The Partnership in Power policy document committed Labour to “develop reforms for a substantially or wholly elected second chamber”, which is what the current white paper sets out - and was the government position. Several representatives from CLPs and Socialist Societies took forward amendments calling for a commitment to a fully elected second chamber, with various suggestions about the voting system attached, but we successfully built a consensus around the simple deletion of “substantially or”.

At the same time, Baroness Wall put forward an amendment, in reality a wrecking amendment, to remove any mention of the second chamber being ‘elected’, but for it to be filled on merit, arguing that this would make it easier to get good regional, female and ethnic minority representation.The government ministers present argued to stick to the current wording, and for the party not to declare a position on the “substantially or wholly” question, leaving it open. But they were far more concerned about the attempt to stick to the status quo and wreck Lords reform.

Both amendments went to the vote on the Sunday, with the wholly-appointed amendment fell flat, and was overwhelmingly defeated with only a handful of votes for it. Meanwhile, the wholly-elected amendment got a rapturous response, and was voted for by a vast majority of representatives.

This is the crucial sentence from the policy document:

“For this reason we will develop reforms for a [substantially or] wholly elected second chamber and will explore how the existing powers of the chamber should apply to the reformed chamber.”

Alon Or-bach, London NPF representative commented when CDUH spoke to him:

“If Conference approves this document in Autumn, it will mean Labour at last deliver on a hundred-year old commitment to end patronage in parliament. The forum rejected spurious arguments calling to halt reforms and instead showed the clear support across constituency party, trade union and other representatives that a wholly-elected second chamber is the way forward”.

Damien Welfare Campaign Coordinator for the Campaign for a Democratic Upper House said in reponse to the result:

“The Campaign is delighted that Labour’s National Policy Forum has followed the lead set by Ministers and taken a clear line in favour of democratic reform of the Lords. The Campaign was closely involved in lobbying the NPF at Warwick against a last-ditch attempt by some Labour peers to commit the Party to support for a nominated House. A letter was circulated by two leading supporters of the Campaign in the Lords, (Baroness) Glenys Thornton and (Lord) Ivor Richard, which strongly supported the need for the Party to support a democratic second chamber, especially in the light of the recent White Paper. The Campaign was delighted that the amendments for a nominated House were heavily defeated. In fact, the NPF went further, and passed amendments supporting a 100% elected second chamber. While the Campaign remains supportive of a second chamber which is wholly or mainly elected, it warmly welcomes the fact that the NPF has shown its unequivocal support for a democratic outcome on this issue.

Now we need to get to work on the detail. I hope that as many CLPs and individual Party members as possible will take the opportunity to respond to the White Paper over the next few months. Watch this space!”

The Campaign will be producing briefing materials on the key issues in the White Paper, which will be posted on this site.

CDUH can also provide speakers for CLPs wishing to discuss the proposals. If supporters have any questions, or CLPs wish to contact CDUH to arrange speakers, they are welcome to contact us through this website at info@democraticupperhouse.org.uk

Please get your comments in to the Ministry of Justice. The address for responses to the White Paper is:

House of Lords Reform team
Ministry of Justice
6.07
Selborne House
54 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW

Email: lordsreform@justice.gsi.gov.uk

Publication of the paper follows last year’s free votes in Parliament in which the Commons voted in favour of a wholly elected second chamber and for an 80 per cent elected chamber.

The White Paper presents models of how the chamber might work if membership was wholly or 80 per cent elected. It is the platform from which the next stage of reform will be developed.

CDUH Coordinator Damien Welfare commented:
“The White Paper is a very considerable step forward in setting out a detailed plan for Lords reform and how it would work, with substantial parts of it now agreed on a cross-party basis. As Jack Straw said in the Commons on 14th July 2008, this is a considerable achievement.

Now we have to work to make it a reality. I call on Labour members across the country to express their support for the White Paper, and for a manifesto commitment in the next Labour manifesto to introduce legislation for a wholly or largely elected second chamber along the lines set out in the White Paper. I urge Labour members, and Constituency Labour Parties, to submit comments to the Justice Department on the White Paper’s proposals, and why in the 21st century both Houses of Parliament must be democratic.”

Justice Secretary Jack Straw said it demonstrated a pragmatic approach aimed at the widest possible consensus on a reformed second chamber.

“The participation of members from all sides in discussions has been invaluable, and I am extremely grateful to them for the constructive approach they have adopted.‘The established primacy of the House of Commons in Parliament should remain, and forms the core of the proposals, which outline how reform of the second chamber could be achieved.

‘In our view, the proposals are a unique opportunity to create a more legitimate, effective and representative chamber.”

Labour Clears the Way!

MONDAY 24th September 9 - 11pm

Deaville Suite, Trouville Hotel, Priory Road, Bournemouth, BH2 5DH

A Rally for supporters of Lords reform with:

Billy Bragg - Singer Songwriter

Tony Benn

Lord Hunt - Minister of State Department of Justice

Angela Eagle MP

Followed by a Labour sing along led by Martin Linton MP and the Battersea Singers Choir.

