Peers vow to oppose planned reforms in Lords amid fears for parliament's integrity

Published on Monday 14 July 2008 22:25

NEW government plans to reform the House of Lords were last night attacked by peers as "undemocratic, unacceptable and possibly unconstitutional".

This opened up the possibility of another "great escape" for the second chamber, which has already frustrated a decade of Labour attempts to make it directly elected.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, yesterday outlined proposals to make the Lords fully or mainly elected, although he admitted this would not happen until after the next general election, due by June 2010.

He wants the number of peers reduced from more than 700 to no more than 450, and would abolish the hereditary peers – those sitting in the Lords by right of family ties. Their number has already been reduced to 92 by reforms introduced when Tony Blair was prime minister.

Peers would serve single terms of between 12 and 15 years, compared with MPs, who have to be re-elected every five years.

The Tories also back reform, meaning that changes are likely to be put before MPs which ever party forms the next government. But a number of members of the Lords, which voted by a huge majority last year to reject having the second chamber elected, said they would oppose the changes vigorously. Baroness D'Souza, who heads a group of 61 independent or cross-bench peers, said she was concerned that the primacy of the Commons could be undermined if both MPs and peers were elected.

At present the Lords is used to amend legislation and has the power to delay or block bills for 13 months, forcing the Commons to "think again" on controversial issues. This autumn it is expected to reject the Counter-Terrorism Bill, which proposes 42 days' detention for terrorist suspects.

Baroness D'Souza said: "A largely elected House of Lords will have a deleterious effect on its ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the government to account. The House would be dominated by party political appointments through party lists, which, in short, will mean less independence, less expertise and less diversity.

"At the same time, supporters of an elected upper house must concede that elected peers will not be prepared to defer to the Commons."

Publishing a reform white paper, Mr Straw insisted it had never been the government's intention to legislate in this parliament. Instead the proposals would be put to voters as part of a manifesto commitment at the next general election.

"The white paper represents a significant step on the road to reform and is intended to generate further debate and consideration rather than being a final blueprint for reform," Mr Straw said.

Nick Herbert, the Tory shadow justice secretary, said the white paper was a "step forward", but called for first-past-the-post rather than proportional representation to be used to elect the second chamber.

Mr Herbert said: "We have argued for a second chamber of between 250 and 300 members, a similar size to the upper houses of France, Italy and Spain. The US Senate has only 100 members for a population of 300 million – albeit in a federal system."

How they currently line up

WHEN Jack Straw made his first attempt to reform the House of Lords last year, he bemoaned the fact that changes had been on the agenda since 1909.

The post of Lord Chancellor has been scrapped – the task of chairing debates and sitting on the woolsack is now entrusted to the Lord Speaker – while Mr Straw remains in the Commons as Justice Secretary. Previously, his job was done by Lord Falconer.

At present, there are 643 life peers – also known as working peers, who are nominated by the political parties and include many former MPs and ministers – and 92 hereditary peers, who were chosen from a ballot of hereditaries when their number was dramatically culled several years ago.

There are also 26 Church of England bishops and archbishops – who Mr Straw proposes to retain, though without their voting rights – and 21 law lords.