House of Lords Reforms - Essay Example

Memorandum Concerning the Merits and Dismerits of Proposed Changes to the House of Lords The United Kingdom Parliament I. Introduction: One of the most important agendas of this Government has been the reform of the House of Lords. Both the public and the parties that make up the government have called for changes to the powers and composition of the Second Chamber. This memorandum outlines these changes to the House of Lords and discusses their merits and dismerits. II Changes implemented by the Labour Party this term The Labour party manifesto of 2005 claimed that one of governments initiatives would be a further reform of the House of Lords. In particular, the Manifest stated, "we will remove the remaining hereditary peers and allow a free vote on the composition of the house" (P. 110). That same year the government took its first significant steps in reforming the House with the Constitutional Reform Act. This act mandated the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to take over the existing role of the Law Lords, in addition to taking on a role in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It also removed the powers of the Speaker of the House of Lords and Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales from the office of Lord Chancellor. III Changes currently proposed 1. The introduction of elected officials to the House 2. The reduction of the number of House members 3. The elimination of life membership 4. A time limit for the passage of bills through the House 5. The removal of the remaining Hereditary Peers 1.The introduction of elected officials into the House of Lords. This change has been the most contentious of those proposed. The number of elected representatives that should be allowed has been the subject of considerable debate. It was proposed that 120 members be elected by the public, 120 appointed by a statutory independent commission and the rest would be appointed by political parties in proportion to votes received by a party at the most recent general election. Despite the debate surrounding the number of members a larger issue is at stake. In the report put forward by Clarke, Cook, Tyler, Wright and Young (2005) they claim that it is not so much the number of elected members but rather the powers they will receive that is at issue (p. 8). They state, "Whilst there has been a great deal of support for the introduction of elected members, some in the political world have been concerned that this would make the second chamber more powerful, and therefore result in a challenge to the traditional primacy of the House of Commons" (p. 8). merits and dismerits: There is little doubt that the introduction of elected members to the House of Lords would allow for a greater degree of democratic representation than is seen today, particularly within the regions. Yet, it could cause an unfavorable change in the balance of power between the two houses if elected members do not take the spirit of the Salisbury Doctrine into consideration, something many doubt would happen. Roger and Walters (2004) state the Salisbury convention is perhaps more a code of behaviour for the Conservative Party when in opposition in the Lords than a convention of the House. Indeed it is a moot point whether, following the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999, the expulsion of the hereditary members and the ending of the overwhelming numerical advantage of the Conservative Party, the Salisbury convention as originally devised can have any continuing validity (p. 19)1. If the House of Commons and the Executive wish for there to be a check on the House of Lord's powers of bill prevention they must look to making such limitations. 2. The reduction of the number of House members Currently the House of Lords has over 700 members and is one of the largest parliamentary chambers in the world. Although, since members are appointed for life and often reach an age where they cannot sit in on House meetings as often, attendance is considerably lower than the total number of members. merits and dismerits: The clearest merit of reducing the number of members would be the cost efficiency. In addition, a smaller chamber may work more efficiently. Hon. Keenneth Clarke claims (2006), "If we are to have a Chamber that is in any case principally about review, scrutiny and deliberation-in many cases, the attempt to reach consensus-a smaller group of people is almost certainly desirable." 3. The elimination of life membership merits and dismerits: Life membership provides such benefits as independence from the party, greater freedom to work on reform without the hindrance of reelections taking up large portions of Member's time and the clear-cut benefits received from the accumulation of knowledge within the Chamber. Clark, Cook, Tyler, Wright and Young claim, "members of the House of Lords are able to take a longer term view on issues and can provide import and continuity when governments change" (p. 21). Despite the merits of life membership many of the same benefits listed above could be attained with long-term memberships. Long-term memberships would allow for the size of the House to shrink but not the sort of knowledge and insight that results from experience. 4. A shorter limit for the passage of bills through the House Currently bills can be delayed for up to a year and money bills can be delayed up to three months. The proposed limit would be 60 days that the Lords can delay legislation passed by the House of Commons. merits and dismerits: A time limit of two months would be keeping in line with Government's desire to limit but not cripple the House of Lords policy making filter. Hon. Keenneth Clarke states that, "At Present it plays a more important role in Parliament by raising some important points about the quality of legislation, about civil liberties and so on. There is an argument that it is the most effective part in Parliament in holding the executive to account in the interests of John citizen." 4. The removal of the remaining Hereditary Peers The House of Lords Act of 1999 resulted in the removal of all but 92 Peers. In 2005 the government on various occasions made clear that if there was to be a reform of the House of Lords the removal of the Hereditary Peers would most definitely be on the agenda. Merits and dismerits: These fall along much the same lines as those of lifetime membership. With the removal of the remaining hereditary peers knowledge and experience would be lost but a higher degree of democracy and a greater representation of the people would be gained. IV Conclusion: In 2004 the Labour Peers Group came together to consider what future reforms the House of Lords should face. On of the conclusions they came to was that, "A Second Chamber should complement the work of the elected House of Commons and concentrate on the scrutiny and revision of legislation" (qtd. in Kelly). Reform of the House of Lords in its composition and powers would result in the Chamber being a more democratic, affective, and representative body of government for the people of Great Britain . References Clarke, hon, K. (2006). House of Lords Debate. Westminsterhall Debates. 31 Jan: Reform to the House of Lords: House of Commons Kelly, R. (2006). House of Lords: Continuing Debate. House of Commons Library Standard note: SN/PC/3895, Last Updated 26 Jan 2006 Labour Party Manifesto, (2005) Britain Forward, Not Back Clarke, K., Cook, R., Tyler, P., Wright, T., Young, G., (2005). Reforming the House of Lords: Breaking the Deadlock. Constitution Unit: UCL Rogers, R., Walters, R., How Parliament Works, 5th edition, Longman Read More