On the eve of an historic decision, the Financial Times has called on Members of Parliament to vote for a fully elected second chamber. In an editorial with the sub-heading “A second chamber that is chosen by and reflects the people”, the newspaper said that the mixture of elected and appointed legislators supported by government is “the least intellectually coherent” of the options put forward in the White Paper published in February.
Although the newspaper believed there was a case to be made for an appointed legislative chamber it concluded that “to hand over responsibility for choosing who can legislate to a group of establishment figures offends democratic sensibility. The spectacle of the great and the good choosing from among themselves is an unedifying anachronism”.
It concluded that “in a mature democracy – particularly in one that has so preached the virtues of government by the ballot box to the rest of the world – an approach that relies on the judgements of individual electors must be preferable to one that does not trust them. MPs should vote tomorrow for a fully elected upper house”.
Although this is not the strongest imaginable endorsement of the right of the people to self government, it compares favourably to the half-hearted words of Labour Leader of the House of Commons Jack Straw who likes to refer to “the public” rather than to “the people”. Mr. Straw, who is the minister responsible for reform of Parliament, said recently that “In a modern democracy, it is difficult to justify a second chamber where there is no elected element – where the public has no direct input into who sits in it”. He favours a second chamber that is only partly elected.
The Financial Times also outlined what it saw as the role of the second chamber, a chamber “which would look at government proposals with a degree of independence and concern for liberty that the executive-dominated lower House does not consistently display”.
MPs will vote on Wednesday after a two-day debate.