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
|
