A Strong Voice for Croydon Central - Gavin Barwell MP
Help me
Contact me

Disappointing news on Lords reform - and an equally disappointing response from the Liberal Democrats
07/08/2012 21:05:00


I’m disappointed that more of my colleagues weren’t prepared to compromise on the issue of reforming the House of Lords and that, as a result, the Government has had to accept that it won’t be able to make progress on the issue. Sadly, one of our two Houses of Parliament will continue to be largely appointed by the party leaders and that means more party donors, apparatchiks and retired MPs being given jobs for life.

I can understand Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats being frustrated about this. The Coalition Agreement contained a clear commitment to Lords reform:

“We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010. It is likely that this will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely that there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election” (page 27).

Some of my colleagues argue that we have fulfilled this commitment - the Government has brought forward proposals, that is the end of the matter - but there is a clear implication - “In the interim...” - that the Government will then implement those proposals. My colleagues may regret taking such a literal approach to the Coalition Agreement if the Liberal Democrats do likewise on other issues eg human rights where all the Agreement says is “We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law and protects and extends British liberties” (page 11). To be fair, the root of this problem is that Liberal Democrats MPs went through the Coalition Agreement line by line and signed up to it; Conservative MPs did not and hence many do not feel themselves bound by every detail.

But I am equally disappointed in what Nick Clegg had to say yesterday when announcing that the Government wouldn’t be able to make any progress:

"The Conservative Party is not honouring the commitment to Lords reform and, as a result, part of our contract has now been broken ... I have told the Prime Minister that when, in due course, Parliament votes on boundary changes for the 2015 election I will be instructing my party to oppose them".

This kind of tit-for-tat response:

• reflects badly on the Liberal Democrats - they voted for the principle of a reduction in the size of the House of Commons and smaller discrepancies in the size of Parliamentary constituencies, presumably because they thought that was in the best interests of the country and now they are going to vote against the detailed recommendations that have been produced at significant cost because they are cross with Conservative MPs over Lords reform;

• is contrary to the principle of collective responsibility that underpins Cabinet Government (the Coalition Agreement for Stability and Reform, which set out how the Coalition would work, was explicit that “the principle of collective responsibility, save where it is explicitly set aside, continues to apply to all Government Ministers. This requires...decisions of the Cabinet to be binding on and supported by all Ministers”); and

• is going to make it harder for the Coalition to work effectively.

Lords reform was part of the Coalition Agreement but it was not linked to the boundary review. The link was - very clearly - to having a referendum on the Alternative Vote, which we have delivered:

“We will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. We will whip both Parliamentary parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum” (page 27).

Nick Clegg himself was crystal clear about the lack of a link between Lords reform and the boundary review in answering a question from Eleanor Laing MP on 19th April this year:

Eleanor Laing: "Is it the case that the reports that your party’s support for further progress on boundaries legislation is dependent upon progress on House of Lords reform legislation are wrong?"

Nick Clegg: "Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link."

Yesterday was a sad day for the Coalition then. The Liberal Democrats are entitled to be upset with some of my colleagues over Lords reform. But they have just made things worse.

Comment on this blog


Readers' Comments

On 09/08/2012 00:07:00 Jim wrote:
I never did like the idea of an elected House of Lords and am jolly glad that this idea is dead for the time being. There are more important constitutional issues to consider - the relationship with the EU, example.

Clegg is just pathetic. Telling his MPs to vote against something they supposedly agree with in order to get back at the Tories is just toys out of the pram stuff. Didn't anyone tell him that two wrongs don't make a right? He is putting his own party political interests in front of the interests of the country.

Somewhat demeaning for the Conservatives to be involved with this lot.

On 11/08/2012 00:46:00 Adrian wrote:
Nick Clegg and everyone advocating House of Lords reform really need to take on board that much of the opposition wasn't from people who are fundamentally opposed to change, it was from people who thought the proposals were badly thought out and didn't represent any improvement.
On 12/08/2012 20:31:00 John wrote:
Jim is right; a democratically elected House of Lords would be a very bad idea.

The House of Lords should, as it name suggests, be for Lords, not commoners.

The sooner the Conservatives ditch the Liberals, the better. Then they can appoint some new Lords and redress the Labour/Liberal bias, which currently exists in the upper chamber.

Keep up the good work.

On 13/08/2012 16:00:00 Anthony Miller wrote:

"The House of Lords should, as it name suggests, be for Lords, not commoners

...The sooner the Conservatives ditch the Liberals, the better. Then they can appoint some new Lords and redress the Labour/Liberal bias, which currently exists in the upper chamber".

Sounds simple but the problem is ... The "system" is already at capacity.

The house of Lords doesn't work.

The current system is this.

A Labour PM appoints enough Labour Lords to get through Labour legislation

Change of Government

A Conservative PM appoints enough Conservative Lords to get through Conservative legislation

Change of Government

A Labour PM appoints enough Labour Lords to get through Labour legislation

Change of Government

A Conservative PM appoints enough Conservative Lords to get through Conservative legislation

Change of Government


The net effect is that year on year the number of Lords simply increases exponentially.

There are now 765 + another 51 on "leave of absence / disqualified from sitting".

Any more would risk taking the number into the unsustainable region of the 1000s...

...which would clearly be farcical if nothing else. To put it cynically

With ever longer life expectancy many of the Lords created in 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s ...just aren't dying fast enough.

They're not even has beens or sons of has beens any more.

The likes of Baroness Warsi are the never weres

And the likes of Mandelson the never quites

While the likes of Lord Sugar represent the zeitgeist - actually the anthesis of what it's meant to represent.

Perhaps a sensible middle step to an elected chamber would be to have something of a cull or at least to stop appointing everyone for LIFE.

After all we've drawn a line at lifetime after lifetime.

Although perhaps that was because the Lords had started by accident to be full of ordinary people rather than the political elite.

It's just madness - something's got to give.

It is neither elected nor selected using any kind of sensible criteria.

The House of Lords is the worst of all worlds - lacking both wisdom and an electoral mandate.

If it is to be selected or a selected/elected mix the selection needs to be made on some kind of criteria better than that at the moment...

The system of patronage used at present is so outdated even Samuel Pepys would have said that "we need something to move us into the 1630s".

Not surprising the Liberal Democrats have opted out of signing their own death warrants.




 More Blog Posts
Thank you
  Read Story
My concession speech after the 2017 General Election
  Read Story
Today is polling day - and why I hope you'll support me at the polls
  Read Story
Five reasons to vote Conservative
  Read Story
Howler at the hustings
  Read Story
Campaigning suspended
  Read Story
Funding care for the elderly while making sure people who have worked hard can pass something on to their kids or grandchildren
  Read Story
Opposing Labour's plans for intensification zones in Shirley and Forestdale and to build on the Green Belt/Metropolitan Open Land
  Read Story
Labour’s misleading leaflet on school funding
  Read Story
Fox hunting
  Read Story

Full list of blog posts here

Gavin Barwell, 133 Wickham Road, CR0 8TE, Tel  020 8663 8741      © Gavin Barwell  2019       Promoted by Ian Parker on behalf of Gavin Barwell, both at 36 Brighton Road, Purley, CR8 2LG