All welcome, you do not have to be a Labour Party Member or supporter to attend

Food and wine provided

For more details email info@democraticupperhouse.org.uk

For directions to the Trouville Hotel see here and for a map see
View Larger Map

Wouldn’t it be outrageous if it took Parliament more than 100 years to fulfil its commitment to replace the House of Lords with something democratic?

Sadly, that is precisely what may happen. Today marks the 96th anniversary of the Parliament Act 1911 in which Parliament committed itself to replacing the House of Lords with “a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis” adding that “such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation.”

At the time, you might have thought that would mean the House of Lords would be replaced by a democratic second chamber in 10, maybe 20 years. You would have been forgiven for not thinking that by the turn of the millennium, House of Lords reform would remain incomplete!

The good news is that the House of Commons and the Government have now firmly committed themselves to an 80% to 100% elected second chamber. The Commons voted for this in March. The Government confirmed its support for this last month. The House of Lords, perhaps not surprisingly, disagrees. As a result, although it is planning to publish its full plans for reform later this year, the Government is resigned to the fact that reform won’t be completed until after the next General Election.

We now have just four years before the centenary of the 1911 Parliament Act.

For full details of Lords Reform Day being run by the Elect the Lords Campaign please see the Elect the Lords Website.

Damien Welfare, Co-ordinator of CDUH, commenting on the statement said:

“The Campaign for a Democratic Upper House welcomes the substance of Mr Straw’s statement. We would have preferred though to see faster progress towards the introduction of legislation for a reformed second chamber”

“Jack Straw has indicated that the Labour party should move towards a clear manifesto commitment to assist the passage of legislation. We welcome this and will campaign to ensure that Labour’s historical commitment to reforming the House of Lords is finally fulfilled. We will campaign to have a clear and unambiguous commitment to securing this reform as early as possible agreed and written into the next Labour Party election manifesto”

The statement from Jack Straw followed further cross-party talks in the light of the votes in the Commons on 7^th March 2007 in favour of a second chamber which was 80% or 100% elected. In his statement on constitutional reform on 3^rd July 2007, the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, had said that the Government should proceed in line with the wishes of the House of Commons.

Jack Straw said that over the coming months the Government would look at “how best to deliver a substantially or wholly elected second chamber”, based on a House which was 80% or 100% elected. The cross-party talks would continue and look at all aspects of a reform package. Jack Straw also intends to make arrangements so that the Government can take account of the views of Parliamentarians, interest groups and the public; the Campaign for a Democratic Upper House intends to utilise this opportunity fully.

The next steps are intended to be a further White Paper around the turn of the year, possibly accompanied by draft clauses forming elements of the final reform Bill. The Government intends to formulate a “comprehensive reform package” that Labour will put to the electorate as a manifesto commitment at the next General Election, and which it is hoped the other main parties would also include in their manifestoes.

Jack Straw said that he wanted to make clear progress, so that “in the first session of the new Parliament, we can introduce a final measure”. The Campaign for a Democratic Upper House will campaign to make this promise a reality.

Join us and help build the campaign in your CLP, your Trades Union, your Labour Council and in our Labour party!

The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Jack Straw):

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the way forward on reform of the House of Lords.

On 7 March 2007, after the free votes in both Houses, I said that I would make arrangements to reconvene the cross-party working group and that, after discussions with that group, I would return to the House to make a statement outlining the Government’s plans. Those free votes marked the fulfilment of the specific terms of one of our manifesto commitments on Lords reform. While the votes were an important milestone, we must not now lose the opportunity to make further and more fundamental reform happen.

In March, this House voted overwhelmingly—indeed, by a majority of 113—for a wholly elected House of Lords. It backed by a margin of 38 a substantially elected House based on an 80 per cent. elected and a 20 per cent. appointed element. It also voted by a majority of 280 to remove the remaining hereditary peers. As part of a comprehensive package of reforms, the Government are committed to removing the anomaly of the remaining hereditary peers, in line with the will of this House.

As this House will be aware, at the same time the other place voted for a wholly appointed House by a majority of 240. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement of 3 July that we should proceed in line with the wishes of this House, which all accept is the primary Chamber. That approach was underlined in the Green Paper on constitutional reform, “The Governance of Britain”, which I published on the same day. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are committed by their 2005 manifestoes to a substantially elected House of Lords. [ Interruption. ] There was no commitment in the Conservative or Liberal Democrat manifestos to a free vote.

Tomorrow in the other place Lord Steel’s private Member’s Bill on Lords reform will have its Second Reading. My noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath will expand on our response when he speaks in that debate; suffice it now to say that the Bill does not contain the comprehensive reform that is the clear will of this House.

The cross-party talks before the free votes were successful in building up a significant degree of consensus on a range of issues, as reflected in the White Paper on House of Lords reform, which I published in February. I believe that this is the best way of proceeding. I shall continue to lead the cross-party talks, and since the free votes, we have held two further meetings. Given that all three main parties are committed by their manifestos to further reform of the House of Lords, it is right that the group should consist of Front-Bench representatives of the parties, as well as representatives from the Cross Benchers and the Lords Spiritual. But of course we want the widest possible consensus and I intend to make arrangements so that we can take proper account of the views of all parliamentarians, including non-party independent Members, and interest groups and the public.

