Handout; Options for further reform to the House of Lords
by
3rd August 2017
Options for further reform to the House of Lords
Suggested Reform: NO CHANGE
- Those who advocate no change argue that the House of Lords has proved to be effective as it is (see list of recent action) – it would be unwise to make reforms which may have unknown consequences.
- 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.
| Arguments For | Arguments Against |
| The current HoL compliments the HoC as it has a different composition | It remains undemocratic and lacks legitimacy and accountability |
| The expertise and experience in the HoL is essential for scrutiny | |
| There is less party influence – this is crucial 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 |
Suggested Reform: 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.
- 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.
| Arguments For | Arguments Against |
| A second chamber is not needed in a unitary system and anyway it can only delay | UK has too big a population for a unicameral system – New Zealand has less than 10 million |
| A reformed House of Commons could be given more time for scrutiny | Scrutiny needs to be carried out by a second chamber with less party control/influence and it needs more time |
| It works efficiently in countries like Denmark and Sweden, New Zealand and Israel | There is little support for theis option |
Suggested Reform: 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)
- 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
| Arguments For | Arguments Against |
| Opportunity to bring people into political process who would not otherwise want to stand for election | Could put too much power into the hands of those who appoint the Lords – could lead to corruption |
| Membership could be controlled to ensure that all major groups/associations in society are represented | It is undemocratic and holds back progress towards a modern system |
| It can bring more independents into the political process | it might lack legitimacy and public support because the people have no part in its composition |
Suggested Reform: 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
- 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.
| Arguments For | Arguments Against |
| 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. | Specialist Knowledge – Advantage of appointed 2nd Chamber = people can be chosen because they are specialists/have experience |
| Wider representation – 2 elected chambers would widen the basis of representation (different voting systems/terms/election dates/constituencies) = strengthen democratic process | Gridlocked Govt – Two co-equal chambers = paralysis. There would be rivalry between them and between the Executive and Parliament. |
| 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 | 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 |
| Checking the Commons – Only an elected body can properly check another elected body | Dangers of Partisanship – Any elected chamber will be dominated by the Party ‘hacks’ – an appointed 2nd chamber would have reduced partisanship |
| Ending Executive Tyranny – Exec dominates HoC. If HoL = elected (especially on basis of PR) it would be more powerful/have greater authority = better check | Less Decisive Govt. – an elected HoL with more authority might impede decisive Govt. |
| Elimination of any corrupt practices/cronyism in appointment of Lords | 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 |
| Move with the times – a fully elected chamber could be changed at election time | Voter Apathy – Too many elections might lead to voter fatigue/apathy |
| elected on a regional basis = If this were the case it would enable the regions to have more representation | 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 |
| Another way of seeking redress for citizens – if their ‘Lord’ was democratically elected | Primacy? – If both chambers are democratically elected – which takes primacy? |
| More Responsive to public mood – therefore may increase public support for the govt. and faith in our system after recent scandals |
Suggested Reform: PARTLY APPOINTED PARTLY ELECTED CHAMBER
- Those who argue for this option claim that it would combine the advantages of the two systems
- 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
| Arguments For | Arguments Against |
| Legitimacy and democratic representation would be provided without losing expertise | Still undemocratic and therefore lacking in legitimacy and accountability |
| It would ensure a good gender/ethnic mix of Lords | |
| It would retain the primacy of the HoC |
0 Comments