History > 2007 > UK > House of Lords (I)

12.45pm update

Human rights law

applies in Iraq killing,

lords rule

Wednesday June 13, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Weaver

The House of Lords today delivered a resounding blow to British conduct in the war in Iraq by ruling that human rights law applies in the case of an Iraqi civilian who died in UK custody after alleged torture.

The law lords decided that the UK was obliged to conduct an independent investigation into the death of Baha Mousa, who died after sustaining 93 separate injuries in Basra in 2003.

In a four-to-one verdict, the lords ruled that the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights applied to the conduct of British troops in Iraq.

They upheld a court of appeal ruling of December 2005 that the UK authorities had "extra-territorial jurisdiction" concerning Mr Mousa, a 26-year-old hotel worker.

But the families of five other Iraqi civilians killed in different incidents in Basra, but who were not in detention, were told their cases were not covered by UK human rights law.

The families will now take their cases to the European courts.

Lawyers for Mr Mousa's family and civil rights campaigners said a full inquiry should now be conducted into the circumstances of his death.

Before the hearing they released pictures and records detailing the 93 separate injuries to Mr Mousa, including a fractured nose, four broken ribs and a ligature mark around his neck.

They dismissed suggestions that a full investigation had already been conducted at a court martial hearing into whether seven soldiers had abused Mr Mousa and others.

Six of the men were cleared of all charges.

Today's ruling means that anyone held in custody abroad by the British Army, will be protected by the Human Rights Act. As such they will have a right to life, a right not to be tortured and the right to access to a fair trial.

The ruling therefore strengthens Mr Mousa's family case for compensation against the British Army.

It also means where a death in custody occurs, a public inquiry will have to be held. But it is unclear whether the government is obliged by the Lords' ruling to hold an inquiry in Mr Mousa's death, because the court martial may be deemed sufficient.

The director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, hailed today's ruling as a "landmark decision".

She said: "Our law lords have today ensured that there can never be a British Guantanamo Bay. The British will never be able to build a prison anywhere in the world and say it is a legal black hole.

"As a result of this landmark decision the Human Rights Act protects anyone detained by the British government."

She said ministers and military officials should now be held to account for the death of Mr Mousa.

"Individual soldiers cannot be ... scapegoated for the failures of the British government and the military high command. It is too easy to blame it on a few rotten apples."

She added: "This decision means there must be a full, independent and public inquiry into how this scandal occurred."

Phil Shiner, the lawyer representing Mr Mousa's family, said Mr Mousa and others had been "hooded, stressed and sleep deprived" - practices all outlawed by the government of Edward Heath in 1972.

"How is it that at the highest level - even after Mousa had died - there was ignorance of the fact of the 1972 ban?" he asked.

Martyn Day, the personal injury lawyer for Colonel Mousa, Baha's father, said: "The British army will now always be held to account for their actions when people are bought under power. There will be no difference whether this happens in Birmingham or Basra."

He also issued a statement from Colonel Mousa who said: "I hope that, as result of this judgement, the truth will come out and that no other family should have to experience what me and my grandchildren have gone through."

    Human rights law applies in Iraq killing, lords rule, G, 13.6.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2101835,00.html

Top UK Court Rules on Iraqi Deaths

June 13, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 5:09 a.m. ET
The New York Times

LONDON (AP) -- The House of Lords on Wednesday rejected claims by families of five people killed in Iraq that European human rights law applied to the conduct of British troops in the country.

The issue arose in the case of six Iraqis who were killed by British troops in separate incidents in 2003. The case was brought by the families of the victims; the government has accepted that the human rights provisions applied to one victim who was in British custody.

However, the court found no reason to apply those protections to the other cases.

''Leaving the other rights and freedoms on one side, with all its troops doing their best, the United Kingdom did not even have the kind of control of Basra and the surrounding area which would have allowed it to discharge the obligations'' of the human rights treaty, Lord Bingham wrote in the lead opinion.

    Top UK Court Rules on Iraqi Deaths, NYT, 13.6.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Britain-Iraq-Deaths.html

Lords throw out plans

for Manchester supercasino

· Three-vote amendment victory deals fatal blow
· Jowell forced back to drawing board

Thursday March 29, 2007
Guardian
Tania Branigan and Patrick Wintour

The House of Lords last night threw out controversial plans to site a supercasino in Manchester, despite Tessa Jowell's last-ditch attempt to win back support with a package of concessions.

A fatal amendment - passed by three votes - forced the culture secretary's gambling reforms back to the drawing board, rejecting 16 smaller venues as well as the Las Vegas-style casino.

