This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/6340641.stm

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Lords reform proposals 'botched' Straw faces Lords reform battle
(about 4 hours later)
The Tory leader in the Lords has said the house "doesn't deserve another botched attempt at reform." The government's Lords reform proposals face a battle to be accepted after coming under fire on several fronts.
Lord Strathclyde was responding to the announcement of long-awaited proposals, including the election of some peers and the appointment of others. The Lib Dems gave them a guarded welcome but Lord Strathclyde, Tory leader in the Lords, said he would struggle to support the "botched" plan.
Commons leader Jack Straw outlined the plans, saying they were the "best opportunity" to reform the House of Lords for "many decades". Labour peer Lord Lipsey said they would create a "pale clone" of the Commons and lead to political deadlock.
The Lib Dems have said "at least" 80% of peers should be elected. Commons leader Jack Straw is seeking cross-party backing for a chamber made up of appointed and elected members.
Lord Strathclyde said that Conservatives had been expecting to see proposals "that we could sign up to, but instead there was a mish-mash of compromise, of appealing to the lowest common denominator".
REFORM PROPOSALS A 'hybrid' of elected and appointed peersReduce size of House from 746 to 540 membersEnd hereditary and life peerages over timeElected peers to be voted in at same time as Euro electionsMaximum time in office of 15 years for elected and appointed peersAppointees a mixture of party politicians and non-party figuresLords may be renamed - possibly 'The Reformed Chamber'Anglican bishops and archbishops to keep seats Plans at-a-glance Full text of White PaperREFORM PROPOSALS A 'hybrid' of elected and appointed peersReduce size of House from 746 to 540 membersEnd hereditary and life peerages over timeElected peers to be voted in at same time as Euro electionsMaximum time in office of 15 years for elected and appointed peersAppointees a mixture of party politicians and non-party figuresLords may be renamed - possibly 'The Reformed Chamber'Anglican bishops and archbishops to keep seats Plans at-a-glance Full text of White Paper
He said Mr Straw would have a struggle to convince Tories that the reforms were "worth the paper they are written on". But he said he would consider using the Parliament Act to force the changes through if the Commons and Lords fail to reach an agreement on the way forward.
He said it was important to have the people who made the country's law democratically elected. "Ultimately, it is for the Commons to decide what becomes law," he told BBC Radio 4's PM.
"That is fundamental to the way our constitution operates."
But he added: "I hope we don't have to get there, and what I think is essential is that there should be a broad consensus in the House of Commons before we move forward."
'Best opportunity'
Under Mr Straw's proposals, members of the Upper House of Parliament will no longer be made peers and the House of Lords itself will change its name.
The chamber would be slimmed down to 540, including directly-elected members for the first time.
The 92 places for hereditary peers would be scrapped, but Mr Straw left open the question of whether those currently sitting in the Lords should be removed immediately - and, if so, whether they should be offered any compensation.
He described the proposals as the "best opportunity" to reform the House of Lords for "many decades".
The Liberal Democrats have always been committed to a wholly or substantially elected second chamber Simon HughesLib Dem Your names for new Lords
Mr Straw said he personally preferred 50% of members being elected, 30% being appointed from party political choices and 20% being appointed from among non-party candidates
Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has previously backed an all-appointed second chamber, has said he backs Mr Straw's strategy of seeking to find a consensus on a part-elected Lords.
However previous attempts to get MPs to agree on what proportion of the Lords should be elected have failed to get a majority for any particular figure.
Mr Straw's controversial plan to get round this is to give MPs seven options - ranging from all elected to all appointed - which they rank in order, with the last place one dropping out and its second choices reallocated, until one option has majority support.
'Constitutional outrage'
But that plan must first be agreed by Parliament, with Labour MPs forced to vote for it on a three line whip, angering the government's critics.
Conservative MP Sir Patrick Cormack, of the cross-party Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, said: "What he [Jack Straw] has proposed today is a constitutional outrage.
"Will he give everybody on his side of the House a free vote on this monstrous proposal for a football-coupon ballot?"
If the reforms pass that hurdle, Lord Strathclyde said Mr Straw would have a struggle to convince Conservatives the proposed reforms were "worth the paper they are written on".
He said the Conservatives had been expecting to see proposals "that we could sign up to, but instead there was a mish-mash of compromise, of appealing to the lowest common denominator".
