THE UK PARLIAMENT:
APPROACHES TO REFORM
What to do with the House of Lords
The reform of the House of Lords has been on the political
agenda for much of the latter part of the twentieth century.
In this essay, I will analyse the case put forward for and
against reform; the options available; and the current plight
of the Chamber at the start of the twenty-first century. Through
this analysis, I will attempt to draw conclusions about the
best future for the House and how it should be dealt with.
There are two major viewpoints when considering the state
of the House of Lords: it does its job fine and should be
left alone; and it is inadequate and should be reformed. Unsurprisingly
perhaps; the Conservatives wish to leave the House in its
current state, believing that it does a good enough job; whereas
the Labour Party are keen advocates for reform of what they
see as an inappropriate and outdated institution.
Broadly speaking, there are four options often debated upon
when considering the future of the Upper Chamber; retain;
reform; replace; and remove. Those who favour holding onto
the Lords believe it does a good job as a revising chamber;
as a forum for debating issues ignored by the Commons; by
initiating non-contentious legislation; and by delaying bills
so that opinion can be passed on them. Reform has many supporters,
who see that an elected House could challenge the authority
and powers of the Commons; and that it would be a plus for
democracy. Reform of the House would take the form of an elected
chamber or as a second chamber: appointed by either regional
bodies or interest groups. For others, removal is the only
option: an out of date entity, completely inappropriate to
a modern democratic system of government .
The Conservative Party are, amongst others, strong supporters
of leaving the Upper Chamber alone. The role of the Lords
is that of a revising chamber, that analyses legislation passed
from the Commons and proposes amendments to it, if it disagrees
with the proposals. During the latter part of the last century,
the Lords was increasingly recognised as a worthwhile chamber,
which had gradually got better:
“The status and position of your Lordships’ House
has improved out of all recognition…”
-Former Northern Ireland premier Lord O’Neill.
The Lords had become an institution that existed to change
legislation considerably, rather than to just amend it. The
growing powers have affected recent governments, including
the Thatcher regime of the Eighties. On this success, Lord
Bruce-Gardyne commented:
“…no Tory government in modern times has been
so consistently savaged by the watchdog once described as
‘Mr. Balfour’s poodle’.”
In its primary roles as a legislative and deliberative chamber,
the Lords plays a complementary role to the Lower House. It
has the power to delay any item of government legislation.
Some have argued that it has this ability purely so that people
take notice of an otherwise useless institution. However the
House can influence the political process in considerable
fashion.
The House of Commons prepares legislation that the Lords can
simply oppose if it desires. On the 8th February this year,
the Upper House threw out Government plans to repeal Section
28, a law banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools
by local councils. This defeat was a huge setback for Labour
and casts doubt on whether they will be able to lift the ban
before the next general election. Lady Young spoke on behalf
of her fellow Members:
“Once again the House of Lords has spoken for the people.”
Throughout the Twentieth Century the Lords has become adept
at handling legislation passed from the Commons. It creates
an increasing number of amendments; the pages of primary legislation
enacted rising by one thousand during the 1950s; to two thousand
during the 1970s; and to two thousand five hundred by 1987
. During the 1980s, Ministers found it expedient to give way
to the Lords. The Conservative government was strong and there
was a Tory majority in the Lords, but if the other parties
and the cross-bench peers combined, they could defeat the
government on practically any issue. However the Upper House
has been careful not to abuse its power and recognises its
status as a revising chamber, as according to Lord Williams
of Elvel:
A huge advantage for the peers is their status: they do not
have to fear for their future if they vote or speak out of
line, a factor which has ruined and even ended the careers
of many across the corridors in the Lower House. This has
contributed to the often-rebellious nature of the Lords. Between
1979 and 1985, peers inflicted forty-five defeats upon the
government and were undoubtedly conscious they could more
readily oblige the Conservatives to reconsider legislative
proposals than MPs could. This figure fell considerably from
the 355 defeats handed to the previous Labour government of
1974-1979, an enormous number in any context . One senior
Tory MP commented:
“It is an interesting constitutional situation that
gives an unelected chamber a greater influence than the elected
chamber to change the minds of the Executive on legislation.”
