House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord Kakkar and Lord McNally

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Lords Chamber

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally): My Lords, the Government have carefully considered their proposals for reform of this House and will continue to do so, particularly in the light of the Joint Committee’s report published yesterday, which supported a mainly elected House. We believe that this House will continue to perform its role as an effective scrutinising and revising Chamber.

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, does characterising House of Lords reform in exchange for House of Commons boundary changes as coalition civility risk an erosion of confidence in democracy, as the people of our country are coming to terms with the spectacle of one party in coalition attempting better to control the House of Commons in exchange for the other party trying to achieve control of a future elected second Chamber, all being pushed through using the Parliament Act in what would amount to a monumental gerrymander?

[Lord McNally]

That is a rather harsh judgment on the Government. It is right that the case for boundary reform and House of Lords reform are judged on their merits. The Government put them through this House for scrutiny separately. They are not interlinked but are part of the Government’s and the coalition’s overall commitment to constitutional reform.

Elections: Registration

Debate between Lord Kakkar and Lord McNally

Monday 31st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

This is where I hope that we can call on the experts in all parties to stop those misleading statements. I made clear last Wednesday that we have always had voluntary registration in this country, and that we are not—whichever party is in power, I suspect—going to bring in compulsory registration. But we will bring in a system that will encourage people to complete their civic duties by registering to vote. Rather than throwing barriers in the way, I suggest that all parties, NGOs and others get down to making this system as foolproof as we can, and then get people to register to vote. We can prove by this exercise that some of those fears are groundless. My right honourable friend Nick Clegg and my honourable friend Mark Harper are open to suggestions and are engaged in discussions, and we will do the best that we can.

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, what impact might the opportunity to vote for an elected second Chamber have on voluntary voter registration?

[Lord McNally]

I think that it would have them flocking to register in their millions. The opportunity and the excitement that that would generate would be almost boundless.

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord Kakkar and Lord McNally

Monday 3rd October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My noble friend’s last point is exactly why the Government are being very careful in thinking about just how these matters should be put into law and how Parliament should discuss them. However, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is dealt with by the CRAG Act. Treaties will be debated in both Houses and can be voted on by both Houses, but the CRAG Act makes it quite clear that the view of the House of Commons would prevail in such matters. That is one precedent that we could look at but, as I say, let us wait.

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, if a future election to the other place were to result in no party being able to form a Government, alone or in coalition, do the coalition Government’s proposals for abolition of your Lordships’ House offer a constitutional impediment to the leader of the party that enjoys the confidence of the elected second Chamber being invited to form a Government?

[Lord McNally]

Absolutely and clearly—again, the conventions are clear. The statement in the White Paper is quite clear. It is the person and party who command the confidence of the House of Commons that will form a Government in any future circumstances. That will remain.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Kakkar and Lord McNally

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

Can we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and then from the Cross Benches?

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord Kakkar and Lord McNally

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I do not read that into what my noble friend Lord Tyler said yesterday. I trust the Cross Benches to take decisions on votes in this House as individuals and not as a collective group. I know that they will continue to do that. Even more shaming than any threats real or imagined from my noble friend Lord Tyler are the blatant attempts made by the Labour Party to lure the Cross Benches into elephant traps when trying to delay government business.

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, have any of the newly appointed Peers been asked to give an undertaking that they would support House of Lords reform as envisaged by the Deputy Prime Minister?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, it is always good to have a contribution from the Cross Benches. No such assurances have been asked for and they would be pretty valueless for the reason I gave earlier. I can see faces on the Benches opposite who I remember in their radical youth wanted to burn this place down, and they are now enthusiastic supporters of no change at all.

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord Kakkar and Lord McNally

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I think that the best way we can ensure that is to move quickly to reform this House. We will have that opportunity in the Bill that my right honourable friend has promised for the end of this year and the pre-legislative scrutiny that will take place next year.

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, is it the view of Her Majesty’s Government that your Lordships’ House is currently failing the people of our country? If it is, how best should we correct ourselves at the moment?

[Lord McNally]

On the contrary, I think that successive Governments have the scars to show that this House does a very good job. One reason why this House has survived is that it has shown an ability to bend rather than to break—to recognise the case for change. We need only look at what is happening now, long before any Bill, to see that the process of change is already carrying on—and we are all the better for it.