BBC NEWS | UK | Politics | Lord Russell: More information required

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Russell says the long-awaited report setting out Lords reform options lacks the key information for him to decide what to back.

The key question about House of Lords reform is not about composition. It is about power.

This is concealed under the universal acceptance of the formulae contained in the Parliament Acts. However, this universal acceptance conceals a very wide difference of opinion about how far the Lords should be free to exercise the powers to which the 1911 act entitles them.

There is a growing tendency for the executive to try to emancipate itself from parliamentary control in all forms

Lord Russell

Old House of Commons men, especially those who have been ministers or speaker, tend to take the view that the Lords should only return an amendment to the Commons twice; if after that the commons still insists, the Lords should meekly knuckle under.

Others think that the 1911 act was brilliantly drafted to provide an incentive for compromise. The secretary of state is asked to choose between having the whole bill in a year's time or the amended bill at once.

This choice should concentrate the mind wonderfully, as it did in the case of Scottish tuition fees, which we returned to the commons five times.

Each time we do this we meet a cry of '"You must give way to the elected chamber".

If we accept this without question, we tell the secretary of state that he only needs to be bloody-minded to get absolutely everything he wants. That is a temptation which very few ministers can resist.

More permissive legislation

There is a growing tendency for the executive to try to emancipate itself from parliamentary control in all forms.

This is not only a matter of the power of the Lords. It shows also in the growing tendency to put vital changes, such as the deprivation of the right to social security from students and asylum seekers, by unamendable regulations.

We are coming to have an executive which is probably the most arbitrary and unchecked anywhere in the western world

It shows also in the growing use of a more permissive style of legislation in which where one would expects the words "the secretary of state shall..." we find instead the words 'the secretary of state may..."

He is thus free from any challenge by the courts if he does not.

The reasons which the Commons are bound to give when they reject a Lords amendment are growing more and more cursory.

On the proceeds of crime bill last session, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a former high court judge much respected on all sides of the House, carried an amendment which was rejected by the Commons on the sole ground that they had had no time to consider it.

Because the party business managers in the commons had agreed to this under a timetable motion, the Lords were forced to accept it.

Last bastion of control

Since we have no constitution we are coming to have an executive which is probably the most arbitrary and unchecked anywhere in the western world. The Lords are the last bastion of parliamentary control left.

We thus have to choose whether we want a House of Lords which is better or a House of Lords which is more effective.

Geoffrey Howe may well be right that election would not give us a better House, and the 1999 House has not justified many of the misgivings we had about it when it first appeared.

It is not Mr Blair's poodle. It produces debate of high quality, and even on the government benches it shows welcome signs of independence.

The difficulty with the present House is not about its intellectual quality, it is about its lack of power

Government chief whips of any party should not forget that it is the dissidents who legitimate the actions of the compliant.

The difficulty with the present House is not about its intellectual quality, it is about its lack of power.

Because it is perceived as lacking legitimacy the commons are finding it increasingly easy to ignore it.

Over and over again, they say to us "You can't do that, you're not elected". When some of us reply, "Then why not elect us?" we meet an embarrassed silence.

Schoolboy dare

Election would compel the Commons to recognise more legitimacy in the Lords than they are prepared to do at present.

The case for election is not that it would make us better. It is that it would give us more power.

I am therefore a supporter of election in order to increase the chances of checking an overmighty executive.

When we invite the commons to agree to election we are giving them something resembling a schoolboy dare. I will be very interested to see how far they have the courage to take it up.

Before I decide which of the options for election I would want to accept, it would be necessary to know what method of election is proposed. Different methods of election would produce very different types of House.

The worst possibility of all is the closed list system of election used for elections to the European Parliament.

In fact, it is doubtful whether this should be described as election at all.

Independent minds required

The proposal if the House is nominated is for peers to be chosen in rough proportions to the votes cast for the parties. In the closed list also, peers will be chosen by the parties in proportion to votes cast at the election.

I would therefore like to know whether the peers chosen off the closed list should be regarded as elected peers or as nominated peers.

Personally, I prefer my wolves to wear wolves' clothing, and I would therefore support an honestly nominated house in preference to one which purports to be elected off a closed list.

First-past-the-post (FPTP), though it has little to recommend it, does throw up the occasional person with genuine independence of mind. Dennis Canavan in the Scottish Parliament is a prime example, as are Martin Bell and Richard Taylor at Westminster.

I would therefore prefer FPTP to the closed list - but that is praise faint enough to damn it.

The additional member system with an open list at least allows voters to a share in choosing who is to represent them. If that were to be the proposal I would accept it without enthusiasm and probably vote for something in the region of 25% of the House elected.

Passionate concern, declining interest

The case for the single transferable vote (STV) is quite different.

One of the most obvious points made by all those who have commented on the reduced turnout in the last general election is that reduced enthusiasm for political parties is not matched by declining interest in politics.

There are many people who are passionately concerned about individual issues without translating this concern into support for a political party.

The crossbenchers are a vital part of the present House which must be preserved ... they are the jury of the House

If we are to restore public participation in the political process it is essential to give these people some method of expressing their preferences at the ballot box.

Preferential voting which allows people to extend their preferences across party divisions is the ideal way of achieving this and the second chamber is a good place in which to achieve it.

This would achieve a House of Lords very different from the Commons and capable of giving a fair hearing to many a widespread opinion which are almost unheard in the present Commons.

One could not imagine, for example, that the present laws on drugs would have lasted unchallenged for nearly so long if there had been a second chamber elected on preferential voting.

If the option were to be STV I would want the highest proportion of elected peers compatible with the preservation of the crossbencher.

The crossbenchers are a vital part of the present House which must be preserved.

In a situation where probably the majority of electors have no settled allegiance to any political party, they are the only way in which non-party opinion can achieve representation.

Independents required

They also give us a chance to hear genuinely expert opinion on questions which come before us.

Among very recent examples, the contribution of Lord Joffe, formerly Nelson Mandela's lawyer, to the opposition ton the proposal for segregated education for asylum-seekers' children is a conspicuous example.

The only independents who could hope to be elected in large numbers are either millionaires or stage and screen personalities

So was the speech last Monday by Laura Finlay on the dangers of white asbestos. She is professor of medicine in the University of Wales and knew more about the intricacies and uncertainties of the argument about the dangers of white asbestos than the whole of the Commons put together.

We must not lose the chance to hear such people.

In any present system of election it is very hard to see how independents can be elected in any numbers except in exceptional cases where at least one of the major parties refrains from opposing them.

If the Liberal Democrats up a candidate in Wyre Forest, Richard Taylor would have faced a much more difficult election than he did.

The only independents who could hope to be elected in large numbers are either millionaires or stage and screen personalities whose names are more widely known than that of any politician.

Milords Jagger and Branson?

Election could only give us cross benchers such as Richard Branson and Mick Jagger.

It is no disrespect to either of these gentlemen to say that they provide something less than a cross-section of expert opinion.

It is therefore essential to retain nomination probably by the present system through a commission in any reformed House.

The crossbenchers are the jury of the House. It is their presence which guarantees that speeches are capable of changing votes. It therefore makes a much bigger contribution to the quality of debate than is apparent at first glance.

We would be a poorer House without them.

I would therefore like to see a House made up of 25% nominated crossbenchers and 75% representatives of parties elected by STV.

What I shall actually do, I will decide when I know what method of election is recommended.

Conrad Russell is Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesman in the House of Lords

Do you agree with Lord Russell?

Disclaimer: The BBC will put up as many of your comments as possible but we cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be published. The BBC reserves the right to edit comments that are published.