Six stand for Lords Speaker role

28 June 2011 Last updated at 09:06 GMT The Lord Speaker took over from the Lord Chancellor in presiding over debates Six peers have said they will stand for election next month to become the next Speaker of the House of Lords.

Two Conservatives, one Labour, two Lib Dems and one crossbench peer will compete for the role in a ballot of all peers to be held on 13 July.

Incumbent Baroness Hayman is standing down at the end of her five-year term.

The ex-Labour minister is the first person to hold the role, which was created in 2005 but has fewer powers than the Speaker of the Commons.

The candidates who have put themselves forward are:

Lord Redesdale: Lib Dem peer who entered the House in 1991 and has been a party spokesman on international development, defence and agricultureLord Colwyn: Conservative hereditary peer who entered the House in 1967 and was one of 92 hereditaries elected to remain in the Lords in 1999. Currently a deputy speakerLord Desai: Indian-born Labour peer and economist who entered the House in 1991Baroness D'Souza: Entered the House in 2004 and currently chairs the group of crossbench peersLord Goodlad: Conservative MP for 25 years and former chief whip. Became a peer in 2005Baroness Harris of Richmond: Lib Dem former councillor who became a peer in 1999. Currently a deputy speaker

The result of the ballot, to be held under the alternative vote system, will be announced on 18 July. The new Speaker will take up the role in September after the summer recess.

Ambassador

The candidates are due to take part in a hustings in the Lords on Tuesday.

The role of Lord Speaker was created in 2005 when the Blair government trimmed the powers of the Lord Chancellor, including his historic role presiding over debates in the Lords.

Baroness Hayman chairs debates from the traditional woolsack, offers advice on procedural matters and acts as an ambassador for the work of the House.

However, her role is much more limited than that of Commons Speaker John Bercow, as she is not authorised to call members to speak, rule on points of order, select amendments to bills or to discipline members.

She was elected in 2006, beating eight other candidates.

View the original article here

Clegg tries to sell Lords reform

27 June 2011 Last updated at 22:50 GMT Nick Clegg opens the debate on Lords reform: From Democracy Live

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has insisted the House of Lords is "past the point of no reform".

But he was heckled by Conservative backbenchers as he tried to win support for his plans to create a wholly or largely elected second chamber.

Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan told the Commons Labour believed in a fully elected House of Lords.

But former minister David Miliband said he feared MPs and peers would block the plans purely to damage Mr Clegg.

Mr Clegg is leading efforts to reduce the size of the Lords to just over 300 people and make 80% of its members elected, starting from 2015.

But last week, peers from all parties attacked the proposals during a two-day debate in the Lords.

'Yes we do!'

In the Commons on Monday, Mr Clegg said the second chamber could not "afford another hundred years in limbo".

He told MPs: "Very few people seriously believe the status quo - an unelected second chamber - makes sense in a modern democracy."

A handful of Conservatives then interrupted him, shouting: "Yes we do!"

Mr Clegg then replied: "Most people anyway. There is a fundamental principle at stake here - a basic choice. Do we believe people should choose their representatives in Parliament or do we not?"

Continue reading the main story About 300 members80% to be elected but with a provision for a fully elected chamberMembers to be elected for single 15-year terms under the single transferable vote system of proportional representationA third of members to be elected in 2015, a further third in 2020 and 2025Number of bishops to be reduced from 26 to 12Small number of appointed government ministersConservative MP Julian Lewis said he was concerned about the potential loss of expertise if figures from the worlds of medicine, academia, science, business and the arts refused to stand for election.

"The single most important function of our second chamber is the revision of legislation and its improvement," he said.

"If you take out hundreds of people who are experts in their field and substitute for them hundreds of people who are professional party politicians, what will make them better qualified to revise legislation in that chamber than we amateurs are in this chamber?"

Labour MP Barry Sheerman said he believed an elected second chamber would be too powerful.

"Every bicameral I know ends up deeply conservative where the elected mandated government in the lower house is frustrated from implementing its manifesto by a second chamber, increasingly powerful over the years," he said.

