Unlock Democracys Media Guide to House of Lords Reform Summary of the key provisions in the House of Lords Reform

Bill An 80% directly elected, 20% appointed chamber with up to 12 seats reserved for Church of England Bishops The Parliament Acts - which set out the primacy of the House of Commons - will apply to the reformed House of Lords The reformed chamber will be considerably smaller - 450 members (462 including the Bishops) Effectively open list elections for large regional seats (electoral districts, based on European Parliament seats) in mainland Great Britain and the Single Transferable Vote system for Northern Ireland Appointed members will be nominated by a statutory House of Lords Appointments Commission although the Prime Minister can still appoint people to serve as Ministers Elected, appointed and ministerial members serve three electoral terms (normally 15 years), and may not serve again Members may resign, and they may be expelled or suspended Pay and allowances are to be set by IPSA, with pay being related to the participation of the member in the work of the House Members will be treated for tax purposes as resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled in the UK Peers may vote in elections to either House of Parliament and they may be members of either House of Parliament There will be a three stage transition to a fully reformed House of Lords

Unlock Democracy

www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk

Page 1

 In the first phase of the transition, after the first election, 120 elected members and 30 appointed members, plus up to 21 Lords Spiritual, an unknown number of ministerial members, and two thirds of existing peers In the second phase, after the second election, 240 elected members, 60 appointed members, up to 16 Lords Spiritual, ministerial members, and one third of existing peers so long as they are transitional members from the first phase After this, 360 elected members, 90 appointed members, up to 12 Lords Spiritual and ministerial members Why do we need reform? An unelected House lacks legitimacy. At present the House of Lords monitors the government and can propose, revise, delay and veto new laws. In a democracy, everyone who makes laws should be elected by the people and capable of being thrown out by voters. Currently Lords are appointed for life and therefore cannot be removed from office, even if they are convicted of a criminal offence. Party patronage devalues politics. The perception that people can buy a seat in the legislature has been a source of controversy for over a century. It undermines trust in our political system and fuels public cynicism about participation in politics. Unlock Democracy research reveals that dozens of members of the House of Lords claimed tens of thousands of pounds tax free in 2011 despite only voting on a handful of occasions. One peer, the Earl of Rosslyn, claimed over 15,000 despite not voting at all or sitting on any parliamentary committees (see appendix for full details) The public wants it A ComRes poll published in July 2012 found that 67% supported an 80% elected second chamber with 24% opposing it. There was support for election across the main parties with 57 per cent of Conservative, 76 per cent of Labour and 64 per cent of Liberal Democrat supporters supported an elected second chamber1. A YouGov poll conducted in April 2012 found that only 5% of the public support a fully appointed chamber while 69% favour elections2. A ComRes poll taken at the same time showed that 69% of the public favour an 80% elected second chamber 3. A further YouGov poll in May 2012 found that 50% of the public want the government to proceed with Lords reform; only 26% said they should not 4. More than 88% of the public voted for a party committed to an at least substantially elected second chamber in 2010.

Two-thirds of voters want to see Lords reformed: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/twothirdsof-voters-want-to-see-lords-reformed-7906924.html 2 Clear majority want Lords Reform: http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/media/news/entry/clear-majoritywant-lords-reform 3 Poll Digest - Political - BBC Radio 4 World At One Lords Reform http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/653/bbcradio-4-world-at-one-lords-reform.htm 4 Public DOES want gay marriage, Lords reform http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/05/15/public-does-wantgay-marriage-lords-reform/ Unlock Democracy www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk Page 2

