An article in today’s Times has indicated that ‘Brown will put Lords reform on the back burner’.

For Gordon Brown, a man on the cusp of becoming Prime Minister, a man who has passionately talked about delivering a ‘new constitutional settlement’ for the UK then surely to stall now is conceding ground to the Tories? On one clear issue that the Labour party can put some distance between the Conservative and itself Labour can ill afford to back down. A Tory administration would never push through Lords reform, no Tory leader would risk splitting their vote to get this through – so we know it will only happen under a progressive Labour government.

We need to push this to a vote before the next general election – not fudge the issue with vague manifesto commitments. This is exactly what happened last time, we’ve had a parliamentary committee meeting behind closed doors led by Jack Straw tasked to come up with proposals for the 80% and 100% elected options – why expend the effort only to stall and take no further action when the momentum is building. We don’t need more commitments and words that come to nothing – the mandate is emphatically there, the commons has spoken, the people back reform and so does the Labour party.

With five out of six deputy leadership candidates now backing the Campaign for a Democratic Upper House and a commitment to reforming the House of Lords at the earliest opportunity the momentum is building for progress to be made. For Gordon it’s a win win situation. Yes we all agree there is a lot more to be done, there is a debate to be had over the composition and the method of election, but this is no reason at all to put it off and do nothing, again.

The debate over the Lords has raged on for a long time, in the Labour party it has been a debate lasting a century. Those 100 hundred years have seen us move from supporting the outright abolition, to now recognising the useful scrutinising role of a second chamber and the enhanced democracy this can help deliver; but always there has been a desire to reform it. Brown should move to set these reforms in motion at the earliest opportunity, the debate over the wider constitutional settlement is still to be had – But Lords reform is no longer a debate – there is a massive consensus that reform should be made – reforming the Lords is unfinished business. The argument that the Lords will stall the process is disingenuous – that, is exactly the reason it needs to be started sooner rather then later. It needs to be finished – and proposals need to be brought before the House of Commons before the next General Election.

So Gordon, with five of your potential deputies wanting to move ahead with reform as soon as possible, with public opinion massively supporting reform, and with you in your own words supporting reform: ‘As far as the House of Lords is concerned 80% elected is how I voted’ Lets take the progressive route, the Labour route, the way that Labour been committed to for 100 years to clear, lets do it Gordon, do it for Britain.

Already five of the six deputy leadership candidates have signed up in support of the Campaign for a Democratic Upper House. With ten days to go until the contest finishes at the Labour Party Leadership Conference in Manchester we hope to get all six to pledge their support to this most progressive of causes. Take a look at their voting record; five out of the six voted for a fully elected Upper House, and five out of six for the 80% elected option, all six candidates voted for at least a 50% elected chamber and four of the candidates supporting the campaign so far; Cruddas, Hain, Benn and Harman voted for all the elected options including 100%, whilst Johnson voted for all the elected options up to the 80% elected option.

With all of the deputy leadership candidates voting for at least some elected options and our four supporters voting for it shows that within the Labour movement there is a great desire to fulfil our 100 year old commitment to changing the Lords.

Why not write in and ask all the deputy leadership contenders directly whether they will be supporting a democratic upper house and whether they will work to make this a reality as soon as possible. Its time to choose democracy - the time is now!

• Ask Hilary Benn about his commitment to Lords reform

• Ask Jon Cruddas about his commitment to Lords reform

• Ask Harriet Harman about her commitment to Lords reform

• Ask Peter Hain about his commitment to Lords reform

• Ask Hazel Blears about her commitment to Lords reform

• Ask Alan Johnson about his commitment to Lords reform

There is still one more hustings to take place this Saturday 16th June. Send in your questions to Gordon Brown to pressure him to keep up the momentum on Lords reform and fulfil what the Labour party has been waiting nearly a century for.

Writing in the latest edition of the New Statesman Clive Stafford Smith legal Director of the charity Reprieve makes a compelling and powerful argument for a fully elected House of Lords, taking voting as a fundamental human right that should be championed he exposes the anti-democratic nature of the House of Lords. He writes “Everyone proclaims a commitment to human rights, but in Britain the vision of which rights a human being should enjoy remains opaque… Voting is arguably the most basic of human rights. Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which Britain signed up to nine years ago, requires that signatory states “undertake to hold free elections . . . which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”. The second chamber of Britain’s legislature is the Lords.” He believes that a legal challenge to the undemocratic nature of the Lords could well succeed, but argues that it should not have to come to that, and rightly so.

Condemning the make-up of the cross-party working group led by Jack Straw as “akin to debating the reform or abolition of the monarchy, but limiting the committee to members of the Windsor family and the aristocracy.” Clive Stafford clearly makes the argument that ordinary citizens should be involved in the process of deciding how the reformed Lords should be constituted and elected. He goes on to question some “…striking omissions. Nowhere is it mentioned that the people have a legal and moral right to elect their legislators. The bravest suggestion is that the House should be partially elected, as there is an “expectation that in a modern parliament the second chamber should have a degree of democratic legitimacy”. Only a “degree”?”

He also recognises that there is “a legitimate debate over how citizens should exercise their right to vote, from first-past-the-post to proportional representation. But there can surely be no sensible debate over whether citizens should vote. That is a human right.”

The Campaign for a Democratic Upper House believes that this is an important debate that must be undertaken. Clive Stafford Smith would argue that with the European Court of Human Rights and the House of Commons on the side of democracy then Jack Straw will be pushed in the direction of proposing a fully elected Upper House.