'Bigger gain'

For Labour, Mr Khan said an elected upper house was "the right and proper outcome and one which will deliver the democratic system the people of this country deserve".

But he noted that it was a difficult time to try to generate momentum on the issue when much of country was preoccupied with concerns about jobs, pensions and the cost of living.

Mr Miliband said some MPs were inclined to oppose the bill purely because Mr Clegg was its biggest champion.

But he urged them to see the potential "bigger gain" of backing the reforms and to resist the temptation to "kick a man when he is down".

A number of other MPs also expressed support for Mr Clegg's plans.

Lib Dem Mark Williams said they were "a huge step in the right direction", but also wanted the Commons to retain primacy.

Conservative John Stevenson said that if peers were excluded from the chamber, they could still use their expertise by forming committees and producing reports for the government.

View the original article here

Peers attack Lords reform plans

22 June 2011 Last updated at 20:24 GMT The Lords currently has nearly 800 members entitled to attend Government plans to replace the House of Lords with a largely elected second chamber have come under sustained attack from peers of all parties.

Lib Dem peer Lord Rodgers said the plan, spearheaded by his party leader Nick Clegg, would "run into the sand".

And ex-Cabinet Secretary Lord Armstrong said he foresaw "much blood in the Thames" as a result of clashes between the Commons and any new assembly.

Ministers say an elected chamber would have proper legitimacy.

Peers have been discussing proposals to dramatically reduce the size of the Lords to just over 300 people and elect 80% of its members, starting in 2015.

On the second day of a two-day debate about the future of the Upper House, Lib Dem peers were among those to criticise the deputy prime minister's blueprint.

'No consensus'

Lord Rodgers said he had opposed an elected second chamber for 20 years despite his party's longstanding support for it and he had not changed his mind.

Continue reading the main story

I foresee serious breakdowns in the relationship between the Commons and the Lords”

End Quote Lord Armstrong Former Cabinet Secretary "I fear this Bill, as it stands, will run into the sand," he said. "With the coalition's heavy legislative programme for this Parliament, Lords reform will inescapably block or delay more important issues.

"There will be no consensus, which there ought to be in a very major change in the nation's constitution."

Fellow Lib Dem Lord Glasgow, one of 92 remaining hereditary peers in the Lords, said his party's proposals "made no sense at all".

"I have always believed, and I thought this was a fairly general view, that the House of Lords justified its existence by being a very effective revising chamber.

"Its primary purpose was to scrutinise and improve government legislation, not, like the House of Commons, to be a party political slanging shop. It succeeds in being an effective revising chamber largely due to the quality and variety of its inmates."

'Serious breakdown'

And Lord Armstrong, the former head of the civil service, predicted frequent disagreements between the Commons and the new assembly in the event of its members being able to claim a democratic mandate.

Continue reading the main story About 300 members80% to be elected but with a provision for a fully elected chamberMembers to be elected for single 15-year terms under the single transferable vote system of proportional representationA third of members to be elected in 2015, a further third in 2020 and 2025Number of bishops to be reduced from 26 to 12Small number of appointed government ministers"I foresee serious breakdowns in the relationship between the Commons and the Lords and the River Thames running under Westminster Bridge with much blood," he told MPs.

All three of the UK's largest parties committed themselves to changing the make-up of the Lords in their 2010 general election manifestos but there has been little sign of agreement on the way forward.

Mr Clegg has asked a committee of peers and MPs, to be led by Labour MP Lord Richard, to examine the proposals - which would see a largely elected "senate" with members serving 15-year terms.

Lord Strathclyde, the leader of the House of Lords, has made clear the government is committed to seeing the first elections to the new body taking place in 2015.

'House in order'

And in an impassioned defence of the plans on Monday, former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown said constitutional reform was needed to "bridge the dangerous gap between the government and the governed".

"This is not about what the public wants," he said. "It is about us putting our house in order."

The current House of Lords lacked legitimacy, he argued.