The government needed majorities in both houses, rendering its 24-vote victory in a simultaneous Commons division worthless. "Ministers will want to reflect and come back to this elected house in due course with proposals as to how to take this policy forward," said the culture secretary, who had previously warned there was "no plan B".

MPs suggested she would have to separate the casinos, allowing the less contentious local venues to proceed, because she cannot bring back the same order for six months.

Richard Caborn, the sports minister, told Channel 4 News: "Sixteen of these casinos could well go ahead tomorrow."

But isolating the decision on the supercasino could intensify arguments over its location and regulation. Finding parliamentary time for one or both issues could also be difficult: the house rises for recess today and on its return enters "purdah" - where it cannot discuss political decisions which are sensitive locally - before the May council elections.

Labour's leadership transition is likely to begin shortly afterwards and MPs believe Gordon Brown is not keen to see an expansion of the gambling industry, citing the 50% tax rate he introduced for the largest casinos in last week's budget.

The decision to site the supercasino in Manchester was made by an independent panel, but angered MPs in Blackpool, which had bid for the venue, and came under fire after a Lords committee questioned whether its social impact and effect on economic regeneration could be monitored. Opponents argued that a joint committee of both houses should reconsider the panel's choice of location. Other critics were concerned about the risks of gambling addiction.

Last night's vote was only the third time the upper chamber has rejected a government order, prompting speculation that ministers had concentrated too heavily on wooing backbench MPs and had not paid enough attention to the Lords.

Others claimed that Lord Davies of Oldham, speaking for the government, had undermined its case by appearing to suggest that it was accepting a rival amendment only in spirit.

Only 105 Labour peers - around half the party's total - backed the order, with 12 rebelling by voting for the Liberal Democrat amendment. It was also backed by around 30 Tories, who were granted a free vote. "Ultimately, this is a triumph for parliament and will ensure public confidence in its scrutiny function and ability to hold the government to account," said Lord Clement-Jones, who tabled the amendment.

Earlier, Ms Jowell had offered Blackpool MPs a regeneration taskforce and promised to set up a joint committee to look at whether it should be the prime candidate for a supercasino in the next parliament. She told MPs the committee should look at the lessons of the process of the siting of the casinos, but said it would not be able to rescind the licence for Manchester.

Mr Caborn accused Conservatives of opportunism for voting against the order despite supporting the proposal for a supercasino in last year's gambling bill.

But the shadow culture secretary, Hugo Swire, insisted: "Our priority has always been ensuring that we minimise the effects of gambling addiction, yet the government was more concerned with forcing through this legislation. It would be unthinkable for the government to attempt to bring back these same proposals."

    Lords throw out plans for Manchester supercasino, G, 29.3.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2045198,00.html

Leader

Democracy - after 700 years

March 7, 2007 8:34 PM
The Guardian

Tonight, after playing what one of them called a game of constitutional sudoku, MPs settled the future of Britain's upper house in a dramatic and uplifting fashion. After two days of debate they surged together in a vote to send elected members to the House of Lords after 700 years. Offered nine conflicting flavours of reform, and the chance to say no to all of them, MPs bucked themselves up in the most radical manner possible and chose the best option by the biggest majority, an all-elected upper house, redeeming the Commons confusion that held back change four years ago.

The message from MPs to the frontbenches of all parties could hardly have been sharper, stronger support for a democratic upper house than anyone had thought likely. The case for full democracy won the day. Cash for honours, and concern at the appointment of peers which has followed, may have played a part in undermining the government's case for a hybrid house. But the outcome was also a tribute to Jack Straw, whose adept handling of the debate allowed MPs to improve on the government's proposals without ministers losing face. It was a night for progressives to feel proud.

What follows will depend largely on Gordon Brown. Assuming he takes over the Labour leadership this summer, he must decide whether he wants the Lords to become one of the dominant issues of his first couple of years in the job. Yesterday he ended the mystery about what sort of upper house he wants by voting on the issue for the first time, backing election. That is not the same thing as putting his energies behind Mr Straw's reform white paper, or deciding to hand over parliamentary time to legislation which will not be ready until the next session and which will take at least a year to pass and several decades to put fully into effect. But is surely a sign that he intends to push ahead.

The task now will be to nail down other fundamentals of reform, starting with the chamber's powers, which Mr Straw says he wants to refer to a joint committee (though he argues, sensibly, that the present position is the best starting point). It is not yet clear how the new elected members will be chosen, or who will stand. The white paper proposes a partially-open list system, which in theory allows voters to rank candidates by preference but in practice will hand the choice to parties.

