Roles of the House of Lords - Essay Example

PUBLIC LAW by of the of the of the School June 29, Introduction The UK constitution holds the House of Lords, the House of Commons, and the queen (the crown) to the constituents of the UK parliament. The House of Lords in the UK can be traced back to the 14th century, from where it has developed with various changes to what people now call the second chamber or upper house in the UK constitution (parliament.uk, 2011). For centuries, it had always had an upper hand in the work of the government, by either supporting or refuting the discussions of the common house. Between the 19th and 21st centuries, various changes have taken place and have ended up reducing the powers and rights bestowed on the House of Commons for one reason or another. Their mandates and membership have in the past been disrupted, and rearranged to meet the changing needs of the government operations in the constitution, and for the benefit of the general society. So far, the trend in changes being campaigned for and implemented on the House of Lords seems to be very thorough, and with a driven motive, especially from the running government and House of commons, which could not only affect their powers, but injure the public affairs and general society, when the operations of the common house are left with minimal control. Roles of the House of Lords Legislative responsibilities: As a constituent body of the parliament, it plays a major role in the law making process. Actually, of all the roles the chamber is entitled to, law making that entails amending, revising, and even initiating legislatures remain a critical role, which the house spends most of its time in (Parliamentary Education Service, 2007). This is usually a shared responsibility with the House of Commons, allowing each house to bring in their opinion and contribute their ideologies in the development of the law. The end product of the proposed law after having been evaluated by both houses, stands a better chance of been effective once passed through for the crowns approval. This is because the potential problems and voids in the proposed law or bills would be exposed and catered for. Initially, the House of Lords exercised more powers in the legislature, but the passage of the Parliament Act of 1911limited its power, over the ordinary legislature (kkhsou.in, 2011). Like the House of Commons, it can also initiate bills, especially those concerned with the government operation and non money bills, though at a lower rate than the laws drafted from the other House. Similarly, it revises and examines bills passed from the House of Commons, checking the proposals, making changes and improving bills through debates on amendments, which is not time limited, making them workable once approved. In its legislative function, the House of Lords power to veto a bill are not available, but they can reject it to cause delay, allow room for review by the Common House and government, or offer alternative amendments (The Great Britain Parliament et al, 2012). However, in the third time reject by the House of Lords, the Common House can push it ahead for the crowns approval, even without the consent of the House of Lords. Scrutinising government and its executives: It is a valuable role that helps keep the government executives and operations in the right track. Most of the government activities and decisions are challenged by the House of Lords, which probes into a wide range of policies and regulations. As an executive body, it has the powers to question ministers and elicit information from the administration by submitting written questions, or asking them orally during the question time sessions in the House, raise issues of concern through debates about government activities and policies, and provide responses to the government statements (The Great Britain Parliament et al, s2012). The House has established committees that assist in scrutinising and monitoring the delegated powers to the executives and government. They include the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which examine all bills before consideration by the House of Lords, and the Merit of Statutory Instruments Committee concerned with policy aspects of statutory and reports instruments. Holding forums of independent expertise: The House of Lords provides broad knowledge on a variety of policies and issues of concern to the public, through the reports of its appointed investigative committees. The selected committees draw a wide ranging experience on certain domains like the economy, science, constitution, and the Europe region, to give an insight in affairs of public interest (Parliamentary Education Service, 2007). These distinctive committees examine the proposed European legislations before incorporation in the UK; examine public bills that may conflict with the constitution, review finance bills to keep check of economic affairs, and also aid in monitoring the broadcasting of communication issues in the industries among other factors related to the bills and policy factors. Because the committees consist of qualified experts in their field, their expertise gives credibility to their work, bringing up specialist expertise and knowledge in the House of Lords, to influence their debates and decisions. ‘Extinct’ judicial roles: The House of Commons had been the host of specific law Lords making it the highest court in the United Kingdom before the judicial reforms of 2009. The Law Lords were members of the House of Lords and consisted of highly qualified judges, who could engage and hear specific appealed cases of public importance. Currently, the judicial work has been