votes on 4th February - it may yet be possible to agree a broad consensus on the best way forward.

(xxix) There remains before us an historic opportunity to enact a reform which will enable the second chamber to continue to play an important and complementary role to the Commons, with its future at last secure. Parliament can - if it has the will - rescue reform of the House of Lords from the long grass. Moreover, for so long as this is possible and options for reform remain which have not yet been considered and which might command support, the Joint Committee must be ready to consider and report upon them.

(xxx) Parliament - and especially the democratically elected Commons which is supreme - must now assert itself against the unworthy coalition of those who would not reform the House of Lords at all. History will not look kindly upon our efforts if we fail that test of our resolve. Rather, we will appear willing players in a pathetic Parliamentary farce. That is an outcome we must do everything in our power to avoid.

(xxxi) We therefore ask the Houses of Parliament to give us a renewed mandate, so that the reform of the House of Lords might finally be completed.

APPENDIX 1

Letter sent to members of the Joint Committee by Billy Bragg and others

We, the undersigned, call upon the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform to give further consideration to methods of composition, specifically indirect election by secondary mandate.

This model, recommended by the Royal Commission of the House of Lords (Recommendation 76, paragraph 12.26, 12.27, 12.28), involves counting all of the votes cast for every candidate in the first past the post contest for seats in the Commons and accumulating them at regional level. Parties would secure the number of seats in the second chamber in proportion to their share of the vote, drawing names from a previously published regional list.

In its first report dated 11th December 2002, the joint committee stated the five qualities it considered to be desirable in the makeup of a reformed second chamber:

  legitimacy   representativeness   no domination by any one party   independence   expertise

We believe that the secondary mandate deserves to be considered because:

As a genuine expression of the will of the people, it is legitimate, yet its legitimacy is one step removed from that conferred by the direct election of MPs and so the primacy of the Commons is preserved.

Members elected by secondary mandate will be representative of the regions and nations of the UK.

As the secondary mandate is proportional, the government of the day will not be able to command a majority in both chambers.

Fixed single terms and an absence of ministers in the second chamber will encourage independence.

Experts, often unwilling to stand for election, can be voted onto lists by party activists in local primaries.

At a time of falling voter turnout, we believe that Lords reform is the only issue presently before parliament which has the ability to engage the public in our democratic process. Significantly, the secondary mandate actively encourages participation in the General Election and its is for this reason that we call upon the joint committee to put this option before parliament for debate, alongside other methods of indirect election.

Signatories:

Billy BraggKaren Bartlett, Director, Charter 88Matthew Taylor, Director, IPPR (personal capacity)Will Hutton, Chief Executive, The Work FoundationTom Bentley, Demos Karen Chouhan, Director, 1990 TrustNicholas Boles, Director, Policy ExchangeAnthony Rowlands, Chief Executive, Centre for ReformMartin McIvor, Director, Catalyst (personal capacity)Ed Mayo, New Economics FoundationAnthony Barnett, Open Democracy (personal capacity)Dan Plesch

18th March 2003"

It was moved by the Chairman, That the Chairman's draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

It was moved by Mr Paul Stinchcombe, as an amendment to the motion, to leave out the words "Chairman's draft Report" and insert the words "draft Report prepared by Mr Paul Stinchcombe".

Which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the Committee divided:

Contents  1	Not-Contents  19
Mr Paul Stinchcombe	Janet Anderson Mr James Arbuthnot Lord Archer of Sandwell Viscount Bledisloe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Carter Mr Kenneth Clarke Dr Jack Cunningham Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Lord Goodhart Mr William Hague Lord Howe of Aberavon Mr Stephen McCabe Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay Baroness O'Cathain Mr Terry Rooney The Earl of Selborne Mr Clive Soley Mr Paul Tyler

The amendment was disagreed to.

Then the main Question was put and agreed to.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraph 1 was read as follows:

"1. In December 2002 we said in our First Report that although the re-balancing of parliamentary institutions is something that can only evolve over time, we believed that there was an historic opportunity to enact reform of the House of Lords based on the need for a second Chamber which would continue to play an important and complementary role to the Commons. Our opinion has not changed, although we recognise that the lack of decision on the matter of composition in the House of Commons needs to be resolved. The Committee was unanimous that the status quo is undesirable. Things should not be left as they are; in this Report we emphasise the importance of reasserting the case for reform and regaining the momentum which was recognised by the Commons Public Administration Select Committee in its Report but we also seek a view from the Government about the way forward."

