News Release

11th January 2002

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.