| House of Lords |
| The issue: |
Sir George,
I see the Commons has been debating the future structure of the House of Lords. May I contribute my opinion?
I think we should avoid a House of Lords that reflects the make-up of the Commons. The Lords plays an important role in giving independent views on proposed legislation that sometimes seems to have been rushed through the Commons on a whipped vote. Sometimes (often, in recent times) the proposed legislation seems ill thought through and stands on the strength of the Governments majority alone. The legislation may not have been mentioned in, or is different to, an election a manifesto policy.
To produce a Lords structure that is mainly elected and based on a first passed the post system could create a Government majority in both houses with no independent scrutiny. This would be particularly so if candidates needed the support of the political parties to be elected (as they do in the Commons).We would then have to rely on Lords’ rebels to thwart proposed unsound legislation. I realise the terms of appointment (2-3 terms) may encourage such independence but we do not seem to be encouraging the creation of cross-benchers who I believe are vital for a healthy second chamber.
David Clark
|
| Date Issue Raised: |
16 Jul 2008 |
| My response: |
Dear Mr Clark
Many thanks for your email about reform of the House of Lords. I agree that a reformed Upper House should not reflect the make-up of the Commons. I favour 20% of them being appointed; and the balance of 80% being elected at 4 yearly intervals by a system of proportional representation. This means that it is highly unlikely that any party will have a majority in the Upper House.
You mention the need for the Lords to rebel. As none would be able to stand for a second term, the influence of the Whips would be much less than in the Commons.
Best wishes, George Young
|
|
Sir George Young Bt MP: Constituency and Parliamentary Website 