It was moved by Lord Howe of Aberavon to leave out paragraph 1 and insert:

"Introduction

1. In December 2002 we said in our First Report that although the re-balancing of parliamentary institutions is something that can only evolve over time, we believed that there was an historic opportunity to enact reform of the House of Lords based on the need for a second Chamber which would continue to play an important and complementary role to the Commons. However, for the present at least, the scale and nature of that opportunity has now changed.

1A. For not only has there been predictable disagreement between the two Houses. There has also been the lack of decision on the matter of composition in the House of Commons - and indeed, at a late stage, the absence of a clear lead from the Government itself. The effect of these decisions (or lack of them) has been to reduce the pressure for change in any direction. Even if the engines have not actually fallen off the train, their thrust has been diminished.

1B. Even so, this Committee remains unanimous in its view that simply to maintain the status quo is undesirable. The differences between us as to the long-term future structure of the second Chamber inevitably reflect those in Parliament and Government alike. Some of us may have been tempted to believe that the best way to promote the case for radical change is to leave things as they are - and thus exposed to continuing criticism. Others could have been tempted, in the opposite direction, to regard "no change" as an acceptable prescription for an enduring quiet life. Collectively, however, we do not accept either of these views.

1C. Whatever may or may not be decided later - perhaps some considerable time ahead, perhaps not - about the long-term composition of the second Chamber, there are possible changes affecting the effectiveness, representative quality and credibility of the House that can and should be considered and decided now. Things should not simply be left as they are. So in this Report we emphasise the importance of reasserting the case for reform and for regaining at least some part of the momentum, which was recognised by the Commons Public Administration Select Committee in its Report. And we seek from Government a clear response to this Report."

Which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the Committee divided:

Contents  14	Not-Contents  8
Janet Anderson Lord Archer of Sandwell Viscount Bledisloe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Carter Dr Jack Cunningham Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Lord Howe of Aberavon Mr Stephen McCabe Baroness O'Cathain Mr Terry Rooney Mr Clive Soley Mr Paul Stinchcombe	Mr James Arbuthnot Mr Chris Bryant Mr Kenneth Clarke Lord Goodhart Mr William Hague Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay The Earl of Selborne Mr Paul Tyler

The amendment was agreed to.

Paragraph 1C (now 4) was amended.

Paragraphs 2 to 8 (now 5 to 11) were read and agreed to.

Paragraph 9 (now 12) was read.

It was moved by Mr Paul Tyler to leave out paragraph 9 and insert:

"We note that a total of 332 MPs (more than half the House of Commons) voted for a directly elected component of some sort. 299 voted for one or other of the so called "hybrid" options (i.e. a mixed composition of elected and appointed membership). In any case, we consider that it would be a direct negation of the will of the predominant House now to develop proposals to give effect to a fully appointed Second Chamber."

Which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the Committee divided:

Contents  6	Not-Contents  15
Mr James Arbuthnot Mr Kenneth Clarke Lord Goodhart Mr William Hague Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay Mr Paul Tyler	Janet Anderson Lord Archer of Sandwell Viscount Bledisloe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Mr Chris Bryant Lord Carter Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Lord Howe of Aberavon Mr Stephen McCabe Baroness O'Cathain Mr Terry Rooney The Earl of Selborne Mr Clive Soley Mr Paul Stinchcombe

The amendment was disagreed to.

Paragraph 9 was agreed to with amendments.

Paragraph 10 (now 13) was read and amended.

It was moved by Mr Chris Bryant, at the end of paragraph 10, to insert "and that support for a fully elected Second Chamber in the House of Lords was also higher than expected, at 106 or one in four of voting members."

Which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the Committee divided:

Contents  9	Not-Contents  12
Mr James Arbuthnot Mr Chris Bryant Mr Kenneth Clarke Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Lord Goodhart Mr William Hague Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay The Earl of Selborne Mr Paul Tyler	Janet Anderson Lord Archer of Sandwell Viscount Bledisloe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Carter Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Lord Howe of Aberavon Mr Stephen McCabe Baroness O'Cathain Mr Terry Rooney Mr Clive Soley Mr Paul Stinchcombe

The amendment was disagreed to.

