How Democracy Works: The Bicameral System

October 30th, 2007

Views: 532

Posted by ChrisG at 4:50 pm

When the face-meltingly tedious subject of House of Lords reform comes around, one of the justifications for keeping their Lordships free of the inconvenience of having to be elected to office is that that the hereditary principle means that a variety of personal backgrounds produces an upper house that benefits from a wide selection of expertise; and that the freedom from such things as a three-line whip means that the treatment that issues receive in the Lords is more characterised by free and fearless inquiry and debate than you would ever expect in the tribal stew of the Commons.

Yes, that’s right. You’re expected to believe that.

Yesterday’s Lords debate on nuclear waste management was occasioned by the release of the Science and Technology Select Committee’s report on, amongst other things, the Government’s recommended strategy of burying high-level waste underground and then doing its utmost to forget about it until everyone they know is dead.

Their Lordships contribution to forensically dissecting this recommendation begins with a discussion on the unpalatability of geological disposal to the public. It then passes through various meanderings, stopping on the way to take in a bit of speculative techno-fetishism courtesy of Lord Hunt of Chesterton, who waffles for a bit about non-existent technologies, before being concluded by the Minister for Sustainable Farming, Food and Animal Welfare, Lord Rooker, whose contribution (and indeed the whole debate) is nicely summed up by this:

My noble friend also asked whether we are confident that geological disposal is technically achievable. It is internationally recognised as the best option. There will be work to do.

So, the white heat of unrestrained forensic cross-bench enquiry finally dissipated, we were left with the following:

1. We hear that geological disposal is the solution the government recommends.
2. Some people think this decision was dodgy.
3. A government minister effectively admits that no-one knows whether geological disposal is technically feasible.
4. (we observers might add, no-one can know)
5. Said government minister notes that an international consensus exists amongst those responsible for selling geological disposal to the voters. They agree it is the easiest option to sell; therefore it should be adopted.
6. Despite not really knowing whether or not it can work.
7. We’ve got some explaining to do if we’re going to convince everyone the government’s decision wasn’t dodgy.

So that’s another cosy consensus busted wide open, then. Congratulations, boys and girls.