FABRICANT PROPOSES ALL-ELECTED HOUSE OF LORDS
Participating in the historic debate last night (10th January) on the future
of the House of Lords, Michael Fabricant told the Commons that he would
like to see an all-elected Upper Chamber, but with the existing Life Peers
and Hereditary Peers being allowed to participate in debate, but have no
voting rights. "At the beginning of the 21st century, it would be
unacceptable to have another Chamber in this Parliament to which only 20 per
cent. of Members were elected." (This is the Government’s proposal). "Any
figure that we may announce, whether it be 20 per cent. or 80 per cent.,
will be merely arbitrary. Furthermore, whether we like it or not and whether
we choose 80 per cent. or not, the figure will be transitional–eventually,
it will be 100 per cent anyway. Therefore, I say to honourable Members on
both sides of the House that we must accept that the caravan has moved on,
whether or not we admit that the House of Lords worked as it was and whether
or not we liked or admired it. There must be a wholly elected Chamber and
let us move forward on that basis."
He went on to tell the House of Commons: "If it had been up to me, I would
not have embarked on this change to the House of Lords. I have a sense of
history, and I believe that if something works, we should not try to fix it,
breaking it in the process. But I accept that the caravan has moved on and
that we cannot turn the clock back. Accepting the fact that the House of
Lords must be reformed, I have no option but to say that it now has to be
wholly elected. There is no other choice, because it needs legitimacy."
Robin Cook (The Leader of the House) speaking for the Government asked how
the Commons would have primacy over the Lords if the Upper House were
elected. Michael Fabricant said "This depends on how we structure the
House of Lords. One example might follow the United States Senate. We
would elect one or two people per administrative area – per County and
Unitary Authority such as Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent – regardless of
population. Because of the imbalance between those elected and the numbers
electing them, it would result in the Lords not having quite the legitimacy
of the Commons where we are elected to represent constituencies each of
which has roughly the same number of electors. But there are many other
models we could adopt."
Michael Fabricant then put forward the following proposal: "It is
generally accepted that there is considerable expertise in the House of
Lords among hereditary and life peers. We would be unwise to reject the
influence that they can have on our lives, so will he (Robin Cook, Leader of
the House) seriously consider this option? If we have a wholly elected House
of Lords, which I would like, and if those elected Members have a vote, will
the right honourable Gentleman introduce an arrangement, which might be only
transitional, giving existing Members the right to attend debates and
present their arguments without having a vote? I do not see why people
should be frightened of that proposal. I accept the argument that the Leader
of the House put to me when I made my intervention earlier — that it would
result in two classes of Member, voting and non-voting — but there are
precedents for that in other Chambers and in company law. There is no reason
for not retaining current Members of the House of Lords with expertise
during the transitional period so that they may participate in debates but
not vote. If nothing else, that would ensure a smoother transition than any
abrupt change."
Uniquely, no-one in the Commons debate, including the many Labour MPs who
participated, supported the Government’s proposals to elect 20% to the Lords
while 80% would be appointed by the Government "Tony’s Cronies". It was
therefore agreed that the Government would consider Michael Fabricant’s and
other proposals made during the debate.