Paragraph 10 was agreed to as amended.

Paragraph 11 (now 14) was read.

It was moved by Viscount Bledisloe to leave out the first sentence ("Since we are arguing in this Report for the continuation of the reform process, we consider it necessary to spell out the basis on which this can be taken forward.") and insert "We consider that, if it is the wish of the Houses, it would be possible for the Committee to contribute to the progress of the reform process by investigating and reporting on certain specific issues, which will have to be resolved as part of an overall reform. This should facilitate future decisions on these matters and it would be possible, if thought desirable, to bring into effect some specific changes on the road to overall reform."

Which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the Committee divided:

Contents  13	Not-Contents  7
Janet Anderson Lord Archer of Sandwell Viscount Bledisloe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Carter Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Lord Howe of Aberavon Mr Stephen McCabe Baroness O'Cathain Mr Terry Rooney Mr Clive Soley Mr Paul Stinchcombe	Mr James Arbuthnot Mr Kenneth Clarke Lord Goodhart Mr William Hague Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay The Earl of Selborne Mr Paul Tyler

The amendment was agreed to.

Paragraph 11 was further amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 12 (now 15) was read and amended.

It was moved by Mr Chris Bryant, at the end of paragraph 12, to insert "We recognise that more work may need to be done on how those conventions might need to be codified in, for instance, a new Parliament Act."

Which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the Committee divided:

Contents  6	Not-Contents  15
Mr Chris Bryant Mr Kenneth Clarke Lord Goodhart Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay Mr Paul Stinchcombe Mr Paul Tyler	Janet Anderson Mr James Arbuthnot Lord Archer of Sandwell Viscount Bledisloe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Carter Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Mr William Hague Lord Howe of Aberavon Mr Stephen McCabe Baroness O'Cathain Mr Terry Rooney The Earl of Selborne Mr Clive Soley

The amendment was disagreed to.

Paragraph 12 was agreed to as amended.

Paragraphs 13 to 21 (now 16 to 24) were read and agreed to with amendments.

Paragraph 22 (now 25) was read and amended.

It was moved by Mr Paul Tyler to leave out all after the first sentence ("Even the Member moving the amendment to support the principle of unicameralism, Mr George Howarth, acknowledged that some of the deficiencies he detected in the House of Commons arose from its inability to hold the executive to proper account or to 'scrutinise legislation well enough' because of the very lack of qualities we are saying are essential in a reformed House of Lords. In the Lords debate the link was made by Lord Winston between the expertise that could be brought to their scrutinising tasks and Members' outside experience, in his own case, of medicine. The matter of expertise by independent Members is also addressed by the five qualities we have identified. We read these suggestions and others made in the debates as bolstering us in a view that reform of the Lords must be undertaken to improve overall parliamentary scrutiny of the executive.").

Which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the Committee divided:

Contents  12	Not-Contents  10
Mr James Arbuthnot Viscount Bledisloe Mr Chris Bryant Mr Kenneth Clarke Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Lord Goodhart Mr William Hague Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay Baroness O'Cathain Mr Paul Stinchcombe Mr Paul Tyler Lord Weatherill	Janet Anderson Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Carter Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Lord Howe of Aberavon Mr Stephen McCabe Mr Terry Rooney The Earl of Selborne Mr Clive Soley

The amendment was agreed to.

Paragraph 22 as amended was agreed to.

Paragraph 23 (now 26) was read and amended.

It was moved by Lord Goodhart, at the end of paragraph 23 to insert "However, the absence of any consensus on the future composition of a reformed House of Lords makes it impracticable for us to make further progress at this time on these issues because of the extent to which they are inextricably linked to the composition of the House. We would need a fresh mandate before we could proceed further on resolving these issues."

Which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the Committee divided:

Contents  7	Not-Contents  16
Mr James Arbuthnot Mr Kenneth Clarke Lord Goodhart Mr William Hague Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay The Earl of Selborne Mr Paul Tyler	Janet Anderson Lord Archer of Sandwell Viscount Bledisloe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Mr Chris Bryant Lord Carter Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Lord Howe of Aberavon Mr Stephen McCabe Baroness O'Cathain Joyce Quin Mr Terry Rooney Mr Clive Soley Mr Paul Stinchcombe Lord Weatherill

The amendment was disagreed to.

