23 - Reforms of HOL Flashcards
Probably the most debated aspect of parliamentary reform is…
Probably the most debated aspect of parliamentary reform is that of the House of Lords, which remains a totally non-elected second chamber.
The Labour Party has long called for reform of the House of Lords. Labour MPs particularly have resented their legitimate authority being challenged by non-elected peers who are accountable to no one.
Wakeham Commission…
To help decide on reforms Wakeham Commission was set up
In 2000 the Wakeham Commission recommended that one-third of the House should be elected and that there should be a limit on the system of political patronage
The Commission recommended that an independent Appointments Commission could reject poorly qualified nominees and also be able to appoint ‘people’s peers’.
Hereditary Peers…
In 1999, there were over 1,100 members of the House of Lords, of whom 750 were hereditary peers.
The Labour Government decided that in a modern society an inherited title should not automatically allow someone to participate in making law. They felt that some of the members should be elected and some should be nominated.
In the meantime the right of most of the hereditary peers to sit in the HofL’s was abolished and only 92 were allowed to continue to be members of the Lords.
Life Peers…
During the twentieth century the awarding of a title for life (a life peerage) became more common.
The Prime Minister nominated people who should receive a title for their lifetime, but this title would not pass on to their children. The title was then awarded by the Monarch.
In this way people who had served the country and were thought to be suitable members of the House of Lords were able to bring their expertise to the House.
Most life peerages were given to former politicians who had retired from the House of Commons. For example, Margaret Thatcher, who had been PM in the 1980s, was made a life peer.
Cash for Peerages Scandal…
However, over the last few years there have been the ‘cash for peerages’ scandal. This is the name given by some in the media to a political scandal in 2006 and 2007 concerning the connection between political donations and the award of life peerages.
This is not the first time cash for peerages has been an problem in the politics of the UK. Most famously it featured during the early-20th-century Priministership of David Lloyd George. There were also allegations of it during the last Conservative government under John Major.
In March 2006, several men nominated for life peerages by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, were rejected by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. It was later revealed they had loaned large amounts of money to the governing Labour Party, at the suggestion of Labour fundraiser Lord Levy. Suspicion was aroused by some that the peerages were a quid pro quo for the loans, and the incident was referred to the Metropolitan Police by the Scottish National Party as a breach of the law against selling honours. However, it was decided that no-one will face charges over the allegations.
Reforms so far…
In 2001 some so-called people’s peers were appointed by the PM.
Supposed to be ordinary people recommended by other ordinary people but the list was mainly of already famous people
Meant to be a temporary solution while the Government consulted on the final make-up of the House of Lords.
However, there have been major disagreements!
June 2012 - the House of Lords Reform Bill was introduced to the House of Commons and proposed a mostly elected upper chamber.
However, the Bill was abandoned by the Government in August 2012 due to opposition to it from within the Conservative party.
Lords reform has been a key goal for the Lib Dems, and its failure raises coalition tensions.
Nick Clegg said the coalition agreement was a contract between the coalition partners and the Conservatives had broken the contract by not honouring the commitment to Lords reform. Mr Clegg therefore said his party will withdraw its support for boundary changes designed to cut the number of MPs from 650 to 600 and equalise the size of constituencies- a Conservative manifesto pledge which was also dropped.
Legislation to reduce the House of Commons has already been passed but proposals for the new constituency boundaries will have to be approved by MPs before changes can be made. MPs voted by 334 to 292 in January 2013 to accept changes made by peers, meaning the planned constituency shake-up will be postponed until 2018 at the earliest.
What now…
A successful attempt to pursue minor reform of the House was made on 14 May 2014 when the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 gained Royal Assent.
The new Act allows members to resign from the House; previously there was no mechanism for this. It also allowed for the (non-retrospective) exclusion of any peer convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year or more.
The House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 authorised the House to expel or suspend members for a definite period of time. This power may only be exercised for conduct which either was committed or became public knowledge after the Act comes into force. A member who is expelled is disqualified from becoming a member again.
Options for reform..
No Change Remove the House of Lords An All Elected Chamber An All Appointed Chamber Partly Appointed-Partly Elected Chamber
No change…
Those who advocate no change argue that the House of Lords has proved to be effective as it is - it would be unwise to make reforms which may have unknown consequences.
It compliments the HoC as it has a different composition.
