HoL reform Flashcards
what was the Sailsbury convention
Lords should not obstruct anything in the elected governments manifesto as this was voted in for by the people who give mandate
what are the parliament acts of 1911 and 1949
- can only delay passing of a bill not fully veto it
- 1949 = maximum one year of delay
what are problems with the current composition of the HoL
- unelected, appointed, not democratic
- too many inactive members
- members cannot be held to account
- life peerage appointments can be abused by party leaders
what did the cash for honours scandal suggest
- some peers may have been appointed due to large personal donations made to political parties
- allegations of cronyism
give examples for the cash for honours scandal
- Peter Cruddas –> £3 million to Conservative Party
—> his appointment was not approved by the HoL appointment commission but Johnson appointed him anyway
what are the 4 options for reform of the lords
- fully appointed
- fully elected
- hybrid system
- abolition
during a ten month period between 2019-20, how much did the average life peer claim in expenses, contribute, vote
- claimed £20,935
- contributed to 12 debates
- voted 23 times
positives of having a fully appointed lords x 4
- remove the remainder of the hereditary peers so would maintain a broad range of membership based on expertise
- more cost effective than elections
- without fear of elections, members can be more independent minded, thinking in the better interest of the people
- does not threaten sovereignty of HoC but would act as a counter balance to an overly dominant executive
negatives of having a full appointed lords x 4
- still undemocratic, no mandate, the UK is the only country other than Canada to have an unelected second chamber
- many non-active members who do not attend
- huge cost –> 2019-20 average peer claimed £20,935
- cronyism
positives of a fully elected lords x 3
- would give the Lords a full mandate by addressing the democratic deficit
- if elected with PR then would be a good counterbalance to dominant FPTP elected executive with winners bonus AND more people and parties will be given the chance to stand
- currently the HoL is not hugely independent as the cross bench peers don’t attend as much as the 27% who are former politicians or political staff, who are more partisan, so an elected Lords would not make it less independent
give some stats about the Lords
- age
- gender
- region
- only 29 peers are under 50
- 239/826 are women
- London and the south-east are over-represented
negatives of a fully elected lords
- HoC may be less supreme
- would be full of politicians rather than individuals with a wealth of knowledge and experience
- wont be guaranteed lords would vote principle over party
- cause additional cost
positives of hybrid system for lords x 3
- best of both worlds –> addresses democratic deficit and retains individuals with expertise and experience in valuable fields
- HoC would retain supremacy and be more democratically legitimate
- more straightforward system to introduce?
negatives of a hybrid system for the lords x 4
- undemocratic to retain any unelected members
- two tier system of elected and non elected members causing friction
- confusion on who would now be elected/appointed
- will still lead to cronyism
positives of abolishing the lords
- save money
- scrutiny could be carried out in other ways –> strengthened committee system
- other countries like New Zealand and Denmark function without a second chamber, we can learn from them
negatives of abolishing the lords x 2
- standard of scrutiny would drop in a unicameral system as commons would not have time to scrutinise every bill in detail
- commons would have too much power without a revising second chamber
