ABSTRACT
Democrats, amongst others, that the new chamber should have powers
to delay a Bill certified by the Speaker as affecting human rights or
important constitutional matters for the life of a parliament.
However, it is the suggested composition of the new House
which has proved most controversial. The Report suggests a mainly
appointed House of 550, with a minority of elected members to
represent the regions. Unable to agree on an appropriate size for the
democratic element, it instead put forward three options: Option A, 195
elected peers, which would be a substantial element, at over one-third
of the total membership; Option B, 87; Option C, 65 members. These
latter two options are clearly somewhat token-ist in nature. The
remainder of the House would be appointed by a statutory independent
Appointments Committee which would scrutinise proposals put
forward by the parties for new members of the House. It would be
under a statutory duty to maintain an independent element of 20% in
the House, to ensure that at least 30% of new members were women
and that minorities were represented in numbers at least proportionate
to their representation in the total population. The powers of the Prime
Minister in this area would be wholly removed: the Committee would
have sole jurisdiction over appointments and be under no obligation to
accept any nominations put to it.