The White Paper adumbrated the view that the consensus was for a hybrid House involving a 50 per cent. elected and a 50 per cent. appointed element. However, since both Houses rejected that option—notwithstanding my advocacy of it, or perhaps because of my advocacy of it—we will have to proceed with remodelling our work based on an 80 per cent. or 100 per cent. elected House of Lords.

Although there is agreement on some of the areas outlined in the White Paper, there is still some way to go on some other issues. The group will discuss the outstanding elements of the reform package, including powers, electoral systems, financial packages, and the balance and size of the House, including diversity and gender issues. We will also need to discuss the transition towards a reformed House in detail, including the position of the existing life peers and the need for action to avoid gratuitously cutting Conservative party representation in the Lords when and if the remaining hereditary peers are removed.

Let me turn to the powers of a reformed House. The Government have always said that the balance of powers between the two Houses described by the excellent and recent Cunningham report should apply to a reformed House. Those powers are currently underpinned by some statutory provisions, standing orders and conventions. We undertook to look further at whether the current conventions were adequate to ensure the desired relationship with a reformed House, following the free votes.

Over the coming months, we will look at how best to deliver a substantially or wholly elected second Chamber, based on the principle that this House is the primary Chamber and that an elected House of Lords should complement the House of Commons and not be a rival to it. As part of that programme of work it is vital that the relative powers of a reformed House be made clear. We will therefore look at ways to enshrine in a constitutional settlement the current balance of powers and the different roles of the two Houses.

The Government are determined to proceed with this programme of reform with a view to its completion. In dealing with such a central element of the constitution, it is right that there be as much all-party agreement as possible. I accept that there may well not be total agreement, but the constitution does not belong to any one party and it should not be used as a partisan tool.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): It does not belong to you, either.

Mr. Straw: The immediate next steps are that I hope to be able to publish a further White Paper around the turn of the year setting out where we have got to in the cross-party talks—possibly accompanied by draft clauses that would form elements of the final reform Bill. Our intention through the work of the cross-party group is to formulate a comprehensive reform package that we would put to the electorate as a manifesto commitment at the next general election and which hopefully the other main parties would include in their manifestoes. [ Interruption. ] There may of course be areas on which each party takes a different view—and we have heard some of them already. However, there is the potential to reach a degree of cross-party consensus that will lead to the completion of Lords reform. The free votes in the Commons in March gave us a clear direction of travel on an issue that has dogged the country for decades. We now have a chance finally to finish the job.

The Campaign for a Democratic Upper House welcomes the 21^st Labour leader since 1906 and the now Labour Prime Minster to his new role. We hope that the Prime Minister’s calls for a ‘new constitutional settlement’ will be a top priority as he undertakes ‘the work of change’.

“The need for change cannot be met by old politics,” Gordon Brown said as he pledged to build a government that would use all the talents “in the spirit of public service that will make our nation what it can be”.

Gordon Brown said during the leadership hustings that:

‘As far as the House of Lords is concerned 80% elected is how I voted ’Watch Gordon Browns comment on Lords reform on You Tube here (about 7 minutes in).

The Campaign for a Democratic Upper House calls on Gordon Brown to fulfil the historic Labour commitment, the Labour manifesto commitment and current party policy and move with all haste to reform the House of Lords. If Gordon Brown is serious about change then his constitutional settlement must change British politics for good - It cant do this while encumbered by a conservative, antiquated, and totally undemocratic Upper House of Parliament.

The Campaign for a Democratic Upper House welcomes the election of one of our key supporters to such an integral position as Labour looks to rebuild the party from the grassroots. We now call on Harriet Harman to use her new position as deputy leader to push for the democratic reform of the Lords at the earliest possible opportunity, a reform that not only is Labour committed to in its manifesto but a cause that is supported by party members from the Lords, to MP’s to CLP secretaries, chairs, officers and ordinary party members.

Harriet Harman wrote to us to say why she supports the Campaign for a Democratic Upper House:

I voted for a fully elected House of Lords, and have always voted for the most democratic formulation offered to Parliament. A 100% elected House of Lords removes unquestionable right from all positions in Parliament.

With Cameron’s New Tories on the offensive in trying to take on the ‘progressive’ mantle, Gordon Brown, who has repeatedly indicated his support for democratic reform of the House of Lords, voting for an 80% elected second chamber in the Commons earlier this year must ensure that he chooses progress over patronage.

It seems our Prime Minister for the next week - Tony Blair, feels the need to defend the status quo, and thus his reputation, with the cash-for-peerages controversy still hanging over his head. But it is equally clear that Gordon Brown must make a clean break with the past by calling for a programme of reform sooner rather than later. Labour must reassert its hold over the progressive agenda and clear the way for the necessary and popular reforms of the Lords.

A clear majority of MPs voted for both the 80% and fully elected options this March. The Campaign for a Democratic Upper House calls on Gordon Brown to adopt a new approach by announcing a programme of democratic Lords reform early in his premiership