Last week there was an important development in British Parliament. House of Commons voted for the future of House of Lords. There was a package which is called as White Paper and different variations to be voted. (You can reach this document from the official website of UK parliament) If you look over this paper you will see that this is not the first reform initiative. Previously there were amendments accepted in this context in 1911, 1945, 1958 and so on. The most recent initiative was in 2003 and the Joint Committee recommended seven options for the reform of House of Lords;
1. Fully Appointed
2. Fully Elected
3. 80% appointed, 20% elected
4. 80% elected, 20% appointed
5. 60% appointed, 40% elected
6. 60% elected, 40% appointed
7. 50% appointed, 50% elected
However, no clear consensus found among the members of the parliament, and the lords on the other hand voted for a wholly appointed House.
After this initiative current government restarted another initiative for the reform in the House of Lords and on March, 7 2007 the reform draft was voted in the House of Commons. This time there was a majority of 113 in favor of fully election and also the option of 80% of the Lords to be elected backed by majority of 38 votes and other options were rejected.
In the current reform package it is intended to reduce the number of Lords from 746 to 540 and there would be no reduction of the 26 Lords places given to Anglican bishops and archbishops. Also if appointees are to remain, the White paper says parties could pick 60 %, with the remainder being non political.
When I read the whole White Paper I saw that in various parts of this reform package diversity and the importance of the ethnic minorities were emphasized so well. A good example of this can be found on page 42. It is stated that “The intention is that the House of Lords, taken as a whole and taking all the qualities that each member brings to it, should better reflect the diverse make up of United Kingdom society.”
When the formation of British population is examined it can be seen that minority ethnic population forms at least 8 % of the whole Kingdom. However, there are only 24 members out of 746 as peers in the House of Lords. A new reform that is formed for a balanced distribution of seats, as the package recommends, would be a nice gesture for the religious minority especially for the British Muslims. When the pressure on this people after 9/11 and London bombings is taken into account this kind of regulation would promote so well the integration process of these groups; especially of British Muslims. Moreover, if a certain percentage of the Lords to be appointed, as the White Paper recommends, it would be so nice if some of these members were appointed among Muslims and other minority groups.
Today, while the world is globalizing rapidly and the environment of tolerance gaining ground, unfortunately the radical religionist and fundamentalist groups are blocking this process. However, with this reform Britain can suppress this kind of movements. For instance, while they were not reducing the number of Lords of the Anglican Church, a certain number of seats can be given to Buddhists, Sikhs and Muslims parallel to their percentage in the population. In this manner the Kingdom will embrace all other religious minorities in the society.
Even though the House of Lords is not fond of this kind of a regulation, it seems that this reform will be made sooner or later and the British government is so decisive in this context. However, making a reform with respect to the subjects that form the British society will contribute to the image of the UK as being an important representative of thought of liberty.
For your comments:
hozertem@gmail.com
13 March 2007
Hasan Selim Ozertem (JTW-USAK)
