A government report has called for massive House of Lords reform. What the report suggests is a reduction in the membership to 450 peers, 80% of which would be elected and 20% of which would be appointed along the lines of the current system used for the whole house. The new peers may be called 'senators' and thus the reformed house would be called a 'senate'. Although I am totally in favour of House of Lords reform and I want greater democracy, I also believe that to maintain our culture and heritage it should still be called the House of Lords and those elected or appointed to the house should still be peers.
The proposals have cross party support, the Labour Party considered it during their time in office, this is a Liberal Democrat part of the coalition agreement and the Conservative hierarchy have supported it. Yet there is significant disquiet amongst many back bencher Conservatives who believe that such a monumental change to British governance should be put to the electorate in a referendum. This idea is a bit bizarre, the majority of the country support House of Lords reform, so they would almost certainly lose. Also a referendum is very expensive and would distract the government from the more important tasks at hand like the international and internal economic situation.
In my opinion this House of Lords reform (if passed) would mark the end of an incredible journey of reform of the upper house. The Liberals were the first to start the process with the Parliament Act of 1911, this act removed the veto power of the House of Lords. Labour would continue this progress with the Parliament Act of 1949, this reduced the amount of time the Lords could delay a bill by. In 1999 Labour continued with the House of Lords Act 1999, this got rid of the majority of hereditary peerages, for the hereditary peers that were left the peerage would expire upon their death. An elected chamber is what is required to complete our journey to better democracy. I urge the government to push ahead with the promise of reform and to ignore Conservative opposition.
The proposals have cross party support, the Labour Party considered it during their time in office, this is a Liberal Democrat part of the coalition agreement and the Conservative hierarchy have supported it. Yet there is significant disquiet amongst many back bencher Conservatives who believe that such a monumental change to British governance should be put to the electorate in a referendum. This idea is a bit bizarre, the majority of the country support House of Lords reform, so they would almost certainly lose. Also a referendum is very expensive and would distract the government from the more important tasks at hand like the international and internal economic situation.
In my opinion this House of Lords reform (if passed) would mark the end of an incredible journey of reform of the upper house. The Liberals were the first to start the process with the Parliament Act of 1911, this act removed the veto power of the House of Lords. Labour would continue this progress with the Parliament Act of 1949, this reduced the amount of time the Lords could delay a bill by. In 1999 Labour continued with the House of Lords Act 1999, this got rid of the majority of hereditary peerages, for the hereditary peers that were left the peerage would expire upon their death. An elected chamber is what is required to complete our journey to better democracy. I urge the government to push ahead with the promise of reform and to ignore Conservative opposition.
No comments:
Post a Comment