"We have to be part of a reform that reconnects politics with the people of this country. And if we are not, I believe our democratic institutions will fall into atrophy and may suffer further in the decline in confidence of the people in this country

Labour have said they will oppose the proposals as they stand while many Tory MPs also object to them.

View the original article here

Lords reform plans to be unveiled

17 May 2011 Last updated at 00:44 GMT By James Landale Deputy Political Editor, BBC News Live coverage of the House of Commons

The government will unveil its plans later to replace the House of Lords with an elected second chamber.

There will be a draft bill included in a White Paper for a house of 300 members serving 15-year terms, with one third of them elected by proportional representation every five years.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will set out a series of options in an attempt to secure consensus for change.

But the plans are expected to face strong opposition from peers and MPs.

Many options

In the coalition agreement, the government promised to bring forward proposals to reform the House of Lords.

On Tuesday it will fulfil that promise, at least up to a point.

The draft bill will be tucked discreetly at the back of a White Paper containing as many options as there are proposals.

The government will not specify whether the whole chamber should be elected or whether some - 20% - should be appointed.

It will not specify the chamber's name, which form of PR should be used for the elections, the size of the multi-member constituencies and - most contentious of all - what should happen to the 800-odd existing peers.

One option is for all but 200 to be expelled immediately, with the survivors elected from among their own number.

Another would see their expulsion phased in more gradually with a third nominated out as a third elected come in.

Another option would see them all staying on until 2025, at least those who survived.

Early fight

Ministers had been hoping to come up with something rather more specific but the plans changed in recent weeks.

First the alternative vote referendum was overwhelmingly defeated and Mr Clegg is keen to avoid a reputation as a man obsessed with tilting at constitutional windmills when the rest of the country is worried about the economy.

Second, a strategic decision has been taken to try to seek some kind of consensus, optimistic though this may be.

By listing options rather than a prescriptive plan, Mr Clegg hopes to avoid provoking an early fight with peers.

And by offering them the chance to stay on in the reformed second chamber, he hopes to buy off some who are more interested keeping their backside on a red bench than the constitutional niceties of reform.

All the detail will now be considered by a joint committee of both houses of Parliament that will be asked to report by next February.

Only once that committee has reported will we see just how serious the government is about reform.

Timetable doubts

In theory the government would like to be able to respond to the committee by the spring so it is in a position to put forward a proper, all-singing, all-dancing bill in the next Queen's speech in May 2012.

The bill would go through Parliament in the back end of 2012 and the beginning of 2013 so that there would be enough time to get everything ready for the first Lords elections on the same day as the general election in 2015.

That, at least, is the optimistic scenario. But the prospects for delay and parliamentary trench warfare are huge.

For a start, the government may ask the joint committee to report by next February but that may not happen.

The committee may decide to take more time. Committees do that. The May 2012 deadline for a proper bill may, as a result, be missed.

The bill may make such slow progress that it clogs up all other parliamentary business and has to be abandoned.

It might eventually get through but too late for arrangements to be made for the 2015 elections.

Bad omens

Opponents of reform are already getting organised, sending letters to MPs and forging cross-party alliances.

The three main party leaderships may all be signed up to some kind of elected second chamber but their parliamentary parties are much less keen.

Many peers oppose an elected second chamber because they fear it will politicise their house, depriving it of independent expertise, knowledge and wisdom, and filling it instead with party apparatchiks.

Ed Miliband may favour a wholly elected second chamber but many of his Labour peers are as opposed to reform as their Conservative colleagues.

And many MPs oppose an elected second chamber because they fear it will be more assertive with its new found elective legitimacy, and challenge the supremacy of the House of Commons.

Already the search is on for the new Michael Foot and Enoch Powell, the two MPs who formed a cross-party alliance to head off an elected Lords in the late 1960s.

The likelihood is that if the government wants to get this through, it will probably at some stage have to use the Parliament Acts to override the Lords and force the changes through against their will, something that has only been done four times in the last century.

Ultimately, the question for the government is how much political capital it is prepared to spend on something that a Liberal government first promised in the pre-amble of the Parliament Act of 1911.

The omens for a speedy result are not good.

View the original article here