“Theological, Philosophical and Ethical”

On Tuesday, the House of Lords will consider an amendment to rather a wretched Bill. That amendment would create a new National Bioethics Committee to consider scientific developments and proposed legislation from “theological, philosophical and ethical” perspectives. The usual suspects are of course having fits of the vapours, squealing that there is already their own beloved Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Well, they would, wouldn’t they?

I have argued before that the HFEA should be elected on a regional basis and such as to secure internal pluralism while retaining political independence, just as I should like to see such bodies as Ofcom and the Press Complaints Commission elected, and also the BBC Trust by and from among the license-payers, all with a Chairman appointed by the relevant Secretary of State with the approval of the relevant Select Committee.

If there is to be a National Bioethics Commission, then it should be elected, too. The people of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should each elect two politically independent members in each of the three categories: “theological, philosophical and ethical”. These elected members would each hold office for four years, as would a Chairman appointed by the relevant Secretary of State with the approval of the relevant Select Committee.

Meanwhile, what of a Local Government Commission, to which to transfer such central powers over local government as would still have to be retained even after massive transfer back to local communities in and as their elected representatives? This should be elected in the same way as the HFEA, Ofcom, the Press Complaints Commission or the BBC Trust. But by whom?

By everyone who, as part of a mix including a greatly reduced property tax, a modest local sales tax, and the direct incentive to improve the use of land by taxing it regardless of what was on it, also paid an annual fee, fixed by the council, to be on the local electoral register. This would be payable through the benefits system on behalf of the very poor.

And there would then be a case (but would it be unanswerable?) for making registration as a local elector voluntary, so that no one would be obliged to pay this fee, just so long as anyone declining to do so was free to give up the right accompanying this responsibility.