The opposition parties reject that, and are right to do so, although the Conservatives offer no alternative of their own. Opposition parties (particularly the divided Tories) will quibble over such details - and there is much to quibble about. But the destination has been decided and the business of getting there should be got underway as soon as possible. That means moving rapidly from the white paper to a bill. There should be no heeding talk of postponing action until after the next election, by making it a manifesto issue. The momentum of last night's vote should be followed by action.

Next week the House of Lords will debate its own demise and in the wake of such a radical and unexpected outcome, it can hardly question the fundamentals of change. But there will certainly be attempts to frustrate progress by questioning the details. The absurdities, though, all lie in the current, half-reformed upper house, as the Lords themselves demonstrated yesterday.

While MPs were backing democracy at one end of their building, the small band hereditary peers voted at the other in a private election to restore Lord Charles Alan Andrew Cathcart to his place on the Conservative benches. Kicked out once, in 1999, Lord Cathcart is coming back to fill a vacancy, benefiting ludicrously from a half-finished constitutional modernisation which must now be completed, in the interests of democracy and good government. The next time someone is elected to the upper house, they should be chosen by the people. MPs got it right last night: now they must put that choice into effect.

    Democracy - after 700 years, G, 8.3.2007, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/leader/2007/03/last_night_after_playing_what.html

Historic vote

for all elected House of Lords

Historic vote for all elected House of Lords MPs' action
may lead to most radical change to upper house in 96 years

Thursday March 8, 2007
Guardian
Will Woodward, chief political correspondent

MPs delivered a historic vote in favour of a wholly-elected House of Lords last night, setting themselves up for a confrontation with peers that could lead to the most radical change to the upper house for 96 years. The Commons voted by 337 to 224 in favour of a 100% elected Lords, the first time they have come to terms with the idea that they could coexist with an elected element in the upper house.

Jack Straw, the leader of the Commons, hailed "a dramatic result in the history of the British parliament", although the vote was merely indicative and not part of a bill for reform of the Lords.

The hopes of reformers were tempered by the knowledge that some traditionalist MPs voted for 100% elections as a deliberate ploy to sabotage hopes of getting consent from the Lords themselves.

Some opponents of the so-called "hybrid house" expressed delight with the result. One Labour critic said: "The Lords will look at this and say 'We're all doomed', so they'll throw it out."

Tory whips accused their Labour counterparts of cynically encouraging MPs who had voted against an 80% elected element to go on and vote for 100% elected - "because they know its toxic". Some MPs claimed the true view of the Commons may be closer to the narrow 305-267 vote in favour of an 80% elected element, the only other positive vote last night as MPs went through a menu of options for the future shape of the upper chamber.

In an embarrassment to Tony Blair and Mr Straw, the author of last month's white paper on Lords reform, MPs rejected their proposals for an upper house that was 50% elected and 50% appointed. That vote was the only one Mr Blair took part in but in the votes MPs rejected his view by a bigger margin than any other. Mr Straw voted against the 100% option but other cabinet ministers including David Miliband, Hazel Blears, Peter Hain and Alistair Darling voted for it. John Prescott, who abstained on 100%, was said by one senior minister to be "steaming" about the vote. Peers will hold their own vote on Lords reform next week. Mr Straw believes the peers are virtually certain to vote for a wholly appointed second chamber, but he said last night the overwhelming support for change in the Commons would give peers "pause for thought". He said the vote was more than a mandate for reform. A draft bill is expected in the next few weeks, but much could still depend on what happens after Mr Blair leaves office.

If Gordon Brown succeeds him, the fate of Lords reform may depend on his commitment to pushing this through before the next election. Last night allies indicated that he was prepared to pursue legislation either side of the next election, but Mr Brown's appetite for a constitutional clash in his first years as prime minister may well be small. The chancellor voted for an 80% elected upper chamber, but failed to vote for 50% and 60% elected elements, as he intended, because he was waiting to hold a short meeting with Mr Blair about a cabinet away-day tomorrow.

Mr Straw will begin crossparty talks with the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats on how elections to the Lords should be held and other aspects of the white paper he unveiled last month. They include: elections held in the same constituencies as for the European parliament, through proportional representation, for 15-year terms, elected in thirds; a cut in the number of peers to 540; retention of Anglican bishops in the Lords; and the eventual removal of hereditary peers.

Under Mr Straw's plan, the prime minister would lose his right to appoint peers, but along with other party leaders would recommend candidates to an appointments commission. If legislation were to reflect the Commons' vote, it would be the most dramatic change to the Lords since Lloyd George's "people's budget" of 1909 sparked a constitutional crisis leading to the 1911 Parliament Act.