banned from voting or sitting in the House of Lords, and are only required to be specifically concerned with the judicial issues of the independent UK Supreme Court (Morgan, 2010). It is evident that with time the judicial powers of the House of Lords have become obsolete. The justices in the established Supreme Court can only return to the House of Lords after retirement, when they relinquish their judicial roles. Benefits of Maintaining its Current Membership The public and politicians in the UK have been actively campaigning and debating on the reform of the House of Lords in the last decade. Some of the changes are now effective like the elimination of the Supreme Court of the UK from the House of Lords. Even though some of the arguments have a strong basis in the modern world, the society has to consider the crucial advantages that the House impacts the government and the general society, which is enabled by the current system of their appointment and membership in the House. In its current state, it stands independent of political influences, and mostly exercises its mandate and authority without much interference. Since the labour party led the government in the late 1990s, two major changes have occurred in the representation of the House of Lords, and their use of power and the protocol of ascending into the House. These were affected through the 1999 House of Lords Act, which brought to an end the hereditary peers’ rights to allow members of family inheritance of the position, and the introduction of the Appointments Commission of the House of Lords that recommend on appointment of individuals (parliament.uk, n.d.). These mechanisms loosened the criteria of membership into the House, and more reforms intertwined in democracy and politics that would weaken the powers and neutral composition of the House. Prevention of party politics: The critical benefits lie within the evasion of politics that would be brought about by the election criteria of the Lords. Retaining the house membership in its diversity with members from different fields of study and expertise, give a broad insight into the UK policies through advisories, investigations, held debates, and sessions, but with insignificant political interventions, due to lack of politicization based on parties. In the current state, the house can easily avoid party whips that can influence the voting of the house, it can also manage to make impartial decisions in the absence of political parties influence, avoid the pressures of public whims associated with elected members, continue its independence rather than relying on parliament and its politicians, and avoid reforming the House with elected individuals with political experience as a career (Henry, 2012). Some of the roles like scrutinizing the government to keep it in check that are best supported by their process of appointment, can be hampered by reform procedures among other advantages associated with their roles, and neutral composition and membership. Nomination, which leads to majority of the Lords in the House by the Queen and preference from the Prime Minister, has its faults that can be rectified, but serves best to raise the neutrality of the House, necessary to execute its roles properly. The House of Lords has been stripped off of its powers and responsibilities. Its original establishment and reasons behind it have been spread across the government, minimizing its chances of influence in the parliament. In any case, changes ought to be directed in improving the existing House of Lords, rather than reforms of abolishing or further stripping off the system of the House of Lords. Diversity in its expertise is the strength of the House, and people should not feel unrepresented because their roles serve to protect the interest of the public from exploitative policies. The House has been denied veto and has no financial powers, not to mention the separation of the judicial role through the establishment of the independent Supreme Court. Its powers have been limited and need to be restored or if possible, added to facilitate its limited roles in the constitution and function effectively. Otherwise, democracy and politically driven changes would structure the House, but find no crucial roles or powers to support and verify government operations. Changing/Removing the Parliament Acts The Parliament Act of 1911: Before the enactment of this act, the powers held by the House of Lords would block the government activities or policies been approved by the House of Commons, if found unfit. The disagreement in approval of policies in the two Houses would slow down the government operations, causing the enactment of the Act to impose limitations on the powers of the Lords. The act removed the powers of the House of Lords to veto a bill, reducing its powers significantly when dealing with money bills, to instead give the House of Lords an upper hand in causing delays to a maximum of 2 years, while the parliament redefined itself to enable a bill to become an act of parliament, under the approval of the House of Commons and the crown (Sueur, Surkin, and Murkens, 2013). This law interfered with the relationship in government operations between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, with a shift in political power from the upper House to the Commons, who are people’s representatives. The House of Common is a constituent of the parliament that has representatives from different political parties, majorities, and minorities. Their policies and debates passed and conducted in the house may be influenced by interests of political parties, especially the one forming the government, which with eliminated