Support For Second Chamber Seen

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31209, 5 November 1966, Page 22

Support For Second Chamber Seen

“If ever confirmation was needed for the Constitutional Society’s persistent advocacy for reform of Parliamentary procedures and the return of a bicameral legislature, it came in the speeches of retiring members at the end of the Parliamentary session,” said the president of the society (Sir Matthew Oram). “It was obvious that on the one occasion when retiring members felt able to speak their minds, free from party discipline, they were impelled to point out the weaknesses of the present system —weaknesses which the Constitutional Society has repeatedly exposed,” Sir Matthew Oram said.

“The great mistake was made in 1950 when Parliament abolished the Legislative Council, instead of reforming it, and then failed to make good the promise to put something better in its place. The rest is the natural result of fast air travel for members, which restricts the time available for committee sittings to one morning a week during the session. “Retiring members admitted quite frankly that the committee work is not properly done,” Sir Matthew Oram said. “This most important aspect of Parliamentary work is woefully skimped; legislation is not carefully scrutinised, and is finally rushed through the House to produce unexpected consequences requiring frequent amendments within a year or two of the original passage of a bill. “It was refreshing to hear Mr Dean Eyre state boldly that the only solution to the present difficulties was the restoration of a second chamber. The number of members admitting this fact is growing, yet the parties are still officially hostile to the idea.” Sir Matthew Oram said.

“The fact does remain, however, and is being more widely recognised, that a properly constituted second chamber would provide the safeguards so badly needed, would relieve members of the House from overwork and

over-strain, and would enable the most important committee work to be adequately performed.”