Calling for 80% elected peers, Lord Strathclyde said: "I accept that that isn't going to happen for a very long time, but that is the principle that we should be aiming at.Calling for 80% elected peers, Lord Strathclyde said: "I accept that that isn't going to happen for a very long time, but that is the principle that we should be aiming at.
"If we can't agree on that, then I am not at all convinced that we should change the current House of Lords by very much.""If we can't agree on that, then I am not at all convinced that we should change the current House of Lords by very much."
'Soap opera'
He acknowledged it was difficult to get consensus, either in the Commons or the Lords, over what he described as "one of Parliament's longest-running soap operas".
Conservative peer Lord Onslow said the government had not gone far enough.
He said it was "a great muddle and a missed opportunity", especially as it would be years before any electoral changes would be made.
"Since the majority of the hereditary peers went, the house has had much more authority. All governments need arguing with and knocking about - whether it's Conservative or Labour it should always happen.
"I want the house to have greater authority."
All parties are giving MPs a free vote on the issue.
At the moment all peers are appointed, apart from the 92 hereditary peers who survived the first phase of Lords reform during Tony Blair's first term in office.
HAVE YOUR SAY I think each party should have an even split of seats in the Lords - to stop one party having a majority Aiden Codd, UK Send us your commentsHAVE YOUR SAY I think each party should have an even split of seats in the Lords - to stop one party having a majority Aiden Codd, UK Send us your comments
Mr Straw said he personally preferred 50% of peers being elected, 30% being appointed from party political choices and 20% being appointed from among non-party candidates. Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman Simon Hughes said: "We welcome what is clearly a serious attempt by the government to complete the process of reform that began nearly 100 years ago.
Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman Simon Hughes said: "In a modern democracy in the 21st Century, both Houses of Parliament must have elected people." "The Liberal Democrats have always been committed to a wholly or substantially elected second chamber."
The Campaign for a Democratic Upper House said the proposals were a "very significant step forward".
Spokesman Damien Welfare said: "While many of our supporters want to see a second chamber which is more than 50% elected, we welcome the White Paper as a major development in the government's thinking on this issue."
Although the overall number of peers could be greatly reduced, Anglican bishops and archbishops will retain seats, Mr Straw said.Although the overall number of peers could be greatly reduced, Anglican bishops and archbishops will retain seats, Mr Straw said.
A Church of England spokesman said: "We...acknowledge that in a house with reduced numbers consideration needs to be given to the appropriate number of Lords Spiritual.
"We also welcome and agree the recommendation that the wider religious make-up of the UK be reflected by the appointed element of a reformed House," a Church spokesman said.
The White Paper suggests the House of Lords might be renamed after it is reformed. We asked for your suggestions. Here is a selection:
The House that Jack builtJohn C, Reading
The name is irrelevant - as long as it is democratic. Personally I would suggest "House of Representatives" Chris, Brussels
The House of Lords is the obvious choice of name - for the House of Lords.Ewan MacKessack-Leitch, Dundee
I couldn't care less what the House of Lords is called - I just want a vote, which is when I'll be prepared to use capital letters. I also want a vote for or against 'her majesty'Richard Vernon, London UK
It will probably always be known as the Upper House, but it should officially be called the Senate (populated by Senators). This name comes with a tradition reaching back 2000 years, and serves very well for the citizens of the USA and Canada, as well as for the citizens of many of our European partners (France, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Italy), and in nearly 50 countries around the world.DM, Paris, Paris
Keep it the "House of Lords". This is a traditional name and we are loosing enough of our British identity without loosing something else. I say elect 50% and have the rest appointed but all should be classed as "lords" for the period they sitAndew W, Falkirk, Scotland
The House of Lords! Why the need to rename (or change)?Nick Delfas, london
House of Straw?W George Preston, United Kingdom
Name should remain, Members should be 80% elected and all members should become Life Peers, even though only elected or appointed for 15 years. Hereditary Peers should be able to elect a small proportion from existing Hereditary Peers this would maintain continuity with our past history.Alan Rumble, Balmaclellan, Scotland
Straw's FollyTony Mayer, Swindon
Obviously - the House of Straw Clive S, Crowborough
The Senate. And with the same number of senators as the US or Canadian Senates.Andrew Dundas,
The House of Reform Tom C, Oxford