Lords with low attendance blocked reform

6.24.06pm GMT Wed 14th Mar 2007

Unlock Democracy has released figures showing that the peers speaking against reform in the House of Lords this week on average had a lower attendance record than those who spoke in favour of a hybrid house or a fully elected second chamber.

Speaking in light of House of Lords decision to vote against reform today, Director of Unlock Democracy Peter Facey said,

"The House of Lords was given a golden opportunity to play a constructive role in reforming itself - the vote this evening suggests that it is not capable of doing so.

"The voting records of the peers who spoke in this week's debate make one thing clear: the less a contribution a peer actually makes to House of Lords business, the more likely they are to be opposed to reform. Lord Bilimoria, who supported full appointment, has never voted in the House of Lords up until now. The Bishop of York has voted once in the two years since taking his place in the Lords. Overall, for every 2 votes that a pro-appointment peer has attended, peer in favour of a fully elected one has attended 3.

"In light of this, peers cannot be allowed to get away with the claim that they have put aside self interest and have voted solely according to what they believe is best for the country.

"The House of Lords has now placed itself in opposition to the elected chamber, the manifestos of all the main political parties and mainstream public opinion. This is a dangerous act that it must not be allowed to get away with. The Government should have no time for this brinkmanship and should press ahead with reform."

Peers who called for a fully appointed second chamber / the status quo

• Median attendance record: 39.40%

• Mean attendance record: 38.90%

Peers who called for a Hybrid House OR fully elected second chamber

• Median attendance record: 56.1%

• Mean attendance record: 54.11%

Fully elected only

• Median attendance record: 62.85%

• Mean attendance record: 56.83%