Second Chamber of Parliament Bill
From Democracywiki
Central Lobby
Contents |
Status
- Presented to the House of Commons on 10 February 2005 (They Work For You)
Summary
The Second Chamber of Parliament Bill was presented to the House of Commons on 10th February 2005. It proposes that the House of Lords be renamed the "Second Chamber of Parliament" with Members being called "Members of the Second Chamber of Parliament" or MSCPs.
It is recommended that the second chmaber be reduced in size to no more than 385 Members, 270 (70%) of which should be elected using the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. The Other 87 Members would be independently appointed. The number of Bishops in the Second Chamber would be reduced from 26 to 16. Elections for the Second Chamber would be held on the same day as the General Election. No party should have a majority in the House. The Bill suggests that MSCPs (whether appointed or elected) should serve for 12-14 years (the equivalent of three House of Commons Terms). MSCPs would receive lower salaries and less generous expenses than those in the Commons. No member elected to the Second Chmaber would be able to stand for election to the Commons until at least five years after their term in the House had finished.
To allay fears that an elected Second Chamber would be a threat to the primacy of the Commons, the Bill proposes that the majority of Cabinet Ministers should continue to be drawn from the House of Commons, but that the Prime Minister still be entitled to appoint up to four Members of the Second Chamber in each Parliament to serve as Ministers.
Issues
Appointments
To be added
Primacy of the Commons
To be added
Removal of Bishops from the Second Chamber
Along with the removal of appointed and hereditary peers, the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords is a major issue, and one that has caused many divisions of opinion. In a pamphlet published in 2004 the New Politics Network proposed that all Bishops should be removed from any reformed Second Chamber. It is recommended that they are moved to a United Kingdom Council of Faith, which would give all the different faith groups in Britain equal political representation, thus removing the unfair advantage held by the Church of England.
Opinion is split on the future of Bishops in the House of Lords. The Wakeham Commission proposed that there be 16 Church of England Bishops retained in the House with at least 5 representatives of other Christian denominations and 5 non-Christian representatives. The Government on the other hand argued for the number of Bishops in the House to remain the same. And, whilst rejecting the idea of formally representing other faiths in the Second Chamber, the Government proposed an increase in the unofficial representation of such groups. The Public Administration Seect Committee proposes that all Bishops be totally removed by the next but one General Election. However, they do state that there is no reason why Bishops should not be considered by the appointment committee if it is deemed that they have something meaningful to bring to debates in the chamber and if they guarantee widespread involvement in divisions.
The Conservative Party argues that there is no need to completely remove all Bishops from the House of Lords. Instead they argue for a reduction in the voting powers of some Bishops whilst still allowing them to speak on issues in the House. And, unsurprisingly the Church of England does not want any reduction in the number of Bishops in te Second Chamber. They argue that any reduction in the number of Bishops would be detrimental, as it would upset the balance of the chamber.
Removal of Law Lords from the Second Chamber
The bill poposed that the Law Lords should not longer sit as members of the House of Lords.
Reformers had been concerned for some time that the judiciary should be independent of the legislature. Although conventionally sitting Law Lords did not speak in debates on issues which they may be called upon to rule there was concern about potential conflicts of interest.
However this has now been resolved by the Constitutional Reform Act which will see the Law Lords becoming part of the new Supreme Court rather than members of the House of Lords.
System of Election
To be added
Related Links
- Text of Bill (Parliament Website)
- Reforming the House of Lords: Breaking the Deadlock Report by Paul Tyler, Kenneth Clarke, Robin Cook, Tony Wright and Sir George Young on the reasoning behind the Bill
- Westminster Hall Debate - Second Chamber (25 February 2005)
- EDM 571: House of Lords Reform (2005/6 Session)
- Question from David Clelland MP about EDM 571 in Questions to the Leader of the House, 15 July 2005
- House of Lords (Media Watch)
