Last week MPs backed a 100% elected Upper House by a substantial majority. Today it was the Lords’ turn to vote on proposals for its composition. They opted for a fully-appointed chamber. Voting was 361 to 121, majority 240. The Lords also voted against all other combinations
While the votes are not binding on the Government the votes demonstrate a deep division between the two Houses and the difficulty there will be to find a consensus. It looks as if a reform bill, certainly one that looks for a fully or largely elected upper chamber, will have a tough path if it is to become law.
Showing posts with label House of Lords. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House of Lords. Show all posts
15 March 2007
07 March 2007
The end of the Lords as we know it?
I've only just seen the news that MPs have voted in favour of a fully elected House of Lords. In a series of votes, they also voted for an 80% elected Lords, rejected other options for lower proportions of elected members and outright abolition.
The vote is advisory, but it gives momentum to reformers who want to see see an elected second chamber. It will now be up to the government to decide whether to accommodate the wishes of the Commons in a bill to reform the Lords. Peers will themselves vote on the same options next week. The fully-elected chamber was backed by 337 MPs to 224, a majority of 113. MPs rejected a move by to ensure the remaining 92 hereditary peers were not removed until the elected peers took their seats in a reformed Lords.
Under the white paper, elected peers could serve only one term, but that would be of 15 years. Elections of a third of members every five years would mean a complete change of personnel every 15 years. Some form of proportional representation would be used, with party lists for candidates, and constituencies based on the European parliament regions. A future bill could also see the name of the upper chamber changed from the House of Lords
My first reaction is to to be glad that MPs have voted this way. It'is about time we had an elected upper chamber. I know the vote isn't binding but the Government would be crazy to ignore the commons on this matter.
The vote is advisory, but it gives momentum to reformers who want to see see an elected second chamber. It will now be up to the government to decide whether to accommodate the wishes of the Commons in a bill to reform the Lords. Peers will themselves vote on the same options next week. The fully-elected chamber was backed by 337 MPs to 224, a majority of 113. MPs rejected a move by to ensure the remaining 92 hereditary peers were not removed until the elected peers took their seats in a reformed Lords.
Under the white paper, elected peers could serve only one term, but that would be of 15 years. Elections of a third of members every five years would mean a complete change of personnel every 15 years. Some form of proportional representation would be used, with party lists for candidates, and constituencies based on the European parliament regions. A future bill could also see the name of the upper chamber changed from the House of Lords
My first reaction is to to be glad that MPs have voted this way. It'is about time we had an elected upper chamber. I know the vote isn't binding but the Government would be crazy to ignore the commons on this matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)