Government sources indicated they were prepared to argue for the Salisbury convention, under which the Lords do not oppose the government on measures promised in its election manifesto. That is likely to be contested by peers, on the grounds that the measure was not sufficiently spelled out in Labour's 2005 manifesto. The government could invoke the Parliament Act, which allows the Lords to delay legislation passed in the Commons by one year. But Labour's success in using that measure will remain dependent on how quickly it gets any bill on Lords reform through the Commons - and when the election is.

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, voted for 80% elected but did not vote on the wholly-elected chamber. He is yet to commit to Lords reform in his next election manifesto. A source close to the Tory leader said: "We are being responsible with the options the government is putting forward."

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, said: "After nearly 100 years, the Commons has at last taken the momentous step to reform the upper house ..." Some MPs believe the key change from the last vote on Lords reform, in 2003, is that a swath of younger MPs replaced older, more conservative members of the Commons at the last election. They rowed in behind a 100% elected house. Some senior MPs, too, were opposed to any hybrid element.

Mr Straw told Channel 4 News: "The vote on 80%, a very substantial elected proportion, went through by a significant majority of getting on for 40. This vote [for 100% elected] was probably inflated a bit by that kind of tactic, but there isn't any doubt that the sentiment of the house is at that end ... An absolute majority in the House of Commons voted knowingly for 100% elected House of Lords."

Theresa May, the shadow leader of the house, said: "Tonight's votes are a victory for democrats. The House of Commons has clearly expressed a preference for a substantially or wholly elected House of Lords. But this is only a first step. "

Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader, said "some of those voting for 100%-elected did so because it would kill it off".

    Historic vote for all elected House of Lords, 8.3.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/lords/story/0,,2028928,00.html

Votes hailed as an historic victory

for British democracy

March 08, 2007
From The Times
Greg Hurst, Political Correspondent

The leader of the Conservative peers gave warning last night that the Government had begun a process of unpicking Britain’s constitution after MPs backed a fully elected House of Lords by a large majority.

Lord Strathclyde, who supported an 80 per cent elected second chamber in the face of near-unanimous opposition from Tory peers, said that an all-elected Lords opened a host of questions, including the establishment of the Church of England, because 26 bishops have seats in the House.

He tried to pour cold water on the mood of celebration among reformers by pointing out that the votes rejected the preferred options of Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons, of a half-appointed, half-elected chamber. “This is a repudiation of Jack Straw’s White Paper, which was an attempt to create a consensus, and the House of Commons seems to have voted for a very substantially or an all-elected House,” Lord Strathclyde said.

“Now the devil will be in the detail. There are major questions that need to be asked, particularly about the method of election.”

The Lords will vote on the Government’s proposals for reform next Tuesday and had been expected to reinforce their support for an all-appoint-ed chamber, although some peers will reflect on the implications of the Commons votes.

Such comments failed, however, to deflect the jubilant reaction from supporters of Lords reform as politicians and campaigners on both sides agreed that last night’s votes represented an historic moment.

Mr Straw, relieved that the Government had avoided the stalemate of four years ago, when MPs rejected all options for Lords reform, hailed the outcome as a breakthrough. “The House of Commons has broken the deadlock,” he said. “It is a dramatic result in the history of the British Parliament. I am delighted that MPs of all parties have come together to signal the way forward.”

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, whose party angered reformers by insisting on backing only an 80 or 100 per cent elected Lords and opposing a 60 per cent elected chamber, said: “After nearly a hundred years the House of Commons has at last taken the momentous step to reform the upper House and make it fit for a modern democracy,” he said. “This is a famous victory for progressive opinion both in Parliament and in the country.”

Theresa May, the Shadow Leader of the House, who led many Conservative MPs in backing an 80 per cent elected chamber, said that tactical voting by opponents of Lords reform had complicated the picture. “Tonight’s votes are a victory for democrats,” she said. “The House of Commons has clearly expressed a preference for a substantially or wholly elected House of Lords. But this is only a first step, and indeed it raises further questions. Given the tactical voting tonight we now need to establish what the House of Commons’ settled view is.”

During exchanges in the Commons after the votes, the Conservative backbencher Sir Patrick Cormack, who favours an appointed second chamber, called the reform proposals the most important constitutional changes in Britain since 1650. And the Labour MP David Clelland, a leading opponent of elections to the Lords, demanded a referendum before any reforms were implemented, saying that a fully elected Lords did not appear in the manifesto of any major political party.

