Paul Tyler writes: Progress postponed

There was no talk this year of banning champagne at the Conservative Party Conference. Perhaps there was no danger of exuberance among delegates. As recalcitrant Tories sought one-in-the-eye against Nick Clegg by erasing Lords Reform from the Coalition Agreement, their party’s treasured redrawing of the UK electoral map was duly jettisoned too. Without a stronger second chamber to challenge the executive, it would have been wrong to reduce the size of the House of Commons, thereby increasing the proportionate dominance of the government’s ‘payroll’ within it.

Clearly, the failure of the most comprehensive attempt to reform the composition of the Lords since 1968 (when another unholy Tory/Labour alliance in the unlikely shapes of Enoch Powell and Michael Foot, thwarted progress) is a major blow to democratic reformers. The cretaceous forces of conservatism prevailed; doubtless they have popped the odd champagne cork recently. But their revelry can only be temporary:  a celebration of progress postponed.

In the coming years ‘the problem’ with the Lords will ferment further. More peers will be created, as per the Coalition Agreement. To achieve political balance, most will be Conservative or Liberal Democrat, not Labour. Proponents of the status quo defended a system of appointment by patronage: now they will see its ill-effects. These new peers are likely to attend more regularly than those who are long-established, and perhaps who lost interest long ago. Every time they attend, they collect £300 tax-free. That is The System defended by reform opponents. It cost taxpayers nearly £20m last year, double the price tag in 2001, and in the coming years the figure will easily double again. In a period of austerity, that can hardly be said to be value for money.

In this Parliament, an over-grown, over-blown House of Lords has been in the DPM’s Cabinet Office in-tray. After 2015, it will be the business of every single Minister, as an ever more assertive set of political appointees each seek to make their mark challenging whoever is in government next. Where the democratic demands of the public were so easily brushed aside, day-to-day demands from Ministers for a more rational second chamber may prove more influential.

Some peers are now pressuring the government to try a ‘quick-fix’, which would preserve party patronage as the primary route into the Lords, but make the place marginally less ridiculous. At one stage, our ex-leader David Steel prepared a Bill to prevent any more hereditary peers coming in, ‘chuck out the crooks’ and permit peers to retire, but even this timid package was emasculated. The question is, why should the Coalition – and particularly Nick Clegg – be interested in backing it? As Liberal Democrat members put it in their recently-approved conference motion, “meaningful reform of the House of Lords is contingent on the introduction of direct elections to determine its membership.”

Lord Strathclyde, Leader of the House, observes that 70% of MPs voted in favour of an elected House, but that the Steel Bill would, by contrast, be a “move to entrenching an appointed House”, and I am inclined to agree. As David Lloyd George astutely observed, “the most dangerous thing in the world is to try to leap a chasm in two jumps.”  Lord Strathclyde has likewise concluded, “Lords reform is now a matter for future Parliaments.”

The cause of real reform has been advanced in the last year by good, cross-party workmanlike pre-legislative scrutiny, and a very strong second reading vote in its favour. In the next Parliament, the issue will arise again, and our Party stands ready to help make real reform happen when that day comes. I will have a bottle of bubbly chilling for when it does.

PS:  Following the Brighton conference discussion, I suggested in the Lords on Tuesday that no MP who had voted against reform in this Parliament should be appointed a Peer in the next. This caused one of those special Lordly rumbles!


* Lord Tyler is the Liberal Democrat Lords Spokesperson for Political and Constitutional Reform.

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • The proposed Lords reform was already clearly a committee compromise and easily subject to criticism. The single non-renewable terms of 15 years and the 20% appointed places seemed particularly daft. So now there is an opportunity to reconsider what reform should look like.

    Lib Dems have a chance to come up with distinctive proposals. Elected places makes most sense when there is an opportunity to express approval or disapproval at the ballot box, so I would like to see renewable tenure of 4 (± 1 or 2) years. Clearly only 100% elected makes democratic sense. However, as for particular specialisms, I do not see a problem with the Lords being able to co-opt non voting members who can speak and serve on committees on issues relating to their particular specialism.

    David Steel was notably unhelpful and his proposals smacked of being rather unpleasantly self congratulatory and self serving. Although certainly not a crook, his thinking was crooked and actually shows why 15 years is too long without a renewed democratic mandate.

  • toryboysnevergrowup 10th Oct '12 - 7:40pm

    It needs to be recognised that the model of a minority party seeking to achieve constitutional change on the basis that it believes it has a monopoly over moral virtue in this area was never going to be successful – nor should it be. I do believe that a majority of the population can be persuaded or are already of the view that our electoral system and constitution are outdated and need modernising but we are no where near agreeing a consensus on what the shape of that constitution should be – and until there is a consensus the opponents of change will happily pick apart any disagreements in order to protect their vested interests (and this is what has happened with all Clegg’s proposals because he is an ineffective politician). If anyone really wants change then they need to start working on that consensus and in building a new model for the constitution – the constitutional commisssion route that eventually acheived devolution in Scotland through a similar approach is not a bad model to start with.

    PS Clegg and Steel (and Gordon Brown for that matter) are damaged goods in this area and should be told to keep their distance.

  • Daniel Henry 13th Oct '12 - 11:17pm

    Consensus was already reached – elected Lords was debated and voted in favour of twice over the past decade.

    The fall of the bill was down to Tory backbenchers trying to spite the Lib Dems and a Labour opposition more interested in giving the government a headache than making things better.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Ann Bailey
    Nonconformistradical 17th Aug '22 - 3:48pm @Ann Bailey “What about the housebound ill/elderly/disabled or single mums with young children, etc., These are a...
  • Peter Watson
    The crude analysis by the party is an interesting - but possibly misleading - take on the A-level grades. And focusing on A and A* grades perhaps says something...
  • Peter Davies
    The best way to target help on energy bills is not to link the help to energy bills at all. Give the poor enough money to pay the higher bills through exist...
  • Andy Daer
    The wealth gap is already too large, and it's growing. That mattered less when most people were getting richer, but it could be very dangerous now that a lot o...
  • Lorenzo Cherin
    Terrific speech by Layla. Excellent comments also. You would think govts would understand the simple economic principle, applied to the important social c...