There is less party influence - this is crucial for scrutiny. The expertise and experience in the HoL is essential for scrutiny
The problem if it were elected at general election time under same voting system = likely to have same composition = no conflict and would become a rubber stamping institution HOWEVER if elected at a different time with a different system = likely to be stalemate because both houses have democratic legitimacy
Those who argue against this, point to the fact that the HoL is unrepresentative and it is no longer tolerable to have such an undemocratic institution legislating in this modern age.
Remove the House of Lords…
It would be possible to remove the HoL altogether and to have a Unicameral system as they do in Denmark and in New Zealand.
A second chamber is not needed in a unitary system and anyway it can only delay
A reformed House of Commons could be given more time for scrutiny
It works efficiently in countries like Denmark and Sweden, New Zealand and Israel
The House of Commons has already demonstrated that they are not in favour of a unicameral system (2007 votes = majority of 253 in favour of retaining a second chamber.
UK has too big a population for a unicameral system - New Zealand has less than 10 million
Scrutiny needs to be carried out by a second chamber with less party control/influence and it needs more time
There is little support for this option
An All Elected Chamber…
Those that argue for a fully elected chamber point to the fact that this would be democratic and therefore more accountable. It would act as a more effective check on the Executive
Democratic legitimacy - it would be more democratic -It is the only way to guarantee that the HoL would be accountable to the people – this is the only basis for legitimate rule.
Wider representation - 2 elected chambers would widen the basis of representation (different voting systems/terms/election dates/constituencies) = strengthen democratic process
Better Legislation - non elected basis of current HoL restricts its role as a revising chamber. If elected – popular authority would enable it to exercise greater powers of scrutiny
Checking the Commons - Only an elected body can properly check another elected body
Ending Executive Tyranny - Exec dominates HoC. If HoL = elected (especially on basis of PR) it would be more powerful/have greater authority = better check
Elimination of any corrupt practices/cronyism - in appointment of Lords
Move with the times - a fully elected chamber could be changed at election time
Elected on a regional basis = If this were the case it would enable the regions to have more representation
Another way of seeking redress for citizens - if their ‘Lord’ was democratically elected
More Responsive to public mood - therefore may increase public support for the govt. and faith in our system after recent scandals
Those who argue against it state that the new HoL might simply mirror the HoC and therefore it would serve no purpose - if a Govt. had a majority in both houses it would have far too much power.
Specialist Knowledge - Advantage of appointed 2nd Chamber = people can be chosen because they are specialists/have experience
Gridlocked Govt - Two co-equal chambers = paralysis. There would be rivalry between them and between the Executive and Parliament.
Complementary Chambers - 2 chambers = advantage because can carry out different roles - only one of these chambers needs to be popularly elected for this to work
Dangers of Partisanship - Any elected chamber will be dominated by the Party ‘hacks’ - an appointed 2nd chamber would have reduced partisanship
Less Decisive Govt. - an elected HoL with more authority might impede decisive Govt
Descriptive Representation - Elected Peers might have popular authority - but it would be hard to ensure that they reflected society as a whole - this could be done through appointed Peers
Voter Apathy - Too many elections might lead to voter fatigue/apathy
Composition - if elected at same time as HoC and using same voting method = likely to be the same composition = will become a rubber stamp HOWEVER if voted by different method at different time = different composition = likely to be stalemate
Primacy? - If both chambers are democratically elected - which takes primacy?
An All Appointed Chamber…
Those who favour this option argue that it would help to bring high quality members into the legislative process and avoid giving too much power to the second chamber (as this would obstruct effective government)
Opportunity to bring people into political process who would not otherwise want to stand for election
Membership could be controlled to ensure that all major groups/associations in society are represented
It can bring more independents into the political process
Those who argue against this option state that it would merely preserve the undemocratic nature of the HoL and would also extend the patronage of party leaders
Could put too much power into the hands of those who appoint the Lords - could lead to corruption
It is undemocratic and holds back progress towards a modern system
it might lack legitimacy and public support because the people have no part in its composition
Partly Appointed-Partly Elected Chamber…
Those who argue for this option claim that it would combine the advantages of the two systems
Legitimacy and democratic representation would be provided without losing expertise
It would ensure a good gender/ethnic mix of Lords
It would retain the primacy of the HoC
Those who argue against it state that it would only be a compromise - the system would be only partially democratic and it would reserve the power of patronage