The options

1. Keep a two-chamber Parliament Passed 416-163

2. Fully appointed second chamber Rejected 196-375

3. 20% elected, 80% appointed Rejected no vote

4. 40% elected, 60% appointed Rejected no vote

5. 50% elected, 50% appointed Rejected 155-418

6. 60% elected, 40% appointed Rejected 178-392

7. 80% elected, 20% appointed Passed 305-267

8. Fully elected chamber Passed 337-224

9. Hereditaries stay until election Rejected 241-329

10. End 92 remaining hereditary peers Passed 391-111

    Votes hailed as an historic victory for British democracy, Ts, 8.3.2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1485966.ece

Farewell to the Lords

March 08, 2007
From The Times
Philip Webster and Greg Hurst

Britain is to have a wholly or mainly elected second House of Parliament after historic votes by MPs last night.

Decades of deadlock over reform finally ended as the Commons voted first for an 80 per cent elected second chamber and then, entirely unexpectedly, for a fully elected House.

The decisions pave the way for one of the most radical constitutional changes in British history. It is almost certain to involve the renaming of the House of Lords.

Fears that the Lords might challenge the authority of the Commons disappeared as the MPs rejected options of a 50 per cent or 60 per cent elected Lords, and instead plumped for the 80 per cent option. Then they went the whole hog and voted by an even bigger majority for a 100 per cent elected chamber, surpassing the wildest dreams of the reformers.

The majority was swelled by the decision of a number of antireform MPs to go for a fully elected House, hoping that it would so infuriate peers that they would block the whole thing.

It may still take several years for the change to an elected system to take place. The Lords will vote next week and are expected to reject elections and opt for an appointed second chamber.

With both the main parties backing reform, however, the Government is likely to bring forward legislation in the next session of Parliament for an elected House. If that were to be blocked in the Lords Gordon Brown, if he is by then prime minister, would make an elected Lords a central plank of Labour’s manifesto and David Cameron would promise at least 80 per cent.

The option of a fully elected House was backed by a margin of 113. The 80 per cent elected Lords was backed by 38 votes.

Jack Straw, the Commons leader, who has led the moves to achieve a consensus, now plans to convene a meeting of the cross-party reform group to discuss the next steps. Under current plans elections to the Lords will be be through a form of PR. This would be by party lists in the same regions used to elect MEPs, but with “partially open” lists allowing voters to rank candidates in order. Elections would be on the same day as polling for the European Parliament, once every five years.

The Government suggests that elected members serve single terms of 15 years, after which they would be prevented from standing for the Commons for at least five years.

The Commons later voted to get rid of the remaining 92 hereditary peers but left open the questions of when and how. A Tory-Liberal Democrat bid to delay this until elected members had taken their places in the reformed House were rejected by 329 to 241, majority 88. Four years ago MPs rejected all options for change but came within three votes of backing the 80 per cent option.

In last night’s votes the Tories and Lib Dems, along with many Labour MPs, backed the 80 per cent elected option.

Winding up the debate, Mr Straw denied that an elected element in the Lords would challenge the primacy of the Commons. “It is a fear that the more the other place does the less we would be able to do as though a reformed House would suck the oxygen out of this place. It will not,” he said.

Under the Government’s plan, the link between membership of the second chamber and titles would be broken. The peerage would continue as an honour but it would be unconnected with a seat in Parliament, although it is highly probable that many people of distinction holding a seat in the reformed Lords would receive this honour, the Government’s recent White Paper said.

The Government later confirmed that the abolition of the remaining hereditary peers would be included in the new Bill introducing an elected Lords. That will appear initially as a draft Bill and later become a full legislative vehicle.

Mr Straw aims to build on the momentum of last night’s vote and press ahead with a draft Bill soon. The likelihood is that after that has been subjected to prelegislative scrutiny, he will bring in another Bill in the next session of Parliament.

If the Lords were to persist in defying the will of the elected chamber he would either try to force through the Bill the following year using the Parliament Act or wait for the next Parliament. If the pledge to turn the Lords into a largely elected House was in the manifesto of both main parties peers in the end could not resist it.

The outcome is hardly what Tony Blair expected when he became Prime Minister. He was a reluctant convert to a part-elected Lords, having previously favoured an all-appoint-ed chamber. Last night he voted for the 50 per cent option and then went off for his weekly audience with the Queen, totally unaware that history was in the making. MPs who wanted change said that the MPs who voted tactically to try to scupper the whole project were looking silly.

The opponents are, however, counting on their decision to join the vote for a fully elected Lords to strengthen the opposition of peers.

    Farewell to the Lords, Ts, 8.3.2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1485352.ece

The Sketch:

There's everything to play for

in the great hereditary peers debate

Published: 08 March 2007
The Independent
By Simon Carr
 

t was a great debate, the greatest the Commons has seen in many years. How to reform half the country's legislature. It was full of fact and argument, charm and intelligence. Grace, even, now and again. Nobody was there, of course.

