Facing defeat, government drops Lords reform vote

LONDON Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:14pm BST

Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron reacts as he listens to France's President Francois Hollande during a news conference after their bilateral meeting at 10 Downing Street in central London July 10, 2012. REUTERS/Andrew Winning

Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron reacts as he listens to France's President Francois Hollande during a news conference after their bilateral meeting at 10 Downing Street in central London July 10, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Andrew Winning

Related Topics

LONDON (Reuters) - Facing its first major parliamentary defeat, Britain's coalition government on Tuesday at the last minute dropped plans for a controversial vote on reforming parliament's unelected upper chamber, the Lords.

The government seemed set to lose the vote after scores of politicians within Prime Minister David Cameron's ruling Conservative party threatened to rebel over the plan to make the Lords a mostly elected, rather than appointed, chamber.

The reforms are a key plank in the coalition deal between the ruling Conservative Party and their Liberal Democrat partners and defeat at the hands of Conservative politicians would have been a huge blow to the Lib Dems and the coalition government.

Drawing out the debate could foment further dissent within the Conservative party over the issue and erode the glue that keeps the coalition government together.

Only hours earlier, Cameron had made a last ditch appeal to the opposition Labour party to back the legislative timetable that the government then dropped.

"Even at this late stage I would appeal to them, don't play the opportunistic card, don't play politics with this issue, vote for what you say you want, which is a reform of the Lords," Cameron said.

The Lords consists of more than 800 members, who review laws and scrutinise the work of the government. The queen appoints members on advice from the prime minister, although some inherit the role and some seats are reserved for members of the clergy.

The government wants to cut membership of Lords to 450 by 2025, and make 80 percent of the chamber's seats elected for non-renewable 15-year terms, with the rest appointed by an independent committee on the basis of particular expertise.

The Lib Dems and others say that an appointed upper chamber of parliament is undemocratic and that its aristocratic and privileged membership, resplendent in their scarlet robes fringed with ermine fur, is an anachronism.

Conservative rebels argue that elected Lords would be more partisan and undermine the primacy of parliament's lower chamber, creating legislative gridlock. They also fear an elected chamber would lack diversity and specialist expertise.

Labour, which says it supports the reforms, said it would vote against the proposed timetable for legislation on grounds more time was needed for the debate. A vote on the reform in principle is expected to pass with strong support later on Tuesday.

Many politicians saw the little prospect of the Lords reforms becoming law once the vote on the timetabling had been lost.

"A plague on both their houses. Labour have frankly messed about on this ... What we want now in the next two months is to gather support across the coalition benches, that's the idea of this, not to change the legislation," a Lib Dem source said.

"When the leader of the Conservative Party, the prime minister says, we need a bit more time, we can deliver this vote, then you listen to that," the source added.

Lawmaker George Young, who arranges government business in parliament, said the issue of timetabling Lords legislation would be moved to the autumn.

A Labour source said the climbdown was a "victory" for parliament, and said the party would now push for the Lords reforms to be considered by a parliamentary committee.

"This is a major constitutional change which poses serious questions, so it needs a proper debate," the source said.

(Editing by Alison Williams)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
Raymond.Vermont wrote:
Whatever next will they lose?

Hopefully the left-wing Liberals!

Yes the Lords needs to have a maximum number set and a limited time period of being able to be one…

But whats the need in trying to pretend there needs to be democracy involved within its workings? Do they want a elected Judiciary next?

Jul 10, 2012 8:11pm BST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.