LONDON LETTER:The Liberal Democrat leader wants to slash the number of Lords and see most of them elected. His plan is not going well, writes MARK HENNESSY
TROUBLESOME BISHOPS have irked the holders of power in Britain for centuries, as Henry II found when he struggled with Thomas à Becket in the 12th century over the rights of the church. In the end, the latter was dispatched by the sword.
Last week the bishops were again disturbing the peace when they led the rebellion in the House of Lords against much-cherished plans by the Conservative/Liberal Democrats coalition government to reform welfare benefit laws.
The bishops were supported by Lib Dem peers and a tightly whipped Labour contingent, who are proving to be a thorn in the coalition’s side now their ranks have been stiffened by recently retired ex-Labour ministers.
This week work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith hit back, overturning the peers’ amendments and sending the legislation back to the upper house with a financial privilege order that prevents the peers from frustrating his wishes again.
However, a succession of legislation to come – including changes to the National Health Service, plans to cut legal aid entitlements, prison sentencing rules and proposals to devolve more powers to Scotland – is expected to provoke the peers again.
Since May 2010 the Lords have voted against the government 31 times – an unusually high number that may not be unconnected to the coalition’s plans (though that should more properly read Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg’s plans) to reform the House of Lords.
Last year Clegg published a draft Bill that would cut numbers in the Lords from nearly 800 to 300, and see eight out of 10 of these elected by the single transferrable vote form of proportional representation. Each would serve for 15 years, and no more. The House of Lords would also be renamed the senate. The elected peers would take office in three tranches, beginning with the first 100 in 2015.
For many in the Lords, Clegg’s work is an act of vandalism, which perhaps explains the more obstreperous role played by the peers since the election. “If people don’t know what we do, then we should show them,” one peer said this week.
In a survey last year, a majority of Liberal Democrat peers favoured reform, but nine out of 10 Conservative peers were against. Roughly the same number of cross-benchers were equally unhappy but, significantly, 73 per cent of Labour peers were against.
Clegg’s plan is not going well. On Wednesday the deputy prime minister appeared before the Lords constitution committee and was unable or unwilling to announce that the reform legislation would feature in the upcoming speech of the queen.
Privately, the Conservative leader in the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, opposes Clegg, but on Wednesday he played to the coalition’s tune, ruling out a referendum on the issue because all three party manifestos were “remarkably similar” on the need for reform.
If the legislation is not included in the queen’s speech, the chances of reform before 2015 are reduced substantially, since its inclusion this year is necessary to give the coalition time to vanquish the peers in the parliamentary battles ahead.
Under this timetable, the legislation would be introduced in May and later thrown out by the peers. Then the coalition would bring it back in 2013 and use the Parliament Act to make sure that it became law, leaving time for elections to be organised in 2015.
However, if it does not appear this year in the queen’s speech, ministers face the prospect of a constitutional battle in the run up to the Commons election at a time when they will have more pressing issues to worry about.
Even in the Commons, Clegg can expect a stiff fight, since Conservative MPs are unconvinced – partly because an elected upper house would have a legitimacy to challenge MPs in a way that peers do not possess.
There is also the factor of personal ambition, since many MPs, not just those on the Conservative side, harbour dreams of becoming peers themselves.
Unelected and privileged, the House of Lords can be hard to defend. However, there’s little doubt that the Lords possess expertise in some disciplines that are sorely lacking in the Commons, and that it takes time to revise legislation left unfinished by MPs. While talk of reform continues, the coalition must worry about the peers as they are. The Conservatives have 219 and Labour 239 – a reflection of Labour’s 13 years in power. The Liberal Democrats have 91, and there are 187 nominally independent cross-benchers.
A combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats should, and usually does, provide a comfortable majority, since the cross-benchers are not always present or, if they are, are united on an issue.
On welfare reform, however, the Liberal Democrat members are split: 39 voted with the government and 26 against, including the party’s former leader, Paddy Ashdown, while 26 did not enter the voting lobbies at all. Further Lib Dem protests are likely since the junior coalition party is distinctly cool towards reforms of the NHS in England and Wales. The bishops also remain to be convinced.
The secretary of state for health, Andrew Lansley, who has ploughed on with NHS reforms even if they were not included in the Tory’s own election manifesto, may not be the only minister feeling sympathy with Henry II’s desire to be rid of turbulent priests.