The Lords Reform Myths Myth: The House of Lords is full of experts Truth: Unlock Democracy has published research that shows only around 10% of current members of the House of Lords are there specifically because of their expertise. Over 40% of current Peers have a background in active party politics. Appointment to the House of Lords is not the only way to bring expertise into lawmaking. Experts could be brought into the second chamber through the Committee system to consider specific Bills rather than as full time members of the legislature. This would ensure that their expertise is both relevant and up to date. These proposals could increase the influence of independent experts. At present around 80 crossbench members vote in controversial divisions. In an 80% elected chamber of 450 members there will be 90 independently appointed expert members. Myth: The House of Lords is independent of political parties Truth: This is simply not true. A large plurality of sitting life peers 41.57% are drawn from active party politics, having served as MPs, MEPs, councillors or party officials who have been appointed to the second chamber by their party leader. Unlock Democracy research, based on data from publicwhip.org also shows that far from being more independent, peers are less likely to rebel than MPs. Over half of major party Peers voted against the rest of their party less than 1% of the time. MPs had a median rebellion rate of 1.20% compared to the Lords 1.10%, and a mean rebellion rate of 1.90%, compared to the Lords 1.77%, and although the results are close, it is clear the House of Lords is not significantly more likely to rebel. You can see the full data http://unlockdemocracy.org.uk/blog/entry/house-of-lords-a-more-independent-chamber Myth: An elected second chamber challenge the primacy of the House of Commons Truth: The governments proposals would mean that two-thirds of the elected members of the second chamber would always have a less recent mandate than the House of Commons. A second chamber that was predominantly or wholly elected would always be subordinate, as the Commons gets its primacy from how its powers are defined, not from elections. Existing legislation limiting the amount of time the House of Lords can delay legislation would still apply. Myth: We cant do this now Truth: Why not? Great reforms have often come about during difficult period - the Education Act 1944 which radically changed the education system was passed while the country was at war. Of course the government needs to focus on the economy but legislation is not always the answer to the challenges we face. Parliament first indicated its intention to move to an elected second chamber 101 years ago, in the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 - we have delayed this long enough.
Unlock Democracy www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk Page 3

Myth: Two elected chambers would create gridlock and mean that nothing gets done Truth: An elected second chamber would be more assertive in examining proposals for new laws and holding government to account which would strengthen Parliament as a whole. It means the second chamber is doing its job: examining proposals for new laws and asking the government to think again. Ultimately however, while a more assertive second chamber may challenge government legislation more frequently, it will still only be able to delay certain types of legislation by up to a year. This nuclear option would mean the final legislation would be as approved by the House of Commons; none of the second chambers amendments would be accepted. Thus the second chamber will always have an interest in seeking compromise with the House of Commons. Myth: There has to be a referendum before we reform the House of Lords Truth: There have already been two significant changes to the composition of the House of Lords which were not endorsed in a referendum - the introduction of life peerages in 1958 and the removal of all but 92 of the hereditary peers in 1999. Unlock Democracy believes that it should be possible for people to trigger a referendum on Lords reform if there is significant support for one. This would mean adding a section to the House of Lords Reform Bill stating that once Royal Assent has been granted, opponents of reform would have a limited period of time, we suggest one year, to collect a specified number signatures. We believe that petitions from 5% of the electorate should be enough to trigger a referendum. If the signatures were not collected within the time frame, the Act would be implemented as planned. If the requisite number of signatures were collected, then a referendum would be held. This would ensure that people can have a say if they want one but that the country does not go to the expense of a referendum if there is no demand for it. Myth: This is just the Lib Dems obsessing about constitutional reform Truth: This is a cross-party issue - of the parties represented in the House of Commons there were commitments to Lords reform in the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green, SNP, Ulster Unionist and Alliance Party manifestos in 2010. There is a great deal of consensus - many of the proposals in the BIll were put forward by the previous Labour government as well as recommended by cross party groups. The recent Joint Committee is the ninth body to report on Lords reform in the last 12 years. Myth: Lords reform is not a Conservative manifesto commitment Truth: The last three Conservative manifestos have all committed the party to an elected second chamber. The 2001 manifesto (when William Hague was leader) stated We would like to see a stronger House of Lords in the future, including a substantial elected element
Unlock Democracy www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk Page 4

The 2005 manifesto (when Michael Howard was leader) stated the way we are governed has become less accountable, more complex and ultimately less democratic...proper reform of the House of Lords has been promised but never delivered The 2010 manifesto stated we will work to build consensus for a mainly elected second chamber to replace the House of Lords As Ken Clarke MP has said nothing could be sillier than to abandon our own election manifesto and suddenly start pretending that we are all against Lords reform Useful facts about the House of Lords The best cure for admiring the House of Lords is to go and look at it Walter Bagehot economist and constitutionalist (1826-1827) 62% or members of the House of Lords were privately educated with 43% attending just 12 schools. 1 in four members of the House of Lords are former MPs. There are 2 members of the House of Lords under 39 and 685 over 60 including 16 over 90. 5 Only 15 other countries do not allow citizens to vote for the second chamber Only 2 countries - the UK and Lesotho - have hereditary members of the legislature.

source House of Lords library - the information is correct as of 12/10/2011 www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk Page 5