For all the talk about "democratic legitimacy", and the glories of the general suffrage, most people don't vote in most elections. And then, when the assembly is constituted, nobody turns up. This may be why "the public is not clamouring for more elected politicians", as Chris Mullin pointed out in his clever, destructive way.

Some arguments emerged in favour of reform, ones that weren't purely ideological. Andrew Tyrie's idea that "the Lords doesn't have the confidence to use the powers it already has" was good. As was William Cash's observation that 67 per cent of peers claim their daily allowance but only 36 per cent of them vote.

So these are points well made by those who want to make the Lords more powerful. Yes, in order to help the Lords "hold the Government to account", in the cant of the political class.

However, the arguments of what to do to bring that about are all defeated by the realities of action. Lists, as Mullin pointed out, "mean 100 per cent appointment". Gerald Howarth made the bravest point of the day: getting rid of the hereditary peers would expose the Queen as the only hereditary office holder in the country.

Tom Levitt mocked the 15-year non-renewable term these new peers would get. "It's not the election that makes democracy it's the re-election," I think he said. There'd also be elected peers wandering around MPs' constituencies, campaigning against them on a daily basis. And Bob Marshall-Andrews gave a cracker of a speech "in the spirit of repentance" and supporting the status quo. He told us how the professional politician was increasingly susceptible to patronage. And that creatures put into Parliament under a list system would not defend British liberty as had the existing peerage.

Jack Straw intervened to assure the House he would give it a vote on the sort of voting system that would be adopted. But he can't give that assurance. It would depend on his being in post. Which he won't be.

Whatever the vote, there is, as they say, everything to play for: lists, voting systems, rules, conventions: everything.

    The Sketch: There's everything to play for in the great hereditary peers debate, I, 8.3.2007, http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/simon_carr/article2338367.ece

MPs sweep away history

with vote for all-elected Lords

Published: 08 March 2007
The Independent
By Ben Russell and Colin Brown
 

MPS voted to sweep away 1,000 years of Parliamentary history last night as they passed by a huge margin a landmark motion calling for an all-elected House of Lords

MPS voted last night to sweep away 1,000 years of parliamentary history, passing by a big margin a motion calling for an all-elected House of Lords

They voted by 337 to 224, a majority of 113, for an all-elected upper chamber after a series of votes on the various options for reform.

MPs also backed a plan for a upper house that is 80 per cent elected, with one in four peers appointed, but by a much smaller majority. They overwhelmingly rejected compromise options, including a half-elected, half-appointed upper house.

Pro-reform MPs were jubilant in the lobbies last night as news of the vote was announced. "It was like body surfing in the aye lobby," said one. But the vote was seen by many as a "train wreck, part two", with the vote for a radical all-elected Lords threatening to push reform into the buffers.

Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons, gave a triumphant thumbs up sign as the first vote for reform passed. He said: "This is a historic step forward on an issue which has been a matter of debate for decades. The House of Commons has broken the deadlock. It is a dramatic result in the history of the British Parliament. I am delighted that MPs of all parties have come together to signal the way forward."

Officials had feared a repeat of the chaos of the previous attempt at reform, when the Commons voted down all options for reform of the Lords. But in a series of votes last night MPs rejected a string of alternatives, including the Prime Minister's favoured proposal for a half-and-half split between elected and appointed peers in favour of an 80 per cent house after a marathon two-day debate.

One senior Conservative said: "It's clear those opposed to change have voted for 100 per cent-elected to ensure nothing happens."

Last night's votes are not binding and represent an attempt to gauge support for reform. Peers will vote on options for reform next week before ministers consider the next steps forward with a cross-party group of MPs and peers. Ministers plan to draw up a draft Bill outlining the detailed plans for reform.

The motion approved last night will form the basis of legislation to end the reform of the Lords which started in 1999 when the Government removed the bulk of hereditary peers. But government sources were warning of long delays before proposals became law.

Despite the vote, there were still deep divisions in the Commons yesterday as many MPs denounced the idea of a partly elected "hybrid" House of Lords, while others said a strong elected element was needed to give the upper house greater legitimacy.

Tony Blair voted for 50 per cent of the Lords to be elected but abstained on the other votes. Gordon Brown voted in favour of 80 per cent to be elected but abstained on the vote for 100 per cent to be elected.

John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, who is worried an elected Lords would challenge the authority of the Commons, voted against the 50 per cent and 80 per cent options, and abstained on 100 per cent elected peers. A Cabinet colleague said: "He was pretty steamed up."

However, on a free vote, many Cabinet members voted for 100 per cent of the Lords to be elected, including Hilary Benn and Patricia Hewitt.

Jack Straw voted for 50, 60, and 80 per cent of the House to be elected, but voted against 100 per cent being elected. He said: "This is not just a mandate. We now have an obligation for change."

