Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Parliament: Lords Reform: Mandelson's lone stand on Lords

Sarah Schaefer,Paul Waugh
Tuesday 02 February 1999 20:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

PETER MANDELSON used his comeback in the Commons last night to claim he was "the lonely voice" who proposed to set up a Royal Commission on House of Lords reform.

The former Trade and Industry Secretary, who resigned in December, said a joint parliamentary committee on its own, as proposed in the Labour Party manifesto, would have been at the "risk" of falling victim to "rather incestuous and introspective proceedings.

"I was the lonely voice on the original cabinet committee urging the creation of a Royal Commission," he said. "I did so because I was concerned that to set up a joint parliamentary committee would result in rather incestuous and introspective proceedings."

He added that the joint parliamentary committee's work before the recommendations of the Royal Commission were published would have become a "playground for the Opposition".

Later, government sources expressed surprise at Mr Mandelson's remarks, saying usually proceedings in cabinet committees remained private.

Mr Mandelson defended the Government's decision not to reform the upper chamber all at once, saying it would have become "bogged down by the insistence that everything is clarified before we make any changes".

He stressed a future upper chamber should not demote the Commons because this would lead to gridlock and constitutional stalemate, "damaging democracy rather than enhancing democracy".

Its functions should contribute to provide the "much needed glue" to keep Britain together at the time of devolution by reflecting the new regional structures. Similarly it should address the remoteness and lack of legitimacy of the political institutions of the European Union. "If we could create a link between national Parliaments and the European Parliament, this would help to overcome that slight gulf that has opened up."

Earlier Sir Edward Heath broke ranks with William Hague by calling for the outright abolition of the hereditary principle and called for the hereditary Upper Chamber to be replaced by a fully elected House of Lords.

"I want to see the abolition of the hereditary principle. It is over. We should move on to a democratic arrangement. It must be elected today. This will cause some astonishment - I hear a great gasp of breath," he said.

"I believe the time has come for the end of hereditary peers in politics. I believe that with absolute conviction. We have now moved to the stage, about to go into the next millennium, and it is time it came to an end."

John Major, the former prime minister, seized upon Mr Mandelson's remarks. "Not since Satan denounced sin have I heard such a recantation as those remarks about devolution," he said.

Mr Major, MP for Huntingdon, said that the Bill was a "vindictive" measure that proved the Government was determined to remove all dissent against it. Mr Major agreed that the hereditary principle was "dead" but warned that the Royal Commission needed more time to come up with a sensible plan for a reformed Upper House.

The Government's "mean, inadequate little Bill" was part of a wider contempt for Parliament and its traditions that the Government also showed for its own backbenchers.

"This House should remember that it is the master of government and not its servant. The real question that lies behind all the constitutional change," he said.

"Liberty needs protection from democracy and this government are tearing apart, piece by piece, Act by Act, the most sophisticated constitution of them all with little understanding of what they are doing."

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in