power to veto from the Lords’ House, could do less to prevent passage of such ill formed policies. In any case, even if delayed through the allocated power of the Lords, the Commons can have their way out, if the majority still approve it. Delays serve as blind fold power to the House of Lords and once the veto power is restored, government’s and parliaments’ actions can be thoroughly checked to allow sound decisions and effective operations to occur. There are tough choices to be made for the general public, protecting them from selfish motives of the House of Commons, and from being led to frantic situations, because of policies enacted without clear investigation and scrutiny, which can only happen if the veto power is restored back to the House of Lords. The House of Lords needs to regain the power and control of the state lost to the Commons to give them an upper hand, not only to revising and delays of proposed legislatures, but to prevent enactment of unreasonable bills, regardless of whether they are money or public bills, since all concern the public and its interest. Revoking the act would permit the House of Lords to look into broad issues without restrictions, including the money bills that entail issues certified to be dealing with government budgeting and taxation, enforcing amendments, and also blocking their activation when reasonable need be. The Parliament Act of 1949: The Act was an amendment of the Parliament Act of 1911 that sought to reduce further the powers of the House of Lords. According to Gillespie, the 1949 Act reduced the delay period of House of Lords in blocking a bill from enactment from 2 years to 1 year and 2 sessions; such that a bill could be passed after the second defeat (2007). The law enforced the Act of 1911, but shrunk the limited power again bestowed on House of Lords. In this case the principle agenda lies with Act of 1911, and more powers seem to have been delegated to the House of Commons for the second time, through the Act of 1949. Since then, a number of laws have been passed into law without the consent of the Lords, which probably with the right of those powers and delays, would have definitely managed to obstruct the enactment and seek lengthy amendments for better decisions. Some of these include the parliament Act of 1949 itself and the Hunting Act 2004, all based on the provisions from the Parliament Act of 1911that allow assent of a bill into law by approval of House of Commoners and the crown (Roach, 2012). The two Acts are the founding changes that need to be nullified to strengthen the existing House of Lords, and empower their functions in parliament and government operations. Other minor changes have occurred through the House of Lords Acts 1999 that tried to bring in an aspect of representation and democracy, by abolishing the hereditary right. The Act altered with the membership of the House that would have an effect in the voting of the Lords. Stopping the Act would restore back a sense of balance in the business operations of the House, because it needs the wisdom and expertise of the excluded members. Revoking the Constitutional Reform of 2005 would give back the House of Lords its crucial judicial role. It would then be able to provide supreme judgement on the appealed cases as the highest court. More reform bills are underway, but what people take lightly are the threats that changes would bring. For example, it may require rewriting of the convention again to structure, and keep roles and powers clear for both houses. The current House of Lords still stands fit to serve the country and rather than destroying it, seeking reforms that would improve its functions and empower the Lords in their work would be a fair trend to restore confidence, and give stability to the House. Reference List Education to the British Parliament: the House of Commons and the House of Lords. 2011. [Online] Available at: http://www.kkhsou.in/main/polscience/british_parliament.html [Accessed 29 June 2013] Gillespie, A., 2007. The English Legal System. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Great Britain Parliament: Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill, 2012. Draft House of Lords Reform Bill: report session 2010-12, Vol. 1: Report Session 2010-12. Norwich: The Stationery Office. Henry, J. 2012. House of Lords – Reform or Retain. [Online] Available at: http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/05/10/house-lords-reform-your-views/ [Accessed 29 June 2013] House of Lords Briefings: The History of the House of Lords. 2011. [Online] Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/lords-briefing-papers/15840HoLBriefing-history.pdf [Accessed 29 June 2013] How Do You Become a Member of the House of Lords. N.d. [Online] Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords-appointment/. [Accessed 29 June 2013] Morgan, L. 2010. The impact of replacing the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords with the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. [Online] Available at: www.newport.ac.uk/research/Journals/newresearcher/vol3/.../Article1.do. [Accessed 29 June 2013] Parliamentary Education Service. 2007. The House of Lords: the UK’s Second Chamber, Complimenting the Works of the Commons. [Online] Available at: http://www.kpes.upol.cz/besmart/modules/courses/files/21.pdf [Accessed 29 June 2013]  Roach, L., 2012. Card & James Business Law for Business, Accounting, & Finance Students. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sueur, A. L., Sunkin, M., and Murkens, J. 2013. Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials 2e. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press Read More