BRITAIN:While Wednesday's vote will give momentum to the clamour for change in the second chamber, it is unlikely to be an issue until the next parliament, writes Frank Millar, London Editor
Commons leader Jack Straw has insisted Britain's Labour Government means business after Wednesday's surprise vote by MPs in favour of a wholly elected House of Lords.
However, confusion and doubt persists about the meaning and consequence of the vote, despite it being hailed in many quarters as breaking a century of deadlock over Lords' reform. This in part is because the vote was on a non-binding multi-option motion, aimed at establishing a consensus, and to inform the thinking of a government unable as yet to frame legislation with a realistic prospect of seeing it pass into law. And, second, because the "all elected" option was carried with the help of traditionalists opposed to change who calculated this was the "most toxic" proposal to refer back to their Lordships.
As former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith explained: "Some of those voting for 100-per-cent-elected did so because it would kill it off. It was a brilliant parliamentary tactic." Former Labour minister Chris Mullin appeared to agree, saying "the meaning of all this is that nothing much is going to change in the foreseeable future." Mr Straw, however, was having none of it. He maintained there was now "momentum behind change", and that the traditionalists would not be able to "put the genie back in the bottle".
Delighted to have got any sort of a result, Mr Straw also shrugged-off the Commons defeat for his (and Mr Blair's) preferred option for a hybrid second chamber with half its members nominated and the other half elected. Seizing on the 38-vote majority for the more realisable option of 80 per cent elected and 20 per cent appointed, Mr Straw acknowledged that the majority for a fully elected second chamber had been inflated by parliamentary tactics. However, he maintained that the sentiment and disposition of the Commons was not in doubt. Indeed, he suggested the 100 per cent elected option might have passed despite the manoeuvrings of people such as Mr Duncan-Smith.
"The words mean what they say . . . I don't blame people for being sceptical because we've been going on about this for 98 years. But I think there has been a real shift in the landscape and I think that was significant among MPs on all sides. There's now a momentum behind change - there has been a seismic shift and we can't just put the genie back in the bottle."
To that end Mr Straw will reconvene a cross-party working group ahead of a possible draft Bill later this year. The Liberal Democrats will be enthusiastic participants, scenting as they do the possibility of exercising some real power through a reformed second chamber. However, his Conservative "shadow" Theresa May put Mr Straw on notice yesterday, describing Wednesday night's vote as but a first step. Specifically, she said, Mr Straw would have to abandon his attachment to elections by way of the "closed list" form of proportional representation which she, like many Labour critics, contends would amount to party "patronage" by another name.
Lord (David) Trimble meanwhile - while agreeing Wednesday's vote will give momentum to the clamour for change in the longer term - said Mr Straw would also have to deal with the absurdity at the heart of his plan to empower members of the second chamber while freeing them of the responsibility of ever having to seek re-election.
While wading through the detail of composition, definition of powers and the possibility of perpetual conflict between two "elected" chambers, Mr Straw will also have to establish for whom he speaks. The government, he vowed yesterday, would follow and respect this Commons' decision. But that will not be the government of Mr Blair. As for Mr Brown? Will he seriously want to be embroiled in this as he battles to restore his party's battered reputation before making a pitch for a fourth Labour term in his own right?
Or is it more likely, as Lord Trimble predicts, that this will be a "manifesto" issue for both major parties, and thus an issue for the next parliament rather than this? Their Lordships can probably rest easy a while longer.