David Blunkett 'concerned' by Labour plans to abolish House of Lords

Writing in The Yorkshire Post today, Lord Blunkett – who has been a peer since 2015 after standing down as a long-serving MP – said while there was much in the A New Britain report released by Sir Keir Starmer and Gordon Brown that he “wholeheartedly” agreed with, he was concerned about how its ideas might be implemented.

He said: “As I was reading it, I couldn’t help but reflect on the priorities of those facing the greatest hardship at this present time, and where, in the scheme of things, this well-researched and comprehensive Commission report might find a place.

“Proposals to devolve much greater power to the regions and localities in England, as well as greater clarification of devolved powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, make, for me, both good common sense and would renew our democracy. But does anyone think – with the enormous challenges facing an incoming government in just about every economic and social front – wholesale constitutional change would either be possible, or for that matter, politically credible?

“Instead, sensible, incremental change with an overarching framework which would see a clear set of goals and a doable timetable, could lead to real and lasting improvement in the way that we ‘do’ our politics.”

Among the proposals is the abolition of the House of Lords in favour of a regionally elected chamber that is around a quarter the size of now. Sir Keir said the move would happen “as quickly as possible”, ideally within the first term of a Labour government.

A consultation will be carried out on the proposals, but he will need the Lords to approve any legislation that would seek their abolition.

Lord Blunkett said today: “One of my greatest concerns about the recommended constitutional changes is in respect of the abolition of the House of Lords.”

His comments follow the Lord Speaker and former Labour MP Lord McFall warning that a fully elected upper chamber would create “fundamental challenges” to the ability to “deliver good and effective legislation”.

Lord Blunkett said while he is in favour of reform, the new plans may reduce English representation.

“Reflecting, more effectively, the regions and nations of the UK with a much smaller membership, and clearer powers and relationship with the House of Commons make sense. Yet, the paradox is that the House of Commons is supposed to “reflect” the regions and nations in a world where if we are frank, any system that sought to provide greater representation for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be at the expense of representation from England.

“Even if you do feel strongly about the Lords being elected, you can hardly blame them for the mess created both within the House of Commons over recent months, or for the absurdity of the last two Prime Ministers seeking to stuff their friends and colleagues into the place. The House of Lords is not responsible for those arriving in ever increasing numbers, or for the failure to strengthen the Appointments Commission. It is the House of Lords that have been demanding reform, and the Conservative Government that has been blocking it.”

He added: “Let’s have the debate, but also recognise that the last thing on the minds of men and women endeavouring to make ends meet is the prospect of a parliament bogged down in the minutiae on where to place the deckchairs on the Titanic. After all, we are holed under the water, but not by our constitution. It is poor decision-making, bad politics and a failure of vision and clarity of purpose which has brought Britain, over almost 13 years, to its knees.”