What the reform team is likely to recommend to the
Joint Committee based on correspondence with the Reform team
| "The draft Bill breaks the link between members of the second chamber and the peerage. The peerage will revert to become an Honour."
| Welcomed (and this would apply to the alternative reform)
|
| "Provisions for cancelling or suspending membership"
| Sensible |
| "Membership limited to 300 members"
| Welcomed, and could be applied to the alternative reform
|
| "Members will be elected."
| Welcomed, but there is reference to "80 or 100%". Not wanted is a half-baked decision. There must be 100% elected.
|
| "The reformed second chamber will inevitably be a political chamber" and "political parties will continue to have a central role to play"
| This must be rejected. The public do not want two political cockpits, with squabbles from one being repeated in the other. What is required is a second chamber able to scrutinise proposed legislation objectively, what its effect will be on different sectors of the public and their interests.
|
| "Members should be elected in thirds for a single non recurring period of 15 years. Staggering elections in this way make it less likely that one political party would gain an overall majority"
| This envisages General Elections to the second chamber, the cost of which could be avoided by the alternative reform.
The first election would be fought by candidates from political parties and it is most likely that the majority Party will be the same as in the Commons.
After the next 15 years which Party will have a majority in the second chamber becomes a game of chance. There may be a change of Parties in the Commons majority. Or there may not. And after another 15 years the same applies and the more "chancey" is the outset. A new constitution should not be accepted if it is based on chance. It is astonishing that the Reform team would consider this.
|
| "Members would be salaried and the arrangements should be broadly similar of those which apply in the House of Commons."
| Here we go again! Was the Reform Team unaware that the financial situation in the Country is so parlous that Austerity must be applied severely? In addition to costly elections here is another commitment adding up to billions of pounds over a period. The public will object to what they will consider to be another "gravy train" for politicians. This factor alone is sufficient justification for the alternative reform.
|
| "The Government considers that serving a single term with no prospect of renewal should enhance the independence of members..."
| There can be no independence if members have obligations to particular Political Parties. The Reform Team seem to be trying to sell something which cannot be relied upon!
|
| "The reformed chamber will be neither a mirror image nor a rival to the primary chamber, the House of Commons"
| There can be no argument about which is the primary chamber, but it could well be a mirror image politically—see references to "chance " above. The only way to ensure it is not a mirror image may depend on the alternative reform.
|
| "Members of the reformed chamber will be expected to be full time parliamentarians" and "will gain access to the data, knowledge and expertise via use of the Commons system."
| Whatever reform is used, that access will be desirable but one would wish to know where the "expertise" is coming from and its type. Is any available on any subject? The alternative reform would be more sure to have expertise on tap, without delay which would doubtless be involved otherwise.
If the Reform Team's idea of salaries etc for members of the second chamber, the members should indeed be prepared to work full time. But if the alternative reform operates time spent will depend on the incidence and nature of the proposed legislation.
|
| The Reform Team appears to have based their deliberations on the findings of the 2000 Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords
| This, from 11 years ago, is outdated. There have been too many changes globally and nationally. A financial depression now dominates, and austerity will have to be exercised over many years. The National Debt is beyond the safety limit. We are still borrowing excessively. Despite budget cuts and the resultant misery and especially when so many will lose their jobs, despite which Ministers continue to find millions of pounds for any emergency arising here or even overseas.
Political influence has changed.
A "Big Society" is now a base policy involving the public more in details of government but the Reform Team have not applied this.
There are crises ahead which will require radical attention by Government eg on water management when global warming and climate change really affects different parts of this land.
There is a surge in the numbers of aged. There has been excessive immigration. There is a likelihood of further loss of sovereignity if we continue in the EU. The NHS has additional problems and Community Hospitals are not being fostered. Instead, centralisation is taking away local services.
A broken Society has to be mended. We have been over-committed in the Middle East. Our Defence Forces are under greater strain than they were 11 years ago. Too many jobs have been transferred overseas. Our vital manufacturing base has deteriorated further.
It is necessary to discard that 11 years old Report and take a fresh look at the second chamber. This should contain all the skills, all the expertise, experience and knowledge available. It is not a chamber for a duplication of a political Commons.
|
| Constitution of the Reform Team
| Presumably this is composed of civil servants and politicians, both of whom are so entrenched in old procedures and constitutions that consciously or not these have continued to engage them. If their recommendations are taken up a once in a lifetime opportunity will be lost to create a second chamber giving effect to the Big Society principles, to ensure austerity, to utilise the best brains in the Country.
|
