Draft House of Lords Reform Bill - Draft House of Lords Reform Bill Joint Committee Contents



Pauline Latham MP

I feel that the reforms that have been outlined in the proposals are unnecessary, and could damage the current system of the Upper Chamber, which we all acknowledge to be extremely effective.

My first concern lies with the proposal to have an elected House of Lords. It has been said by various parties on a number of occasions that those who make the laws of the land should be elected by those to whom those laws apply. However, I do not believe that enough consideration has been given to the practicality of this. The current system is well acknowledged to work superbly, and the most important feature that enables the Upper Chamber to work in this way in which is does is the expertise contained within the House of Lords. I am extremely concerned that should we lose the ability to appoint Peers to the House of Lords, then we could lose out on an enormous amount of expertise, which would otherwise be provided by an extremely diverse set of experienced people. The House of Lords is currently made up of many specialists in the areas of academia, health, business, the services, and many, many more. With such specialist talent, it is highly unlikely that these people would be likely to stand for election. Even if the Bill allowed for 20% of Peers to still be appointed, I believe that this would still greatly jeopardise the composition and expertise contained within the House of Lords.

I firmly believe that an elected House of Lords would threaten the primacy of the House of Commons, instead of complimenting it, as it does under the current system. This would be a particularly difficult issue to resolve, because of the largely unwritten constitution that we have in the U.K. Furthermore, I believe that this reform is flawed in respect that it will politicise the Chamber of the House of Lords. Not only would it make it harder for Cross-Benchers and Independents to be elected, but it would also mean that particularly at election times, party-politics could come into play and be taken into account on the basis of re-election. One of the advantages in the way that the Lords currently works is that it complements the work of the Commons without forcing Peers to consider the implications that their actions might have upon their re-election. It is inevitable that party-politics does come in to play in elected chambers on some occasions, and I think that it would be a disaster to force this upon the Lords.

In terms of the process of election to the House of Lords, this is something that must be considered in detail. The running of elections is hugely expensive, and an elected House of Lords would of course have a significant increase in the amount that the taxpayer would have to contribute. There would be difficulties with considering where candidates would stand, and constituencies would have to be drawn up. The proposed time frame of a term under a reformed House of Lords stands at fifteen years; which in my opinion is far too long. Somebody aged between 55—60 is unlikely to be selected for their term of office until they are 70 -75, meaning that the whole composition of the House of Lords would be down to people with less experience of life and the outside world.

Another concern that I have is electoral exhaustion. Currently, the United Kingdom is asked to vote in general elections, local elections, referenda, European elections, Parish Council elections, as well as assembly elections in devolved countries. I would be concerned that asking people to vote in another election would drive down voter turnout further.

There is one suggestion that I would like to make when it comes to the reform Bill, and that would be the insertion of a power to allow the removal of a Peerage, should a Peer be convicted of committing a crime. I do not think it is correct that Peers, or indeed Members, should be allowed to retain a title when convicted of a criminal act.

12 October 2011


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2012
Prepared 23 April 2012