House Of Lords Reform Should Be Decided By A Referendum, Say MPs And Peers

Posted: 23/04/2012 10:20 Updated: 23/04/2012 11:43

A parliamentary report on House of Lords reform has recommended an upper house of 450 members serving for 15-year non-renewable terms, with 80% of members elected and 20% nominated.

As expected a majority of the members on the joint committee on Lords reform also recommended that the change be put to the public in a referendum.

Lord Richards, the chair of the committee, said a public vote should be held as changing one of the two Houses of the legislature was "pretty fundamental constitutional issue", even more so than the "tinkering" with the electoral system which was put to a referendum.

The government has argued that there is no need for such a vote as all three main parties had a commitment to reform the second chamber in their election manifestos.

However speaking on Monday morning ahead of the report's publication, David Cameron refused to rule out a referendum.

"Personally I don't see it as a very compelling case - it would cost a lot of money," he said.

"But we live in a democracy. Parliament is going to debate and discuss this. The committee is about to come and and say that a referendum would be a good idea so we don't rule it out."

The Labour Party has also said it would like there to be a referendum on the plans.

Dr Meg Russell, from UCL's Constitution Unit said pressure for a referendum would now become "irresistible".

"The referendum already has support from the Labour leadership and many Conservative backbench MPs. If pressed to a vote on the issue in the Commons, the government would almost certainly lose," she said.

"Nor can defensible arguments against the referendum proposal necessarily be found."

A YouGov poll for Unlock Democracy published today found that 69% of voters support a reformed House of Lords, while only 5% of voters wanted to see it stay as it is.

The committee accepted the majority of the coalition's proposals in its draft bill, but it said the number of members of the reformed chamber should have 450 members rather than the 300 initially proposed.

The creation of an elected House of Lords is an issue close to the heart of the Liberal Democrats, and on Sunday Nick Clegg delivered a thinly-veiled warning to Cameron that he must face down a major Tory rebellion over the plans.

The deputy prime minister pointed out that he had asked Liberal Democrats to support coalition measures they did not like, and others should act in the same "spirit".

The comments, on the BBC's Sunday Politics show, came amid reports that at least six Cabinet ministers would prefer to see the changes delayed.

Philip Hammond, Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Gove, Eric Pickles, Owen Paterson and Lord Strathclyde are said to be among senior Conservatives who have voiced doubts.

The party's backbenchers are also threatening a mass revolt on the issue, with the potential for resignations by several ministerial aides.

Quick Poll

Should There Be A Referendum On Lords Reform?

VOTE

FOLLOW UK POLITICS

A parliamentary report on House of Lords reform has recommended an upper house of 450 members serving for 15-year non-renewable terms, with 80% of members elected and 20% nominated. As expected a m...
A parliamentary report on House of Lords reform has recommended an upper house of 450 members serving for 15-year non-renewable terms, with 80% of members elected and 20% nominated. As expected a m...
Filed by Ned Simons  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 16
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
10:23 AM on 04/24/2012
So should the one off reintroduction of Capital Punishment for spineless, self serving creeps like Nit Clog.
08:45 AM on 04/24/2012
Whilst the general public starves and pays through the nose for fuel to get to work - CLeggy is on about Lords reform???!!!!!!

It was funny watching Labour Shadow Ministers going on about more Lords reform on television last night - wasn't Labour in power for 13 years recently.......

The matter of Lords reform has been dragging on now for over a hundred years and still the ex-MP's in the Lords find themselves a nice well paid seat for their piles to rest on.....
03:54 PM on 04/23/2012
They are looking after themselves for when they are not in the commons. A nice seat in the lords at £50,000 pa for 15 years,
I’m writing this comment sitting on a jerry can full of petrol, in my caravan with my granny eating hot pasties and scanning the papers looking for a job after being made redundant from Remploy, unable to afford the cash for the kids school dinners due to the wife’s benefit cut, and looking forward to waiting till I’m 67 if I'm lucky, to get my ‘crappy’ pension.
08:46 AM on 04/24/2012
So you can afford a full Jerry can of fuel and a hot pastie - don't let George hear about you, he'll think you need taxing more.....
03:33 PM on 04/23/2012
No clegg we do not give a toss about the lords we WANT a referendum on the EU but you will not give us one...will you? something as daft as the lords you are willing to give us that one...do us all a favour and go and jump in the thames
02:23 PM on 04/23/2012
Do we really want another slew of elected politicians with the prospect of party placemen ousting independent candidates and more expense account fiddling?
Why can't we have a House of Lords selected on the basis of jury service selection?
We could have three tranches of society represented.One third of the 450 places would be reserved for hereditary peers,another third for members of the professional classes and the final third for those considered working class .
Every member would serve for 5 years.
To enable the transformation,the current House would first of all be reduced to 450 members comprising 450 of the old guard..
Thereafter every year 50 members of the other two tranches would be selected as in jury service(deferments would apply in difficult cases) until the old guard had been reduced to 150 members and the other two tranches reached their full complements of 150.Once the first 50 members appointed in this way had served their terms of office,another batch of 50 would be drafted in.This procedure would be employed with all three tranches
Provision would have to be made to safeguard the jobs of those so selected so that after the 5 year period they would return to their original posts.
Of course,provision would have to be made to ensure that all new members had financial help with settlement allowances.
With such a House of Lords,we could envisage a new interest in poltics from the general populace which feels estranged from the political process
lastpost
see biography
01:53 PM on 04/23/2012
"A Referendum"
Bad news: It costs a lot of money.
Good news: It doesn’t have to be about just one thing.