Ministers said the vote sent a warning to the Lords next Tuesday to heed the MPs' wishes.

The 10 proposals

* Retention of a bicameral Parliament ­ backed by 416 to 163, majority 253

* A fully appointed Lords ­ rejected by 196 to 375, majority 179

* Elected element of 20 per cent ­ rejected without vote

* Elected element of 40 per cent ­ rejected without vote

* The Lords to be 50 per cent elected and 50 per cent appointed ­ rejected by 155 to 418, majority 263

* The Lords to be 60 per cent elected and 40 per cent appointed ­ rejected by 178 to 392, majority 214

* The Lords to be 80 per cent elected and 20 per cent appointed ­ backed by 305 to 267, majority 38

* A fully elected Lords ­ backed by 337 to 224, majority 113

* Tory and Liberal Democrat bid to ensure remaining hereditaries only removed when elected peers take their seats in reformed Lords ­ rejected by 241 to 329, majority 88

* A Government call to remove the remaining hereditaries from the Lords ­ backed by 391 to 111

    MPs sweep away history with vote for all-elected Lords, I, 8.3.2007, http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2338404.ece

6.45pm update

MPs vote for 80% elected Lords

Wednesday March 7, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Tempest and Paul Owen

MPs have tonight voted for an 80% elected upper chamber, after rejecting six other options for change.

The House of Commons approved an 80% elected, 20% appointed upper house by a majority of 38, after having previously rejected both a 60% elected house and a 50-50 split.

In the first vote, MPs opted to keep an upper chamber by 416 to 163, a majority of 253.

They then voted heavily against a fully appointed upper chamber, with 375 against and 196 for, a majority of 179.

MPs then rejected the 80% appointed and 60% appointed options without a vote, and went on to reject the idea of a 50-50 split - the favoured option of the leader of the Commons, Jack Straw - by a resounding 418 to 155, a majority of 263.

In a surprise development, they also voted to reject a 60% elected body, by 392 to 178.

However, they voted narrowly for an 80% elected body.

MPs are now voting on a fully elected house.

In a mammoth succession of votes, MPs are also voting separately on whether to abolish the final remaining 92 hereditary peers.

A similar series of votes in 2003 ended in stalemate and the status quo, after MPs narrowly avoided approving any one particular option.

Tonight's result, however, is only advisory.

Although the final proportion of elected to appointed peers will probably be assumed, the government - and the next prime minister - will have to decide how much time to devote to pushing a Lords reform bill through parliament - including a potentially rebellious House of Lords.

MPs have a free vote, although the Liberal Democrats have agreed to vote en masse for the 80 and 100% elected options.

Mr Straw had indicated a preference for 50-50.

Particular attention will be paid to how Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the chancellor and Mr Blair's heir apparent, vote.

Reform of the House of Lords was first mooted by the then Liberal party in 1911.

In 2003, the option of an 80% elected upper house failed by just three votes.

A group of senior Labour figures, including nine cabinet ministers and former leader Lord Kinnock, wrote to MPs at the weekend asking them to back the 50%, 60%, 80% and 100% options.

Signatories included the transport secretary, Douglas Alexander, the environment secretary, David Miliband, the Northern Ireland secretary, Peter Hain, and the education secretary, Alan Johnson.

The defence secretary, Des Browne, the trade and industry secretary, Alastair Darling, the culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, the international development secretary, Hilary Benn, and the health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, also signed.

Today votes came at the end of two full days of debate, which showed some unexpected divisions within the parties as well as between them.

The former Liberal party leader David Steel, now a peer himself, came out in favour of an entirely appointed chamber - despite campaigning on manifestos through the 1980s for an elected upper chamber.

Robert Marshall-Andrews, a serial rebel and member of Labour's "awkward squad" said that he favoured abolition of the Lords in 1999, favoured a substantially elected second chamber in 2003 and tonight would support the status quo.

Mr Marshall-Andrews, a frequent critic of the government, put his change of mind down to the Lords' record in opposing government attacks on civil liberties and the closed-list voting system suggested for elections to the second chamber.

Chris Mullin, a former radical leftwing Labour MP, said he would vote for an all-appointed chamber.

Veteran Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman called today's options "gibberish", saying that the only logical positions were abolition, wholly appointed or wholly elected. Frank Dobson, the former health secretary, said that an elected Lords would be a "constitutional shambles" unless its powers were decided first.

Meanwhile, Tories such as Oliver Letwin and Sir George Young came out firmly in favour of a predominantly elected Lords.

Mr Straw rejected a estimate today from the Labour peer Lord Lipsey that a reformed and largely elected upper house could cost £1bn.