This factor only enhances the value of the Lords in ensuring
that legislation passed is of the highest democratic quality.
Government defeats in the Lords may vary in importance, but
those of increased validity have made an impression. The rejection
of a clause in the 1980 Education Bill - which would let Local
Education Authorities impose transport charges for children
in rural areas – happened when forty Tory peers voted
against the government. The Bill had offended rural and religious
interests, held to the heart of some peers and after being
defeated by 216 votes to 112, the government announced no
attempt would be made to resurrect the clause .
There is a predominant factor that the Lords has become synonymous
with: it is constantly a target for reformers. Yet the chamber
performs well. The Lords is composed of people with practical
experience of politics in the widest sense, for example, through
fighting battles, seeking compromise, confronting opponents
and arguing a case. There are a large number of scientists,
engineers and women. There is diversity all around and a relaxed
attitude is prevalent:
“Their special value is that they have…a temperament
unlike that of the professional politician.”
The overall tone is milder and less self-conscious than in
the Commons, partly because most peers are not politically
ambitious: their political careers have run their course and
they have succeeded in other areas. According to Janet Morgan,
the Lords is most valuable to the British political system:
“…it makes a valuable…contribution to British
public affair…and continues to adapt its habits and
procedures…”
One contribution is the select committee. Since 1972, selections
of short-term committees have been set up to investigate and
scrutinise Europe and its proposals for affecting legislation
in the UK. In 1979, the Lords appointed their own Select Committee
on Science and Technology, to complement the work of the Commons.
Reports were debate in the Upper House and recommendations
handed to the government, the science community and industry,
amongst other bodies. This put the peers in a commanding position,
as it forced the government to look at its own policy and
ensure its resistance to criticism. The Committee made a massive
impact and government accepted many of its proposals. For
example, the 1981 enquiry into Science and Government helped
to introduce the Annual Review of Government Funded Research
and Development, as well as the creation of the Committee
of Departmental Chief Scientists . These were huge building
blocks on which much of the development of science policy
rested. By 1990, the House of Commons Procedure Committee
had recognised that science and technology had to be on the
agenda of the Lower House. It suggested a joint committee
with the Lords, a proposal adequately summed up by PDG Hayter
as:
“…a sincere form of flattery.”
The House Of Lords has improved powers and an increased amount
of activity. Yet the calls for reform are stronger than ever,
especially since the election of a new Labour Government in
1997.
One weakness is the lack of standing committees. Public bills
are all considered in committee on the floor of the House.
Peers then spend much of their time in committee, walking
through the division lobbies. Peers only represent themselves,
therefore making it impossible to constitute a representative
committee that is able to claim authority of the House . The
Lords is no longer a rubber-stamp, but neither is it an obstruction
to the government’s ability to implement its programme.
Andrew Adonis believes a better House would follow proper
procedures, as well as rights being maintained where compatible
with the government’s programme. At best he sees the
Lords as a Council of State: a forum for expert opinion and
a dictated revising assembly. At worst he sees a passable
House Of Commons on a dull day . He is not the only detractor.
The Report of the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House
of Lords analysed its role and attempted to decide how the
chamber should operate. The Lords compliments the Commons
in scrutinising the executive and holding the government to
account, but the Commission saw this could be improved: to
enhance the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the executive
and act as a check upon it. There would be a new second chamber:
a political chamber. Political parties would have a central
role and the chamber would be a political body that counterbalanced
the governing party in the Lower House. The Commission held
support for the current Lords set up; the chamber playing
an active part in the legislative process; allowing more time
for second thoughts to develop and be reflected in the final
form of legislation; and improving the quality of legislative
drafting. However it favoured a reformed chamber, recommending
it offered; a counsel from a range of sources; that it be
representative of society in Britain; that it works with the
Commons to provide an effective check upon government; and
that it gives Britain’s constituent nations and regions,
a formally constituted voice in Parliament for the first time.