Unlock Democracy

Appendix - Unlock Democracy research - Patronage costs the public purse Unlock Democracy research reveals that dozens of members of the House of Lords claimed tens of thousands of pounds tax free in 2011 despite only voting on a handful of occasions. One peer, the Earl of Rosslyn, claimed over 15,000 despite not voting at all or sitting on any parliamentary committees The data was derived by cross-referencing the House of Lords register of allowances and expenses claims with each peers voting record. During 2011, the average peer voted in 67 out of a total of 131 divisions. In total 30 peers claimed over 20,000 in expenses despite voting in fewer than 1-in-4 divisions (32 or less) in 2011. A further 75 peers did not vote at all during that period (9 of whom died at some stage in 2011/2012). The daily attendance allowance is intended for peers to claim when they are on parliamentary business. Peers can claim 300 or a lower rate of 150 per day tax free. Most of the claimants with little or no voting record do not sit on any parliamentary committees. The full dataset for 2011 can be found here: http://bit.ly/lords2011 (large Excel file) / http://bit.ly/lords2011sum (summary on Google Spreadsheet) 75 peers didn't vote at all in 2011 (4 of whom claimed more than 5k and a further 8 claimed less than 5k) 180 peers voted at least once but on less than 25% of occasions of those 6 claimed more than 40k in expenses a further 10 claimed more than 30k in expenses a further 14 claimed more than 20k in expenses. a further 18 claimed more than 15k in expenses a further 34 claimed more than 10k in expenses Total cost of peers who did not vote at all: 46,684.95 Total cost of those voting in fewer than 25% of divisions: 1,993,307.00 The most expensive peers who voted in less than 25% of divisions, 2011 Lord Laird - A former MP and Northern Ireland Assembly Member for the Ulster Unionist Party, he was given a peerage in 1999 (total expenses in 2011: 54,036.27; attended 143 days; voted 30 times; spoke once in the chamber; received 833 written answers; no committees) Lord Peston - An economist who was made a Labour life peer in 1987, also the father of the BBCs Business Editor, Robert Peston (total expenses in 2011 47,880.20; attended 156 days; voted 20 times; spoke 29 times in the chamber; joint committee on security 2010-) Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill - The widow of former Labour leader John Smith, who died in 1994, she was made a Labour life peer in 1995 (total expenses in 2011 47,623.84; attended 131 days; voted 31 times; did not speak in the chamber or receive any written answers; no committees)
Unlock Democracy www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk Page 6

 Lord Quirk - An academic specialising in linguistics, English language and literature, he was made a crossbench peer in 1994 (total expenses in 2011: 44,769.00; attended 149 times; voted 29 times; spoke 3 times in the chamber; received 12 written answers; science and technology sub-committee I: hybrid instruments) Lord Truscott - A non-renewable energy consultant and former Labour MEP who was embroiled in the Cash for Influence scandal in 2009 (total expenses in 2011: 44,100.00; attended 147 days; voted 19 times; did not speak in the chamber or receive any written answers; no committees) Baroness Greengross - A crossbench peer, she was elevated to the Lords in 2000, and is currently the Chief Executive of the International Longevity Centre UK and a Vice-President for the Local Government Association (total expenses in 2011: 40,846.50; attended 150 days; voted 32 times; spoke 16 times in the chamber; received 5 written answers; no committees) Lord Dannatt - A retired British Army Officer and former Chief of the General Staff, he was also an adviser to David Cameron in Opposition (total expenses in 2011: 38,114.00; attended 144 days; voted 19 times; spoke 8 times in the chamber; no committees) Lord Pearson of Rannoch - A former insurance broker, he was made a Conservative peer in 1990, though he defected to UKIP in 2007 and served as their leader between 2009 and 2010 (total expenses in 2011: 38,073.98; attended 124 days; voted 13 times; spoke 228 times in the chamber; received 29 written answers; no committees) Viscount Waverley - One of the 92 hereditary peers still in the Lords, he sits on the crossbenches and first entered the House in 1993 (total expenses in 2011: 37,200.00; attended 124 days; voted 19 times; spoke 3 times in the chamber; received 64 written answers; no committees) Viscount Brookeborough - One of the 92 hereditary peers still in the House of Lords (total expenses in 2011: 36,555.16; attended 67 days; voted 9 times; spoke 5 times in the chamber; no committees)

