Future Plans for the House of Lords

Stalling of Reforms

As part of a longer-term settlement, the Blair government asked former Conservative chief whip John Wakeham to investigate possible future models for the second chamber. His report, published in 2000, drew on a number of models of varying combinations of elected and non-elected (nominated) members. Wakeham concluded that a second chamber, largely non-elected but with some elected members, should replace the House of Lords.

Initially, the government did nothing in response to the Wakeham Report. Then, in 2003, a number of proposals for reform were put before both houses of Parliament. None of these received majority support. By the time of the 2005 general election, there was still no clear indication of how the government intended to proceed. The Labour Party manifesto stated simply that in the next term they would complete the reform process ‘so that it is a modern and effective revising chamber’. There were no specific proposals for further reform, but there was much talk of an elected element to the second chamber.

In February 2007, the government published a White Paper, declaring its future intentions for the reform of the second chamber. These included a commitment to abolish the 92 hereditary peers. The following month the House of Commons voted for an entirely elected second chamber. A week later the House of Lords voted for an all-appointed second chamber. The government of Gordon Brown signalled that it wished to complete the process of second chamber reform, however no legislation emerged.

Criticisms of the Lords Reforms

As usual, when it comes to discussing actual (rather than theoretical) constitutional reform, there have been criticisms. Groups such as Charter 88 consider the reforms to be insufficiently robust, and groups on the right of the political spectrum believe that the reforms go too far.

Insufficiently Robust

Many of those in favour of more radical reforms to the House of Lords argue that there should be a fully elected Parliament, which would be more democratic and accountable to the people. Another view is that the second chamber should be abolished and the UK should retain a unicameral legislature, like Israel.

Going too far

Other criticisms come from those who believe that the reforms have gone too far. One argument is that Parliament functions perfectly well as it is and should be left alone. It has, in any case, the ability to make adjustments to itself without undertaking reform. There is also the risk of losing well-established practices, which have worked in the past, in the pursuit of solving relatively minor difficulties. It could be argued that, during the 1980s, it was the unreformed House of Lords that frequently proved to be  more effective check on the Thatcher government than the Labour opposition at the time.

The Conservatives, long seen as the party of caution when it comes to matters involving constitutional reform, have been critical of the changes made to the House of Lords so far. It could be argued, of course, that they would be bound to oppose any policy that weakened their position in Westminster (most hereditary peers were Conservative) especially in view of the weakness of their position in the Commons.

Should the Lords be elected?

Arguments in favour of a fully elected second chamber are:

• It would be more democratic
• It would add legitimacy to the political process, i.e. if both chambers were elected, there would be no question whether legislation had the consent of the people
• It would make all legislators responsive to the mood of the public and accountable to them at the time of an election
• It would provide the country with a modern revising chamber fit for the 21^st century

Arguments against a fully elected chamber are:

• The present situation in the Lords is just about acceptable, in that most of the hereditary peers have now gone (they were the biggest point of contention as far as the second chamber was concerned)
• There is the potential for gridlock between two elected chambers each time a disagreement has to be resolved
• Lord Wakeham himself questioned the calibre of members that could be recruited if the powers of an elected second chamber were contrived to wield minimum influence
• The loss of nominated life peers would deny the political system the valuable contributions to the legislative process made by some experienced and successful individuals
• Some of the finest parliamentary committees (such as the House of Lords European Committee) would also be lost

Abolishing the second chamber

As mentioned above, there is a minority of opinion that favours having a single chamber in Parliament, the so-called unicameral option. This proposal would remove the decision making process from non-elected people, without the need to introduce a second chamber and the associated risks of political gridlock.

Opponents of this idea argue that the volume of work done by Parliament and necessitates two chambers. Furthermore, not having a second chamber to deliberate and revise the work of the first might lead to the passing of ill-thought-out and hastily discussed legislation, which could lead to bad law.

The Coalition and the House of Lords

One of the key agreements under which the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition was formed in 2010 was to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected second chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The cross-party committee set up for this purpose was chaired by Nick Clegg, and was charged with developing a draft bill by December 2010. The fact that the draft bill did not emerge until May 2011 is a further indication of the difficulty of making progress on this issue. The key features of the proposals are that the new chamber will have 300 members, 80% of whom will be elected using the single-transferable vote system and who will serve for a single 15 year term. A joint committee comprising MPs and peers has nevertheless been set up to decide the final composition of the chamber. The proposals do not recommend changes to the powers of the second chamber,  but broadly focus on trying to make the chamber more effective and responsive in carrying out its traditional role.