Like Adonis, the Commission believes that the Lords works
well, but there are changes that could be made to improve
its influence .
The current Labour government earmarked reform of the Lords
as a priority in its election manifesto. The party looks to
have kept by its word. Hereditary Peers were abolished with
their voting rights. This was seen to be unrepresentative
in a modern society. In 1791, Tom Paine condemned this factor
in his writings, ‘The Rights of Man’:
“The idea of hereditary legislators is as inconsistent
as that of hereditary judges…and as absurd as a hereditary
mathematician, or an hereditary wise man…”
Tony Blair has set out his future aims, seeing the need
to reform and renew the democratic strand of local government:
“Reform of the House of Lords is long overdue…I
believe it will produce better government for Britain.”
From this time onwards, reform of the Lords would remain
high on the agenda of the new government. According to the
Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington):
“This will be the first stage in a process of reform
to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative.”
Proposals put forward in the White Paper of January 1999 include
the establishment of a transitional house. No single party
would be able to dominate this, also an Appointments Commission
would be established to recommend non-political appointments
to the House. Longer-term reform is also a priority: a Royal
Commission will examine alternatives, for example, rules,
functions and composition. These changes would renew the Lords
as:
“…a modern, fit and effective second chamber
of Parliament for the 21st Century.”
The White Paper recognised the important role played by the
Lords. Its functions; generating, debating and approving proposed
legislation; scrutinising government actions by parliamentary
questions to Ministers; specialist investigations through
select committees; and acting as a forum for debate on matters
of public interest. The ways in which the Upper Chamber differs
from the Lower are important; the Lords has no powers over
taxation and spending; no constituency representative functions;
and its powers over legislation are constrained by the Parliament
Acts. The Marquess of Salisbury famously defended the Lords
of its position in society:
“It would be constitutionally wrong when the country
has expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals
which have been definitely put before the electorate.”
The Government believes that a mixed chamber would herald
a way forward for the Lords. A combination of a nominated
and elected body, this would be a democratic basis suitable
for a modern legislative chamber. It would allow independent
scrutiny, a wide range of interests, would have broad representation,
legitimacy, and a wide range of members with differing age
groups .
Stronger opinions favour abolition of the Upper Chamber. Stuart
Bell considers the chamber divisive and anti-democratic, that
it represents privilege and wealth and seeks to frustrate
change. An unelected and unrepresentative force, drawing life
from the votes and attitudes of ancestors . He points to the
quorum of the Lords being the smallest of any legislative
body in the world at only three. Speaking at the Labour Party
Conference in 1977, Jack Jones made a pertinent point about
the Members of the Upper House:
“Three quarters of the members of the House of Lords
inherited their position by birth; their ancestors were, by
and large, cattle robbers, land thieves and a few were court
prostitutes.”
Though far-fetched, Bell points to the build up of undemocratic
factors that have led to many condemning the chamber for its
status. As far back as 1910, the Parliamentary Labour Party
was calling for the abolition of the Lords, seeing it as a
“hindrance to national progress”. Bell believes
that an elected Upper House is the solution; elected by proportional
representation; with members serving fixed four-year terms;
and with elections every two years so that the house never
dies .
The stance of the political parties is predictable; Labour
keen for further – if limited – reform; the Conservatives
wanting it left alone, a part of political tradition which
does a good job; the Liberal Democrats unsurprisingly most
radical, in favour of an elected second chamber.
The case for reform is strong. Individuals could be chosen
by the public; better attendance encouraged to cut out the
casual member; legitimacy given to challenge the decisions
of the Commons; a democratically effective check on Government;
representation for all parts of the country; and groups in
society would have a direct input in the political process.
Opposition is just as strong. The Lords is a traditional establishment
and should be left alone; it compliments the Commons with
detached expertise; Members can raise issues that politicians
cannot; reform would make it a rubber-stamping body capable
of achieving little; and if it were elected, it would be difficult
to decide which groups would be represented in the House .