The most expensive votes in the House of Lords, 2011 Lord Elis-Thomas - A former leader of Plaid Cymru who, until May 2011, was presiding officer of the National Assembly for Wales (total expenses in 2011: 15,488.70; attended 43 days; voted once; spoke once in the chamber; no committees) 15,488.70 per vote Bishop of Liverpool - Born James Jones, he became the Bishop of Liverpool in 1998 having previously been the Bishop of Hull since 1994 (total expenses in 2011: 12,449.30; attended 36 days; voted once; spoke 10 times in the chamber; received 1 written answer; member of communications select committee 20102011) 12,449.30 per vote Lord Paul - An Indian-born business magnate, former non-dom for tax purposes and Labour donor, he was suspended from the Lords in October 2010 for 4 months following the expenses scandal (total expenses in 2011: 34,224.70; attended 114 days; voted 4 times; spoke twice in the chamber; no committees) 8,556.18 per vote Lord Skidelsky - An academic of Russian ancestry, famed for his biography of John Maynard Keynes (total expenses in 2011: 25,823.00; attended 90 days; voted 5 times; spoke 4 times in the chamber; received 1 written answer;
Unlock Democracy www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk Page 7

committees: refreshment 2009-, EU sub-committee G 2010-, joint committee in the draft financial services bill 2011-2012) 5,164.60 per vote Lord Jones of Birmingham - A businessman who now sits on the crossbenches, he was Director General of the CBI for over 6 years before being made a peer in 2007 and going on to serve as a Minister of State and spokesman for the Labour government (total expenses in 2011: 14,391.80; attended 48 days; voted 3 times; spoke twice in the chamber; no committees) 4,797.27 per vote Viscount Brookeborough - One of the 92 hereditary peers still in the House of Lords (total expenses in 2011: 36,555.16; attended 67 days; voted 9 times; spoke 5 times in the chamber; no committees) 4,061.68 per vote Lord Oxburgh - A geologist and geophysicist, he was made a crossbench peer in 1999 (total expenses in 2011: 29,764.40; attended 100 days; voted 9 times; spoke 6 times in the chamber; no committees) 3,307.16 per vote Lord Bramall - An 88 year old British Army Officer who served as Chief of the Defence Staff for 3 years (total expenses in 2011: 22,266.95; attended 73 days; voted 7 times; spoke once in the chamber; no committees) 3,180.99 per vote Lord Pearson of Rannoch - A former insurance broker, he was made a Conservative peer in 1990, though he defected to UKIP in 2007 and served as their leader between 2009 and 2010 (total expenses in 2011: 38,073.98; attended 124 days; voted 13 times; no committees) 2,928.77 per vote Lord Birt - BBC Director General between 1992 and 1999, he was also a strategy adviser to then Prime Minister Tony Blair (total expenses in 2011: 14,400.00; attended 61 days; voted 5 times; spoke twice in the chamber; received 10 written answers; no committees) 2,880.00 per vote

The most expensive non-voters in the House of Lords, 2011 Earl of Rosslyn - A Commander in the Metropolitan Police Force and one of the 92 hereditary peers in the Lords, he has only voted 7 times since 1999, 5 of which were in 2007 on the reform of the Lords, when he voted for a fully appointed chamber and against all the elected options (total expenses in 2011: 15,750.00; attended 108 days; did not speak in the chamber or receive any written answers; no committees) Lord Lewis of Newnham - An 84 year old academic who was Professor of Chemistry at Cambridge University for 25 years, he sits on the crossbenches and was made a life peer in 1989 (total expenses in 2011: 9,467.70; attended 29 days; did not speak in the chamber or receive any written answers; no committees) Lord Singh of Wimbledon - A journalist and director of the Network of Sikh Organisations, he was appointed in October 2011, though failed to vote for the remaining 3 months of the year (total expenses in 2011: 5,550.00; attended 23 days) Lord Hanningfield - A former pig farmer and Conservative local council leader, he was jailed in 2011 for falsely claiming expenses (total expenses in 2011: 5,027.60; attended 22 days; did not speak in the chamber or receive any written answers; no committees, he also attended 13 days in the last 3 months of 2010 without voting, claiming 4,282.10) Earl Baldwin of Bewdley - The grandson of the former Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and one of 92 hereditary members sitting in the Lords (total expenses in 2011: 4,457.37; attended 43 days; received answers to 45 written questions in 2011, 44 of which were on fluoridation and 1 of which was homeopathy; spoke once in the chamber also on fluoridation; no committees)
Unlock Democracy www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk Page 8

Unlock Democracy

www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk

Page 9