Should the House of Lords be reformed?

Question 1

1 = Yes, an elected second chamber will enhance representation

Answer 1

• Not as representative of the population by its composition and not democratic as peers are appointed by the PM, only having by-elections - shouldn’t perform a rep function.
• UK allows 26 archbishops and bishops of the Catholic Church in the Lords - no other religion is represented.
• Reform would increase democratic legitimacy, mirroring the HOC which is more representative = in 2015, recorded 191 female MP, 41 ethnic minorities and a decreased number of MPs who attended a pee-paying school.

Question 2

1 = No - wouldn’t matter, leads to political gridlock

Answer 2

• Absence of elections encourages peers to ‘do the right thing’, rather than worry about constituents and wider electorate needs.
• Allows the chamber to be populated with a range of individuals with experience = increases legitimacy (Lord Crisp).
• HOL ethnic minorities was 13%, based on the 2011 census, from 2.6% in 2001. Compared to HOC, 8% in 2011 than 2% in 2001.
• Lead to political gridlock, as elections would likely be used for a mid-term protest vote, especially if they’re held between general elections - leads to acute partnership and reduced effectiveness of the Govt.

Question 3

2 = Yes - an elected second chamber would improve legislation

Answer 3

• USA operates with balanced bicameralism in its legislature, compared to the UK where the elected Commons holds legitimate supremacy over the unelected Lords.
• If both are elected, both will possess co-equal legislative power and would work through legislative proposals with greater legitimacy in a systematic, fundamental fashion.
• Critical as not all Peers are useful - since joining in 2009, Lord Sugar has spoken just 63 times.
• Critical as the Commons, Public Accounts Committee acts effectively as it is independent from govt allegiance = no advantage for the govt despite a majority of the com being members.

Question 4

2 = No, the Lords’ role is to protect the vulnerable

Answer 4

• Activism of peers = highlights willingness to perform its role in protecting the rights of vulnerable members of society, highlighting any flawed legislation, despite the association of wealth and privilege.
• Less likely performed as good by the Commons, bowing to populist sentiment - if elected, this may lead to a dilution of expertise, increasing the risk of career politicans.

Examples:
+ Rejected twice the Govt’s attempt to cut £30 per week of benefits for disabled people deemed unfit to work.
- Critical of the illegal migration bill 2023 - Vernon Coaker said the plans would “drive a stake through the heart of our international standing”.

Question 5

3 = Yes, it would enhance scrutiny of the executive

Answer 5

• An elected Lords allows proper separation of powers, potentially proposing an election of the PM - could result in more effective scrutiny and restraint of executive power from the chamber and peers (greater legitimacy).
• Grants the Lords greater powers w/o removing the executive from the legislative (i.e. the power to confirm key appointments or ratify treaties like the US Senate).
• Link between party donors and nominations to Lords - in 2007, Blair was interviewed twice by the Police during the Cash for Honours scandal when it was alleged that Labour Donors were being placed in the Lords.

Question 6

3 = No, the Lords already effectively curtails executive power

Answer 6

• Proved willing and capable of holding the government accountable, especially since the majority of hereditary peers were removed in the 1998 Reform Act.
• Labour Govt defeated over 450 times in the Lords from 1997 to 2010. Even with a majority in 1997 and 2001, it is MORE effective in upholding civil liberties in this period.
• Voted against proposed restrictions on trial by jury (Govt attempted to allow detention without charge for 90 days) and compulsory ID cards.
• Lords defeated May’s government 67 times in between 2017-2019.