To what extent is the House of Lords outdated and in need of reform?

Question 1

LoA

Answer 1

it is need of reform

Question 2

para 1 theme

Answer 2

elected

Question 3

para 2 theme

Answer 3

executive

Question 4

para 3 theme

Answer 4

reduction

Question 5

para 1 - elected

Answer 5

• Full or partial election would raise the legitimacy of the second chamber. To have an unelected chamber of government is pretty much unheard of in a modern day democracy and is therefore incredibly outdated.
  
  • Election might inject a more professional element into the second chamber. Due to them being appointed, a lot of judges have found a way to be elected to the Lords without the necessary skills (Lord Alan Sugar)

Question 6

para 1 - however

Answer 6

• Election would eliminate many experts who sit in it, including the experience of the ex-ministers and PM in the Lords. The lords currently has many expert members who have ensured effective scrutiny of the Commons. For example, Lord Walton, the former president of the BMA and Lord Hogan-Howe, the ex police chief.
  Furthermore, even if elections were wanted, the current lords most closely mirrors the popular vote at the last general election than the commons, suggesting that it is effectively representative.

Question 7

para 1 - rebuttal

Answer 7

The fact is that these do not outweigh the drawbacks of having an unelected, undemocratic branch of government have the power of the Lords.

Question 8

para 2 - executive

Answer 8

• An elected chamber would be a more effective check on the executive, since the Salisbury Convention would not exist. This would suggest that the House of Lords would have the mandate to question the activities of the Commons, and would not make their interference into legislation like with the 2012 Welfare Reform Act controversial
  
  • The current process for the selection of Lords is controlled by the PM and benefits the controlling party. Since becoming PM, Boris has appointed 83 members to the house of lords (42 Conservative, 17 crossbench, 13 Labour and 11 non affiliated)
    An elected chamber might create a balance against the power of the Commons, which is largely controlled by the executive. Executive dominance is an issue within the Commons, especially when the governmental party has a large majority. This could provide a strong opposing branch to the executive.

Question 9

para 2 - however

Answer 9

• However, if elected it might challenge the authority of the Commons. This may make legislating incredibly difficult and may lead to parliamentary gridlock and ping pong on a far more serious level. If the Lords is already blocking legislation like the Welfare Reform Act, Cuts to Legal aid and Brexit, it would be far worse if elected and more legitimate
  Furthermore, since 1999, the Lords ahs proved to be a useful check on the executive-dominated Commons. If elected, it would be dominated by parties and less likely to hold the Commons to account. It would lose the benefit of cross benchers which add greatly to the effectiveness of its scrutiny.

Question 10

para 2 - rebuttal

Answer 10

The fact is that, even if it has been a useful check on the executive dominated commons, this is in fact a negative, as it has no mandate or legitimacy to do so given the fact it is unelected.

Question 11

para 3 - reduction

Answer 11

• Reducing the size of the Lords would make it an effective chamber. The size of the Lords has increased dramatically. In November 2020, the House of Lords stood at 820. David Cameron created 295 members between 2010 and 2017.
  
  • It was suggested in a committee report led by Lord Burns in 2017 that the size of the Lords should be reduced to 600.
    The Lords only has the capacity for around 230-400 in the Lords, meaning that not all of the Lords can vote at the same time, and on important sittings it will be a first come first serve basis.

Question 12

para 3 - however

Answer 12

The current chamber works well. It is the most active chamber in the world. It sits for longer and meets more frequently than any other. This means that it can effectively review legislation to ensure the most effective scrutiny, as it did with the Brexit deal

Question 13

para 3 - rebuttal

Answer 13

The fact is that it is too big, and although it may meet frequently, it simply has too many members to them all to engage in the process.