House of Lords Reform Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Cabinet Office

House of Lords Reform

David Mowat Excerpts
Monday 27th June 2011

(13 years, 4 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Ruffley Portrait Mr Ruffley
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

So many people are being appointed nowadays that I would not hazard a percentage, but I will deal with the point about nominations later.

David Mowat Portrait David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Ruffley Portrait Mr Ruffley
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I want to make some progress.

It seems that we are being required to duplicate the mandate of this House, but why should we do that, particularly when it would lead to confusion and conflict? As night follows day, elected Members of an upper Chamber would be able to claim as much legitimacy as Members of this House. [Hon. Members: “No!”] An elected Lord, from my party or any other party, would be entitled to turn up in my constituency, or any Member’s constituency, claiming that he had a mandate on almost any issue he chose. What would the public make of that, and what kind of mandate would it be? Would it be based on proportional representation? There are two problems with that. First, any kind of electoral reform was—the last time I looked—rejected fairly decisively by the British people in a referendum earlier this year. Secondly, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Burton observed, the system would be the creature of party machines—dare I say it, Whips—who would ensure that, on a national or regional list, troublemakers, perhaps independent-minded existing peers, were not placed on such a party list.

David Mowat Portrait David Mowat
- Hansard - -

Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Ruffley Portrait Mr Ruffley
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I want to make some progress.

The final objection to such a system, of which we have heard much today, is that an elected peer would be elected for a 15-year term, and during that period would be accountable to no one. Even on its own terms, the democratic argument seems defective.

According to the White Paper published earlier this year,

“The Government does not intend to amend the Parliament Acts or to alter the balance of power between the two Houses of Parliament.”

I must say, with respect, that that utterly misses the point. A democratised upper House would be stronger, and would have its own view about the balance of power. Once the power has been given to them, what Ministers “intend” is irrelevant. The Minister has said that there would be no change in the balance of power. How precisely does he intend to enforce that?