Paragraph 23 was further amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 24 (now 27) was read.

It was moved by Viscount Bledisloe to leave out "There was a broad opinion that a House of" and insert "As was made plain in the debates in both Houses, any conclusion on the proper size of a reformed House is directly connected with the decision on its composition. There is general agreement that for a wholly or largely elected House".

Which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the Committee divided:

Contents  3	Not-Contents  19
Mr James Arbuthnot Viscount Bledisloe Mr Paul Tyler	Janet Anderson Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Mr Chris Bryant Lord Carter Mr Kenneth Clarke Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Lord Goodhart Mr William Hague Lord Howe of Aberavon Mr Stephen McCabe Baroness O'Cathain Joyce Quin Mr Terry Rooney The Earl of Selborne Mr Clive Soley Mr Paul Stinchcombe Lord Weatherill

The amendment was disagreed to.

Paragraph 24 was amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 25 (now 28) was read.

It was moved by Lord Goodhart to leave out the last sentence ("This is another matter to which the Committee can return in its further deliberations.").

Which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the Committee divided:

Contents  6	Not-Contents  16
Mr James Arbuthnot Mr Kenneth Clarke Lord Goodhart Mr William Hague The Earl of Selborne Mr Paul Tyler	Janet Anderson Lord Archer of Sandwell Viscount Bledisloe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Mr Chris Bryant Lord Carter Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Lord Howe of Aberavon Mr Stephen McCabe Baroness O'Cathain Joyce Quin Mr Terry Rooney Mr Clive Soley Mr Paul Stinchcombe Lord Weatherill

The amendment was disagreed to.

Paragraph 25 was agreed to.

Paragraph 26 (now 29) was read and amended.

It was moved by Lord Goodhart to leave out the last two sentences ("We agree with them that the only way of achieving this is to put the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis. But much work needs to be done on exactly what is needed to produce a widely respected and viable method of appointment.") and insert "But these matters also could only be considered once it has been decided whether there should be appointed members and, if so, how many of them.".

Which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the Committee divided:

Contents  9	Not-Contents  13
Mr James Arbuthnot Mr Chris Bryant Mr Kenneth Clarke Lord Goodhart Mr William Hague Joyce Quin The Earl of Selborne Mr Paul Stinchcombe Mr Paul Tyler	Janet Anderson Lord Archer of Sandwell Viscount Bledisloe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Carter Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Lord Howe of Aberavon Mr Stephen McCabe Baroness O'Cathain Mr Terry Rooney Mr Clive Soley Lord Weatherill

The amendment was disagreed to.

Paragraph 26 was further amended.

It was moved by Mr Chris Bryant, at the end of paragraph 26, to insert "and we note that the least popular option in the House of Commons, apart from unicameralism, was for a wholly appointed Second Chamber".

Which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the Committee divided:

Contents  9	Not-Contents  13
Mr James Arbuthnot Mr Chris Bryant Mr Kenneth Clarke Lord Goodhart Mr William Hague Joyce Quin Mr Paul Stinchcombe Mr Paul Tyler Lord Weatherill	Janet Anderson Lord Archer of Sandwell Viscount Bledisloe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Carter Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Lord Howe of Aberavon Mr Stephen McCabe Baroness O'Cathain Mr Terry Rooney The Earl of Selborne Mr Clive Soley

The amendment was disagreed to.

Paragraph 26 was agreed to as amended.

It was moved by Lord Howe of Aberavon, after paragraph 26, to insert a new paragraph:

"26A. Meantime, and in the possible absence of primary legislation, this is not an issue that can be neglected for long. Two years have passed since the appointment of the last group of new life peers. There is, therefore, a growing need to top up the stock of expertise and of younger members. In order to handle this problem, consideration should, therefore, be given to the appointment of a new and manifestly independent Appointments Commission (composed as recommended by the Royal Commission), and endorsed - as an interim alternative to primary legislation - by an Order in Council, approved by both Houses."