"80% of members elected and 20% nominated."
Would the people agree to that rule being introduced to the commons?

"The government has argued that there is no need for such a vote as"
it could be the first false step on a descent into democracy.

"we live in a democracy"
that functions as a republic. Governance by the will of a minority, elected by a minority, for a minority. Else show me the mandate.

"pressure for a referendum would now become "irresistible"."
As it did recently in the case of EU membership.

"the government would almost certainly lose"
If boundary changes can be done first, election to the Lords might still be assured.

"defensible arguments against the referendum"
break out the Whips.

"changes delayed."
‘til post GCHQ assisted coup?

"a mass revolt on the issue"
a la révolution française election?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nathan0316
TrueBlueTory Age quod agis
12:34 PM on 04/23/2012
I'm OK with the idea of a referendum on this issue, but I am personally opposed to changing the Lords. We have a perfect example of what happens when you have an elected Upper House: The American Senate, which is gridlocked along party lines most of the time.

Like them as people or not, most Lords have spent a lifetime learning how to run things, have money invested in making sure things run well and as un-elected peers don't have to bend in the wind of public opinion the way politicians do. Changing this will lead to one of two options: 1) Both Houses will be the same party and policies will be rubber-stamped whether it's right for the country or not or 2) There will be a different party in charge of each, who will try to block each other on general principles (the US Congress vs Senate again, but with a British twist). And I say this as a committed Tory, who would vote Blue for both Houses.

And on a point of principle, there are currently 782 peers in the House of Lords, 132 more than there are MPs in the Commons so really, 450 does represent a significant reduction in numbers (and costs) while still being enough to run the place, especially if you were to reduce the numbers by retiring the sleepers!
11:54 AM on 04/23/2012
I would like to see the Lords or Senate consist of Senators elected by national organisations. We could then have a Senate filled with people from the professions, the unions the universities etc instead of nominated or elected peers who are chosen by political parties.

Making the Lords directly elected will not improve our democracy. It will just give the political class another set of jobs to fill. Clegg wants it bad because he wants proportional representation for the Lords which will give his troubled party a straw to grasp at.
11:32 AM on 04/23/2012
This system has worked for hundreds of years OK. Why mend something that is not broke ?

They just want to get rid off it so they can walk all over us as they wish. The House of Lords is the buffer, and mostly consists of elders with loads of experience. Has anyone noticed the average age of our heads of government these days. No wonder we are going downhill !!!!!!!!!
11:55 AM on 04/23/2012
The system has had numerous crises and many changes. We now have life peers replacing those who inherited their positions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daviejohn
All the world's a stage,
11:20 AM on 04/23/2012
I am not usually a supporter of Clegg, but on this issue I totally agree. We the people, should decide who represents us. We should also remove the Bishops from the second House, they are no longer representative of the British people as they account for less than 10% of the electorate.
08:48 AM on 04/24/2012
Yep less than 10 percent - that's about 6 million people then eh?
11:07 AM on 04/23/2012
The desired answer to any referenda always depends on the way in which the question(s) are asked .
Regarding the 'cost' of such an exercise - this is immaterial and I would suggest that the interest alone , on the repayment of the £10 billion we're lending the IMF, would be more than suffficient to cover such costs on this occasion.
If only politicians would stop trying to re-invent the wheel, when there are far more important issues at stake !
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dombeyandson
11:05 AM on 04/23/2012
A parliamentary report on House of Lords reform has recommended an upper house of 450 members serving for 15-year non-renewable terms, with 80% of members elected and 20% nominated.

Given the idiots that appear to hoodwink the electorate in voting for them to serve as MPs following promises of this and promises of that and then are disappointed when all the MP succeeds in doing is to serve themselves I should think the last thing we need is an 80% elected "upper" chamber of lords who WILL not deliver much of the same and another house of idiots and self serving indiviuals. I would rather the present system of appopinted elder statesmen [a thing of the past?] combined with the "wisdom" and experience of law lords and church lords. Let's face it there will always be a rebuttal of the hereditary peers because they are in the House of Lords by birthright and in most instances add little or nothing but their imput is nevertheless appreciated as laymen. However, we do need to look at the reason for the Lords who should be able to overturn bills proposed by MPs if they are not seen to be equitable. If reform is necessary then have an A political House of Lords not linked to ahy particular political party
10:53 AM on 04/23/2012
450 members? They're having a laugh. 100 should be more than enough considering the size of the UK.Likewise , no more than 400 Members of Parliament. that would create a bit of competition for the jobs.

We should all get a vote on the options for the "Lords" which should include "none of the above" if we are not convinced of a real solution.