House of Lords Reform

Baroness Bryan of Partick Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the hyperbole of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, but I would like to bring us back down to practical things.

The information in the very helpful Library briefing for this debate includes a list of Peers and their group affiliations. I think the contents would probably shock many electors. Most people would want to know why the Conservative Party has so many Peers, how the Lib Dems have so many in proportion to their numbers in the Commons, why Bishops of the Church of England are represented in our Parliament, and who chooses the Cross-Bench Peers. If we added to that the age, geographical spread and class background of Peers, they would be positively amazed if not downright angry. And that is before even mentioning that there are still Members of the House who are here on a hereditary basis.

There is a danger that, as Members of this Chamber, we suffer a type of institutionalisation where we cease to see ourselves as others see us, admiring the positive elements and overlooking the negatives. Most rational people will accept the removal of hereditary Peers. It is so obvious that it is unbelievable that it did not happen more than a century ago. What is less clear from this and other discussions is what to do with the remaining Members of the House and the Chamber itself. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said, it should not be set in aspic.

A second Chamber is usually one of checks and balances on central government, normally charged with one or both of two tasks: to protect the constitution and, as was described earlier, to represent nations and regions. To carry out these functions effectively, it needs political legitimacy. Without that, its powers will and should be limited, and with limited powers it can be reduced to a talking shop.

I am sure that many Peers became increasingly concerned at the last Government’s introduction of legislation that called into question the rule of law and the place of long-standing international treaties and removed powers from the devolved Administrations without their consent. Those last few years should have convinced Members of this Chamber that we desperately need a constitutional review. I appreciate the difficulties, and I do not think there is any easy, off-the-peg solution, but we need to make a start. Constant prevarication will eventually incur the wrath of voters.

The Labour Party manifesto stated that, in government, we

“will consult on proposals, seeking the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them”.

Gordon Brown’s most recent contribution to the debate on the constitution was not his first. As student rector of Edinburgh University 50 years ago, he edited the Red Paper on Scotland and wrote:

“The question is not how men and women can be fitted to the needs of the system—but how the system can be fitted to the needs of men and women”.


He warned against

“resisting change until it becomes inevitable—but by deploying every available level of government to increase the control working people have over their lives”.

I hope that, 50 years later, we can dispatch the forthcoming Bill as quickly as possible and begin the job of discussing more fundamental change.