Which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the Committee divided:

Contents  14	Not-Contents  8
Janet Anderson Lord Archer of Sandwell Viscount Bledisloe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Carter Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Lord Howe of Aberavon Mr Stephen McCabe Baroness O'Cathain Mr Terry Rooney The Earl of Selborne Mr Clive Soley Lord Weatherill	Mr James Arbuthnot Mr Chris Bryant Mr Kenneth Clarke Lord Goodhart Mr William Hague Joyce Quin Mr Paul Stinchcombe Mr Paul Tyler

The amendment was agreed to.

Paragraphs 27 to 30 (now 31 to 34) were read and agreed to with amendments.

Paragraph 31 (now 35) was read and amended.

It was moved by Mr Paul Tyler to leave out the last sentence and insert "The Leader of the House made it clear during the Commons debate that if the options for an elected component were defeated it would follow that the method of election - direct, indirect or secondary mandate - inevitably would be irrelevant. We do not feel that we are entitled to examine these further options without a clear statement from both Houses that, despite the votes on 4 February, we are instructed to do so."

Which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the Committee divided:

Contents  7	Not-Contents  15
Mr James Arbuthnot Mr Kenneth Clarke Lord Goodhart Mr William Hague Joyce Quin The Earl of Selborne Mr Paul Tyler	Janet Anderson Lord Archer of Sandwell Viscount Bledisloe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Mr Chris Bryant Lord Carter Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Lord Howe of Aberavon Mr Stephen McCabe Baroness O'Cathain Mr Terry Rooney Mr Clive Soley Mr Paul Stinchcombe Lord Weatherill

The amendment was disagreed to.

Paragraph 31 was agreed to as amended.

Paragraph 32 (now 36) was read and agreed to with an amendment.

It was moved by Mr Clive Soley, after paragraph 32, to insert a new paragraph:

"32A. The Committee recognises the duty on the Government to respond to this Report, but also takes the view that such fundamental reforms of our Parliamentary structure should be led by Parliament. It is for Parliament, and not Government, to decide the final shape and form of our two Houses. We therefore recommend that this Committee continues to examine proposals for the reform of the second chamber, and from time to time reports with recommendations to each House."

Which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the Committee divided:

Contents  8	Not-Contents  13
Janet Anderson Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Carter Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Mr Stephen McCabe Mr Clive Soley Mr Paul Stinchcombe	Mr James Arbuthnot Viscount Bledisloe Mr Chris Bryant Mr Kenneth Clarke Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Lord Goodhart Mr William Hague Lord Howe of Aberavon Baroness O'Cathain Joyce Quin The Earl of Selborne Mr Paul Tyler Lord Weatherill

The amendment was disagreed to

Paragraph 33 (now 37) was read.

It was moved by Mr Paul Tyler to leave out all except the last sentence.

Which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the Committee divided:

Contents  9	Not-Contents  12
Mr James Arbuthnot Mr Chris Bryant Mr Kenneth Clarke Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Lord Goodhart Mr William Hague Joyce Quin The Earl of Selborne Mr Paul Tyler	Janet Anderson Lord Archer of Sandwell Viscount Bledisloe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Carter Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Lord Howe of Aberavon Mr Stephen McCabe Baroness O'Cathain Mr Clive Soley Mr Paul Stinchcombe Lord Weatherill

The amendment was disagreed to.

Paragraph 33 was amended.

It was moved by Lord Carter to insert at the end of paragraph 33 "and then acceptance by both Houses that our work should continue on the lines we have set out".

Which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the Committee divided:

Contents  14	Not-Contents  8
Janet Anderson Lord Archer of Sandwell Viscount Bledisloe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Carter Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Lord Howe of Aberavon Mr Stephen McCabe Baroness O'Cathain Mr Terry Rooney Mr Clive Soley Mr Paul Stinchcombe Lord Weatherill	Mr James Arbuthnot Mr Kenneth Clarke Lord Goodhart Mr William Hague Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay Joyce Quin The Earl of Selborne Mr Paul Tyler

The amendment was agreed to.

Paragraph 33 as amended was agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report as amended be the Second Report of the Joint Committee to each House.

Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House of Commons and that the Lord Howe of Aberavon make the Report to the House of Lords.

Ordered, That such Reports be laid upon the Table of each House.

Ordered, That the Joint Committee be adjourned to a date and time to be fixed by the Chairman.

---

---

Prepared 9 May 2003