CDUH believes that at the very least he will have to ensure that, whatever the final proportion of elected Lords is, that the reforms are radical, enhance participation at every stage and have a genuine sense of ownership through involving ordinary citizens in the processes to reform the Lords. This is part of the drive that should be led by the Labour movement to renew our democracy and make it fit for purpose in the 21st Century; only Labour can deliver on Lords reform, lets make sure our leaders choose change, because the time for change is now.

Read the article in full here.

As the Labour Party Leadership and Deputy Leadership campaigns roll out across the country Gordon Brown has been attending hustings with Labour party members as part of his ‘Gordon Brown for Britain’ campaign. His vision, he has said, will include a new constitutional settlement in the United Kingdom - part of which will be the reform of the House of Lords.

At each hustings, despite the lack of a challenger, Gordon Brown must take questions from party members on his vision for the future or the issues members want taken up. At the Sheffield hustings Chair of Charter 88 Vicky Seddon asked Gordon Brown via an email question about his commitment to reforming the Lords. She asked ‘After the historic vote for an elected second chamber in the House of Commons, what will you be doing to ensure the momentum is not lost?’

Watch Gordon Browns response to her question on You Tube here (about 7 minutes in).

Gordon Brown replied ‘As far as the House of Lords is concerned 80% elected is how I voted. We’ve now got to wait and see the response to the vote by the House of Lords and Jack Straw will be coming forward with proposals very soon.’

The Campaign for a Democratic Upper House calls on the future leader of our party and of the country, to follow up his commitment to a majority elected upper house - his constitutional settlement must change British politics for good - It cant do this while encumbered by a conservative, antiquated Upper House of Parliament.

Send in your questions to Gordon Brown to pressure him to keep up the momentum on Lords reform and fulfil what the Labour party has been waiting nearly a century for.

The House of Commons voted today on the following motions:

• Support for bicameral Parliament: Ayes 416, Noes 163 (majority: 253).
• Fully appointed: Ayes 196, Noes 375.
• 50 per cent elected, 50 per cent appointed: Ayes 155, Noes 418.
• 60 per cent elected, 40 per cent appointed: Ayes 178, Noes 392.
• 80 per cent elected, 20 per cent appointed: Ayes 305, Noes 267 (majority: 38).
• Fully elected: Ayes 337, Noes 224 (majority: 113).

MPs will vote on Lords reform on Wednesday. This is an opportunity to take a step forward on a subject upon which all three parties want to make progress.

There is, however, a myriad of views on how the second chamber should be reformed, from those who favour a House which remains 100% appointed to those who wish to see an entirely elected Lords. Within that there are those who favour a part-elected, part-appointed ‘hybrid’ House. These differences of view are reflected in all parties.

In our February White Paper, the Government proposed a ‘hybrid’ House, believing that this safeguards the primacy of the Commons and allows for a second chamber which can call on the expertise and experience of non party-political members, while introducing a direct relationship between the Lords and the electorate. This has also been the view of several influential studies, notably the Royal Commission of 2000, the Public Administration Select Committee report of 2002 and the all-party Breaking the Deadlock group in 2005.

I have changed my own view since the last free votes in 2003. I have come to the conclusion that it is difficult to justify a second chamber where the public has no direct input into who sits in that chamber.

Among those who support this argument, there are a range of views about the proportion of the House which should be elected. Some favour 80%, others 60%. The Breaking the Deadlock group suggested 70%. I have proposed a 50% elected second chamber.

My appeal to all those who support election as part of Lords reform is this: don’t make the best the enemy of the good. If our votes splinter and are spread across the ‘hybrid’ options, all might fall: if we set aside our view of perfection and instead vote for progress, we have a better chance of success.

That is why I will be voting for elected elements of 50%, 60% and 80% next week. If we secure a vote favouring an elected element in the Lords, we will have taken a momentous step forward, whatever the proportion which receives most support. If all options are defeated as in 2003, discussions about the size of any elected element in the second chamber will be merely academic. The free votes therefore represent a crucial step towards breaking the deadlock on this issue.

I appreciate that this argument is irrelevant to those who are opposed to election of any kind to the second chamber. I respect their view that the introduction of elections could threaten Commons primacy. I have no interest in doing anything which threatens this fundamental concept or which creates a rival to the Commons. It is not, however, a zero sum game. Introducing elections to the Lords will not lead inevitably to a reduction in Commons power: indeed, the role of the Commons as the primary chamber is underpinned by the Parliament Acts. The evidence of second chambers overseas is that election does not necessarily lead to increased power: some all-appointed second chambers are much more powerful than others which include an elected element.

There is now a wide consensus that the status quo on the Lords is unsustainable, and that the way forward is with a ‘hybrid’ House. In 2007 we need a clear decision on Lords reform; not a repeat of the 2003 impasse.

The Campaign for a Democratic Upper House (CDUH) is a group of Labour Parliamentarians and activists who support a second chamber at least half of which is elected.

We welcome the White Paper and the important change it represents in the thinking of the Government on this issue, led by the Leader of the House, Jack Straw, and supported by the Prime Minister. The forthcoming votes represent the best opportunity for a generation to complete what should be a crowning constitutional reform by the Government. An important step was taken in 1999 with the removal of the majority of the hereditary peers, but a lasting reform remains unfinished business. Read the rest of this entry »