Lords reform’s death by a thousand cuts
It was a grisly, tortuous demise meted out on criminal miscreants in late Qing dynasty China. In 21st century Britain, the death by a thousand cuts is reserved for another purpose: polishing off the coalition's Lords reforms.
A joint committee of MPs and peers have been slaving over the government's proposals for the last six months. Cross-party consensus is essential for this change – as is a referendum, which I've written about elsewhere today. Yet what today's report shows above all else is that the devil – and apparently insurmountable division – is in the detail.
Skip to the back of the joint committee's report and you'll find the formal minutes of its proceedings. These detail the votes which have taken place over the last few months. Most committees try to avoid confrontation and seek a 'bland consensus', ironing out extreme views to achieve a text which everyone, from whichever party, can sign up to.
Committee chair Lord Richard acknowledged this morning that wasn't possible. "Crunch issues had to be looked at, crunch issues had to be faced, crunch issues had to be voted on," he said. This process was "the most demanding and wearing", he said, that he had ever had to chair.
Those formal minutes reveal there were 15 occasions on which MPs and peers on the joint committee simply couldn't agree to on a unanimous basis. Fifteen! The privacy and injunctions committee had more disagreements, I'm told by a parliamentary source, but this takes some beating nonetheless.
After the Queen's Speech, when Lords reform will be unveiled as the coalition's new flagship bill on May 9th, the issues which divided Westminster's politicians before it all began will return – of that we can be sure. So here's an analysis of those 15 divisions and what they mean for the political fight to come.
The fundamentals
Even on the basic questions of the coalition's proposals the committee was simply unable to agree. Nine members don't think the Lords should become an elected chamber at all, although all of these (with one exception, the Conservative MP Eleanor Laing) were peers. Just six members of the committee rejected the idea that the Lords moves to an 80% elected contingent, rather than the 100% alternative; Labour's Tom Clarke joined Laing for that vote. Finally, on the controversial referendum issue, there were eight opponents – including the committee's three Liberal Democrats.
Should the Lords be elected?
YES 13 – NO 9
Should the elected Lords be 80% elected, with a 20% appointed element?
YES 16 – NO 6
Should a referendum take place before the Lords reforms are implemented?
YES 13 – NO 8
Primacy
The committee spent more hours agonising over whether the changes would affect the ultimate primacy of the Commons than on any other issue. It held a number of close debates touching on these issues, including three very close divisions that could have gone either way. Twelve MPs and peers felt so strongly about this that they produced a minority report warning about the perils of the reforms on the Commons, flouting convention in doing so. As these voting results show, the coalition's attempts to decisively persuade the political world that its current proposals will protect the Commons have been completely unsuccessful.
What would be the impact of the Lords becoming more assertive?
GOOD THING 11 – BAD THING 12
Would continuing with the existing constitutional conventions be sufficient to ensure the Commons retains primacy?
YES 12 – NO 10
"It is difficult to reach conclusions as to the extent to which the Commons will be able to assert itself over an elected or largely elected second chamber."
AGREE 11 – DISAGREE 12
Has the coalition's decision to hold back legal advice on why it included a cover-all clause guaranteeing Commons supremacy hampered the committee's work?
YES 18 – NO 5
Two constitutional experts, Lord Pannick and Lord Goldsmith, put forward legal advice on how the Parliament Acts might apply to the reforms. Should their advice be left to stand for itself?
YES 12 – NO 9
Membership
Finally, there's a serious of nitty-gritty questions about how members of the reformed upper House would be appointed, for how long, etc. All of these matter: on the issue of whether peers can stand for re-election, for example, critics of the coalition's stance are worried that a non-renewable term will lead to an 'accountability' deficit. Nick Clegg, it should be noted, is very careful to avoid the word 'accountability' when talking about the virtues of his proposals. He prefers 'legitimacy'.
Another close result was over whether ministers could bolster the government's position through a 'payroll' vote. With a majority of just one the committee decided to go against ministers' proposals. The slimness of the result will probably be used as an excuse for it to be ignored. The future role of bishops in the Lords also proved divisive.
Should peers in the reformed Lords be allowed to stand for more than one term?
YES 12 – NO 10
Should the term which peers sit for be 15 years long?
YES 20 – NO 2
Should peers be allocated expenses payments for doing casework?
YES 13 – NO 8
The coalition proposes continuing to appoint a set number of ministers to the upper House. Should these be allowed to vote?
YES 10 – NO 11
Should bishops continue to be allowed to sit as ex-officio members of the Lords?
YES 13 – NO 7
Should the number of bishops in the reformed House be cut from 12, as the coalition proposes, to seven?
YES 5 – NO 13
This unwieldy committee, which usually featured 24 voting members, found itself disagreeing again and again. Its internal conflicts over so many issues will be amplified in the coming months, as opponents of the changes pick holes in its many weak points. Every time this happens the public's opinion of the reforms will be dented further, meaning if this does get put to a referendum a 'yes' result seems very unlikely. 'More politicians?' the alienated man on the street will ask. 'No, thanks.'
