Essay Plan; Assess the arguments for and against reforming the House of Lords
3rd August 2017
Assess the arguments for and against reforming the House of Lords.
INTRODUCTION:
The House of Lords can be viewed as a ‘revising chamber’. Over half the time in the Lords is devoted to examining in detail legislation sent to it by the Commons. In this way it serves as a useful check on the government by making them think again Powers of the upper chamber are defined by the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts. In relation to legislation it can veto bills for up to a year, but on the third occasion the elected Commons can force it onto the statute books against the Lords’ will. Currently in the UK most members/peers in the HOL are appointed by the IAC and sit in the HOL for life while 92 hereditary peers still exist with 29 archbishops, many believe this system of appointment is undemocratic as no other modern democracy apart Canada have a system where legislative powers is passed on as a birth right. This essay will argue that although the HOL is undemocratic due to its unelected nature, it’s benefits outweighs the drawback it has.
PARAGRAPH 1:
| Argument: | An elected chamber would have increased credibility and public support and therefore would be in a better position to challenge the growing power of the government and the PM. It would also have greater powers as an equally powerful second chamber would be able to veto laws leading to better legislation and the ability to check the Commons and prevent an elective dictatorship- full bicameralism requires two equal chambers. For example in the USA both houses of Congress; House of Representatives and the Senate, are co-equals and there is no “upper” or “lower” chamber and no hierarchical relationship between them. This would limit government dominance. |
| Counter Argument: | A non-elected house allows for specialist knowledge, its members can be chosen on the basis of experience and expertise, careerist politicians would be no benefit to the political system. For example the current House of Lords contains experts such as Lord Sainsbury and Lord Sugar. Another argument against is gridlock prevention as two Co-equal chambers would be a recipe for government gridlock, if both Houses have a mandate who is right? For example the policies of Democrat President Obama like Obama Care were repeatedly blocked by a Republican dominated Congress. |
| Judgement: | Overall against as it would be impossible to maintain and ensure the specialist knowledge gained from the appointment of peers which would therefore limit the Lords ability as the revising chamber to scrutinise and hold parliament to account, it would also slow down law making processes and weaken government power. |
PARAGRAPH 2:
| Argument: | An elected chamber would allow for wider representation through the use of different electoral systems and dates to ensure representation meets the current view of citizens, this would reduce the dominance of the South. If it was elected using a system of proportional representation it would allow small parties to have more influence on the legislative process. The Greens have benefited from the use of the Additional Member System for the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly, and UKIP from the use of party list for the European Parliament. |
| Counter Argument: | A non-elected house allows for descriptive representation as it is difficult for elected peers to make sure they resemble the social makeup of society as the makeup of the Commons demonstrates. For example only 1% of MP’s elected in 2005 represented an ethnic minority and most are career politicians, Charles Kennedy, for instance, was elected as an MP at just 23. The current chamber more closely mirrors the popular vote at the last general election than the Commons. For example the Greens also have 1 seat in the House of Lords while the Lib Dems have 100. |
| Judgement: | Overall against as Lords is representative in nature due to the way seats are allocated based on seats in the Commons, the argument for a more proportional that is representative HOL isn’t strong enough to out weight it’s other drawbacks. |
PARAGRAPH 3:
| Argument: | An elected chamber would grant democratic legitimacy, the only basis for legitimate rule in a democracy is popular consent delivered through competitive elections. Electing the second chamber would provide it with an electoral mandate with the backing and consent of the public. Another argument is that an appointed second chamber is not accountable to public opinion, by electing the second chamber they would become more responsive to public opinion and take into account the possible impact of their actions on the public. For example there are still 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords and all Lords are life peers |
| Counter Argument: | In a non-elected house, appointed members are less partisan, allowing Lords to think for themselves and are able to tackle unpopular long term decisions. For example the current Lords rejected the old Labour government’s bills frequently whilst commons only defeated government once! Voting apathy would also increase with a new set of elections, Parliament has one democratic house, no public desire for another which would damage the credibility of the 2nd house. For example voting turnout is already low and even if we exclude MEPs there are at present 969 elected office holders above local level in the UK. Do we really need an additional 400+? |
| Judgement: | Overall against, as a lack of partisanship is important in the lords to prevent government from dominating parliament. If an elected second chamber leads to a government with a majority in both house it would effectively lead to an elective dictatorship with no checks or balances in place to protect civilians. |
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, If there was ever a time to reform the Lords it would be now: the current chamber sits in limbo as a half-way house after Labour’s last attempt at reform in 1999; as a result of the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act the office of Lord Chancellor has been has been stripped of its legal and legislative functions, and the Law Lords are moving to a new home at Middlesex Guildhall. Introducing elections would be the final step in the process of tidying up some of the anomalies of the old House.
1 Comment
Hi when was this written? I'm doing a politics A level revision and you've spoken in the present tense so just trying to put some of the arguments into perspective.
Much love,
J.