The history of reform of the House of Lords has a long history since the Parliament Act 1911, and since the House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of all but 92 hereditary peers to sit in the Lords, there has been a number of initiatives to further the debate on reform. The latest proposals are contained in the draft Bill (Cm. 8077, ISBN 9780101807722) published in May 2011, which was referred to the Joint Committee. In this report the Joint Committee acknowledges the controversial aspects of certain of the proposals and the members of the Committee reflect wider differences of opinion, many of the report's recommendations being decided by a majority. The majority supports the need for an electoral mandate, provided the House has commensurate powers. The current functions and role would continue, but the House would probably seek to be more assertive, to an extent that cannot be predicted. The Committee recommends a House of 450 members, 80% elected on a system of Single Transferable Voting (preferably that used in New South Wales, not the one proposed in the Bill) for a 15 year term.The main sections of the report cover: functions, role, primacy of the Commons and conventions; electoral system, size, voting system and constituencies; appointments, bishops and ministers; transition, salaries, IPSA, disqualification. The Committee recommends that, in view of the significance of the constitutional change, the Government should submit the decision to a referendum.
The history of reform of the House of Lords has a long history since the Parliament Act 1911, and since the House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of all but 92 hereditary peers to sit in the Lords, there has been a number of initiatives to further the debate on reform. The latest proposals are contained in the draft Bill (Cm. 8077, ISBN 9780101807722) published in May 2011, which was referred to the Joint Committee. In this report the Joint Committee acknowledges the controversial aspects of certain of the proposals and the members of the Committee reflect wider differences of opinion, many of the report's recommendations being decided by a majority. The majority supports the need for an electoral mandate, provided the House has commensurate powers. The current functions and role would continue, but the House would probably seek to be more assertive, to an extent that cannot be predicted. The Committee recommends a House of 450 members, 80% elected on a system of Single Transferable Voting (preferably that used in New South Wales, not the one proposed in the Bill) for a 15 year term.The main sections of the report cover: functions, role, primacy of the Commons and conventions; electoral system, size, voting system and constituencies; appointments, bishops and ministers; transition, salaries, IPSA, disqualification. The Committee recommends that, in view of the significance of the constitutional change, the Government should submit the decision to a referendum.
The history of reform of the House of Lords has a long history since the Parliament Act 1911, and since the House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of all but 92 hereditary peers to sit in the Lords, there has been a number of initiatives to further the debate on reform. The latest proposals are contained in the draft Bill (Cm. 8077, ISBN 9780101807722) published in May 2011, which was referred to the Joint Committee. In this report the Joint Committee acknowledges the controversial aspects of certain of the proposals and the members of the Committee reflect wider differences of opinion, many of the report's recommendations being decided by a majority. The majority supports the need for an electoral mandate, provided the House has commensurate powers. The current functions and role would continue, but the House would probably seek to be more assertive, to an extent that cannot be predicted. The Committee recommends a House of 450 members, 80% elected on a system of Single Transferable Voting (preferably that used in New South Wales, not the one proposed in the Bill) for a 15 year term. The main sections of the report cover: functions, role, primacy of the Commons and conventions; electoral system, size, voting system and constituencies; appointments, bishops and ministers; transition, salaries, IPSA, disqualification. The Committee recommends that, in view of the significance of the constitutional change, the Government should submit the decision to a referendum.
This is a draft Bill and white paper on proposals to change the House of Lords into a more democratically elected second chamber. A cross-party Committee met seven times from June to December 2010 and considered all reform issues related to the House of Lords. Agreement was reached on a large number of issues but differences in opinion remain on the size of the elected element and the type of electoral system. The Government now wants to take the discussion forward to a debate on the detail. Proposals include an 80 percent elected House of Lords but a wholly elected House of Lords has not been ruled out. The Draft Bill sets out elections using the Single Transferable Vote system but it is recognised that a case can be made for other proportional systems too. Other proposals, name, size, functions, powers and term length are some of several issues discussed.
This is the 20th edition of the publication which was first published in 1862. This edition has been revised to take account of the new working practices of the House and its Committees. It contains chapters on: the House of Lords and its membership, parliamentary sessions, sittings and documents, rules of conduct and debate, divisions, public and private bills, delegated legislation, select committees, judicial business, parliamentary privilege and related matters.
This report details the response of the Public Administration Select Committee to the Government's proposals for the reform of the House of Lords (contained in the White Paper (Cm. 5291, ISBN 0101529120) published in November 2001). The Committee argues that the White Paper is fundamentally misconceived in its determination to ensure the pre-eminence of the House of Commons, as this is not in any doubt. The real task is to increase the effectiveness of Parliament as a whole (i.e. both chambers) in holding the Government to account for its actions and policies, and this should be the focus of any reforms. The House of Lords should continue to be a revising, scrutinising and deliberative assembly, but its performance of all these functions should be strengthened. Recommendations include: 1) 60 per cent of members should be elected (compared to the 20 per cent proposed by the Government), 20 per cent should be nominated by the political parties and 20 per cent independent members; 2) the size of the second chamber should eventually be reduced to 350 members; and 3) the next step should be the production of a draft Bill for consideration by a joint committee of both Houses as soon as possible.
The history of reform of the House of Lords has a long history since the Parliament Act 1911, and since the House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of all but 92 hereditary peers to sit in the Lords, there has been a number of initiatives to further the debate on reform. The latest proposals are contained in the draft Bill (Cm. 8077, ISBN 9780101807722) published in May 2011, which was referred to the Joint Committee. In this report the Joint Committee acknowledges the controversial aspects of certain of the proposals and the members of the Committee reflect wider differences of opinion, many of the report's recommendations being decided by a majority. The majority supports the need for an electoral mandate, provided the House has commensurate powers. The current functions and role would continue, but the House would probably seek to be more assertive, to an extent that cannot be predicted. The Committee recommends a House of 450 members, 80% elected on a system of Single Transferable Voting (preferably that used in New South Wales, not the one proposed in the Bill) for a 15 year term.The main sections of the report cover: functions, role, primacy of the Commons and conventions; electoral system, size, voting system and constituencies; appointments, bishops and ministers; transition, salaries, IPSA, disqualification. The Committee recommends that, in view of the significance of the constitutional change, the Government should submit the decision to a referendum.
This report examines the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill (contained in Cm. 7342-I,II,III, ISBN 9780101734226) to see how far its provisions put into effect the recommendations of its predecessor Committee's 5th report on the constitutional role of the Attorney General (HC 306, session 2006-07, ISBN 9780215035462). The draft Bill makes no substantial change to the current situation. The Attorney General remains both chief legal adviser to the Government and a Government minister. There is no justification for giving the Attorney General power to halt investigations by the Serious Fraud Office. The Committee favours a statutory duty being placed on ministers to observe the rule of law. The accountability of the post remains limited. Public confidence in the post could be enhanced if it were to become the practice to publish all or most of the Attorney General's advice where it is referred to in support of a political case being put forward by the Government. The problem of being both legal adviser and a minister is difficult to resolve, but the Committee believes that transparency require s separating the political functions from the legal functions. The Draft Bill fails to achieve the purpose given to constitutional reform by the Prime Minister: it gives greater power to the Executive; and it does not add to transparency.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.