The peer warned that the cost could deter the general public from backing future reforms.

"My estimate is a conservative one," he said. "Given inflation and given the capacity of elected politicians to insist on more resources, the outcome could easily be much more expensive.

"At the moment, the Lords provides value for money as a legislature. It taps the expertise of its members, who are unpaid. That is why the cost per member of the Lords amounts to only £149,000 by comparison with £726,000 for each member of the Commons."

But a government source said: "These figures are preposterous and back-of-an-envelope calculations."

A separate stand-alone vote on reform will take place in the House of Lords next week.

A future bill could also see the name of the upper chamber changed from the House of Lords. The white paper promises to consult on a new name.

Under the white paper, elected peers could serve only one term, but that would be of 15 years.

Elections of a third of members every five years would mean a complete change of personnel every 15 years.

Some form of proportional representation would be used, with party lists for candidates, and constituencies based on the European parliament regions.

    MPs vote for 80% elected Lords, G, 7.3.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/lords/story/0,,2028642,00.html

2pm

Straw sets out proposals

for half-elected House of Lords

Wednesday February 7, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Press Association

The leader of the Commons, Jack Straw, today outlined his proposals for further reform of the House of Lords, raising the prospect of first-ever elections to parliament's second chamber.

The proposals, set out in a white paper, would produce a slimmed-down "hybrid" upper house of 540 members with a mixture of appointed and elected members who would no longer be known as peers.

Tony Blair indicated that he supported Mr Straw's preferred option of a half-elected and half-appointed house.

But the white paper recognised that opinion on the issue among MPs remained split, allowing the Commons a free vote on their preferred proportion.

MPs will be asked to rank their preferences in order, in an attempt to ensure that one solution comes out on top, avoiding the deadlock in 2003 when the Commons voted down all of the reform options put before them.

Mr Straw said that his proposals represented "the best opportunity to make progress that we have had for many decades".

In a detailed statement to the Commons, Mr Straw said that "a significant degree of consensus has been found on several - but not all - the important issues" surrounding the reforms.

He said that the white paper was "self-evidently and unapologetically a compromise", but warned that a failure to reach a solution now would put any progress "on hold for a generation".

Mr Straw told MPs: "The status quo is no longer an option."

Following a year-long, cross-party consultation, Mr Straw said that it was agreed that a "long transitional period" would be required for the completion of this stage of reform.

It was also agreed that the primacy of the House of Commons had to remain, with the Lords acting as a "complement" and not a "rival" to the fully-elected house.

The white paper sets out the government's preferred model of a half-elected, half-appointed second chamber, with 30% of the appointed members nominated by the political parties and 20% by a new, independent Statutory Appointments Commission.

The commission would be required to apply a double test of "suitability and propriety" to all those nominated for places.

Mr Straw said that the prime minister's right to make appointments to the upper house would end.

He added that Church of England bishops would retain their right to a place on the red benches of the upper house and that no existing life peer would be forced to leave the Lords.

Mr Straw told the Commons: "There are many reasons why we should move ahead with reform of the House of Lords: to increase its effectiveness, to make it more representative of the United Kingdom, to increase its legitimacy.

"But there is a wider issue as well, and that is to seek - through this process - to strengthen parliament by enhancing the way in which the Lords complements the work of the primary chamber.

"By doing this, our democracy as a whole would be better served."

In a two-day debate before Easter, MPs will be asked to vote first on whether there should be a second chamber at all, then on whether there should be any reform of the current arrangements, under which the current House of Lords has more than 750 members, the bulk of them appointed life peers.

If both of these votes are positive, MPs will be asked to rank the options for the division between elected and appointed members in order of preference.

If no option receives 50 per cent of first preferences, the least popular option will be removed and votes redistributed until a victor emerges.

The House of Lords will decide for itself how it votes on the issue.

Responding to the white paper, the Liberal Democrats' spokesman on constitutional affairs, Simon Hughes, said that he welcomed the commitment to reform.

"Nobody can say that serious democratic reform of the second house of the British parliament is not well overdue," he said.

But Theresa May, the shadow leader of the Commons, said that the proposals did not strengthen parliament and would leave political parties even more in control in the upper chamber.

Ms May said that the proposals would perpetuate "cronyism" while the proposed system of preferential voting on the measures would set a "dangerous precedent".

Labour's first attempt at reform resulted in the ejection of over 600 hereditary peers from the House of Lords in 1999. Ninety-two were allowed to stay, along with appointed life peers, Church of England bishops and law lords.

Straw sets out proposals for half-elected House of Lords, G, 7.2.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/lords/story/0,,2007770,00.html