Labour’s Caerphilly MP Wayne David has called on the UK Government to work with his party over reform of the House of Lords.
Mr David, who is Labour’s spokesman for constitutional reform, said a consensus needed to be built if changes to Parliament’s upper house were to happen.
On Tuesday night, the Conservative and Liberal Democrats Coalition Government was forced to abandon a vote on the issue after Labour threatened to side with rebel Tories.
The vote was to decide how much time the proposed new bill had for debate in the House of Commons.
Commons leader Sir George Young has told MPs a new timetable for debate will be tabled in the autumn.
The Coalition’s plans, mainly driven by the Lib Demss, involve making 80% of peers elected, rather than appointed, and cutting the number Lords from 825 to 450.
Mr David said: “Labour strongly believes in House of Lords reform – it is vital to have an elected second chamber to ensure that we have a vibrant democracy. But significant constitutional change can only come about through cross-party discussion and agreement. Progress can only be made through consensus and not conflict.
“There are worrying reports that David Cameron has said he is not prepared to talk with Labour. I hope these reports are wrong and I would urge the Prime Minister to recognise that this is not an internal Conservative Party debate, or even a debate between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. It is a debate which should be conducted between all of us. Right from the start Labour has ‘kept its door open’.
“Our offer of meaningful discussion with the Government is there. I hope this offer is taken up.”
I was once very much in support of an all elected House of Lords. My reasoning was that it was archaic to have a bunch of buffers in ermine debating law passed by Parliament. Over the last 30 years I have changed my view somewhat. This is as a result of comparing the adult debate of the Lords with the noisy, cat calling, puerile bedlam that is the House of Commons ‘at work’.
I think an inherited seat is still anachronistic but we do need a scrutiny chamber made up of people who do not have political ambitions and are not swayed by party interests. To this end why don’t we adopt a really radical reform where people are selected randomly to serve in the Lords for a period of two years? The selection process could work in a similar manner to jury service, with exemptions for those who cannot fulfil their obligation.
This would provide us with a chamber made up of a genuine cross section of society and provide a pool of talent and life experience which would be absent from a chamber comprised of party political individuals and political appointees.
Is Wayne David a progressive reformer or just another opportunistic and cynical politician? We shall see.
Considering the conservatives don't care for reform, then I don't think he's got much hope of ever reaching a consensus. Apparently politicians are all far too busy 'fixing' the economy, unless of course someone mentions Europe. Then its toys out of the pram and suddenly all the time you could ever need.
Would it be too old-fashioned to call for a Royal Commission ? Probably, because the two main parties – but not in this part of
the country – want to carve it up between themselves, or one party wants to take control by themselves. How do other countries elect their upper chambers ? Labour and the Tories won't tell us, for obvious reasons.