Proceeding contribution from Lord Maples (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 14 July 2008. It occurred during Ministerial statement on House of Lords Reform.
House of Lords Reform
As an opponent of an elected second Chamber, as is everyone else who has spoken on this statement, may I say that I wholly support the Secretary of State's policy of what appears to be endless consultation on the issue? The process looks likely to reach 100 years, and perhaps it could then be given a decent funeral. I return to the point about accountability made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). The Secretary of State seemed to say that the fact that a person did not have to be re-elected made the process more accountable. It seems to me that if someone were elected for 15 years, they would have to pay no attention to their constituents—they would not even have to answer their letters, let alone represent their views in any way. If people are to be elected for 15 years on a party list by proportional representation, is the system not very like the one we have at the moment where life peers are mainly appointed by political parties? Why do we not just stick with that?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 479 c30
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Bishops Elections House of Lords Eligibility Disqualification Hereditary peers House of Lords composition Electoral systems Pay Powers Public appointments Life peers Reform
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:09:34 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492252
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492252
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492252