The House of Lords is similar to the second chamber of Canada:
the Senate. Here the senators are unelected and are appointed
by the Crown’s governor-general. The composition of
the Senate is interesting and could relate to how a reformed
House of Lords may take shape. Senators are required to retire
at 75, putting an end to debates involving members who many
consider to be out of touch or inefficient, where matters
of debate are concerned. Members are entitled to delay or
decline to pass any bill and legislation must have the concurrence
of both Houses- an existing factor of the British system to
an extent. A notable difference in Canada is regional representation:
despite public dissatisfaction with the Senate, regions of
the country are represented, something that doesn’t
exist in Britain. There are good levels of communication between
both chambers, as in the UK and committees play a part in
investigating areas of policy and legislation, once more as
in Britain. The Canadian Senate has many traits of the Lords,
coupled with additional elements that make for a more democratic
chamber, for example, regional representation . Perhaps a
step in this direction would satisfy those calling for a more
democratic body.
Talk of reform has abounded for many years, but now the wheels
of reform have been set in motion. The House of Lords would
be best suited if it were as democratic as people want it
to be, within realistic boundaries. The removal of the hereditary
principal was a huge step forward, a factor acknowledged by
the Lord Privy Seal:
“The Bill is an historic document.”
There are many factors that should remain the same, for example,
the function as a revising chamber. But after years of talk
and speculation, action has been taken and although the Upper
Chamber now looks unlikely to be abolished, it seems to be
open to change.
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
- HOUSE OF LORDS HANSARD- 14th October 1998.
www.parliament.uk Accessed 13th April 2000
- HOUSE OF LORDS HANSARD- 29th March 1999
www.parliament.uk Accessed 13th April 2000
- GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
- REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON REFORM OF THE
HOUSE OF LORDS-
www.official-documents.co.uk/document/document/cm45/4534/4534.htm
- Accessed 13th April 2000
- CABINET OFFICE- Modernising Parliament: Reforming
the House of Lords. Cm 4183. January 1999.
- PERIODICALS
- JANET MORGAN- The House of Lords in the 1908s.
In: - Parliamentarian 62, number 1, 1981
- P.D.G.HAYTER- The Parliamentary Monitoring of
Science and Technology in Britain. In: - Government and
Opposition 26, number 2, 1991
- ANDREW ADONIS- The House of Lords in the 1980s.
In: - Parliamentary Affairs 41, number 3, 1988 (Oxford University
Press)
- D.N.CLARKE AND DONALD SHELL- Revision and Amendment
of Legislation by the House of Lords – A Case Study.
Autumn 1994. In: - Public Law (Sweet and Maxwell, 1994)
- DONALD SHELL- The House of Lords and the Thatcher
Government. In: - Parliamentary Affairs 38, number 1, 1985.
(Oxford University Press)
- NEWSPAPER ARTICLES
- STAFF REPORTER- Peers block repeal of Section
28 (The Daily Telegraph, 8th February, 2000)
- SECONDARY TEXTS
- PHILIP NORTON- The Constitution in Flux (Basil
Blackwell, 1984)
- CLIFF GRANTHAM AND CAROLINE MOORE- Structural
Changes, The Use of Committees. In: - Parliament in the
1980s, Philip Norton (ed.) (Basil Blackwell, 1985)
- S.BELL- How to abolish the Lords. Fabian Tract
476 (Blackrose Press, 1981)
- DONALD SHELL- The House of Lords (Philip Allan/Barnes
and Noble Books, 1998)
- DONALD SHELL AND DAVID BEAMISH- The House of Lords
at Work (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993)
- MISCELLANOUS
- NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE- A Comparative Study
of Second Chambers of Parliament in Selected Countries.
(National Democratic Institute) October 1996.
- SEMINAR PRESENTATION- The House of Lords fulfils
well its present functions. The UK Parliament (Course Module),
The University of Hull. 21st February, 2000.
|
