The Reform of the House of Lords - Term Paper Example

How would you reform the House of Lords (Legislative) and why The call for reforms in the House of Lords (the "Lords has always provoked intense debate and policy initiatives that spans for over 100 years. The paper outlines some of the proposals with a set of principles underlying the process: the primacy of the House of Commons (the "Commons"), complementarity, legitimacy, no dominant party, a non party-political element, diverse representation, and continuity. 1 Primacy In the call for reforms, the primacy of the Commons must be maintained2 because its pre-eminence is anchored on a political reality that it is the majority party that organizes Government, subject to its continuing confidence to implement the programme set out in its manifesto. While the primacy of the Commons was originally derived from its electoral mandate, it continuing relevance is furthered by its functions and roles. The Government cannot govern without the support of the Commons because it has final say on legislation. As the Royal Commission chaired by Lord Wakeham emphasised, "The House of Commons, as the principal political forum, should have the final say in respect of all major public policy issues" and "it would be wrong to restore the fully bicameral nature of the pre-1911 Parliament."3 The primary role played by the Commons rests on several factors. First, its mandate as the direct representatives of the people means that it has greater democratic legitimacy than the Lords. The Commons' power to grant or withhold supply (public expenditure) is the source of its ability to uphold or dismiss the Government. Without the Commons' consent, the Government cannot function because the Commons approves expenditure. It is thus undesirable for the reformed Lords to undermine this primacy. Changes in the Lords composition might lead to this undesirable outcome.4 The Lords cannot have the same power of public expenditure because there must only be a single route through which the Government secures its authority to govern. The Lords should have less power over the Government although it can ask the Government to reconsider a proposal without questioning the Government's authority. The primacy of the Commons is enshrined in the Parliament Acts, which limit the power of the Lords to veto legislative proposals, contain specific provisions relating to Bills on national taxation, public money or loans or their management. In a dispute between the two chambers on primary legislation, the Commons is supreme. Complementary The Lords should neither be a rival nor a mirror of the Commons. The Lords should not also be a rubber stamp of the Government's proposals. The primary function of a second chamber is the scrutiny of proposed legislation to provide a second opinion. In order to secure the highest possible quality of legislation, a government must provide this second opinion. A second chamber is the appropriate unit to provide such second opinion as it has additional advantages in terms of the other functions, such as, examining and checking the effectiveness of the executive through questions and committees, being a forum for debate, and a representative of different interests5. In addition, the Lords complements the Commons, having a different kind of membership and providing a distinct voice in scrutinising legislation. To ensure this complementary role, no party in the Lords should have a majority of either the party-political members of the House or the House as a whole. At least 20% of the Lords should be non party-political appointments with a diverse experience. The Lords has traditionally provided a complementary function to the Commons through its composition considering the large portion of non party-political members, and the fact that its members sit as individuals rather than representing a constituency. Our political system is built around the idea of a complementary second chamber. Legitimacy If the Lords is to be partly or fully elected, it maybe possible that independent candidates would be elected increasing the proportion of non party-political members. It is difficult to justify a second chamber that has no mandate from the people. The question of how to obtain a seat in the Lords is the most controversial point in all discussions on Lords reform. There are three main options, an all-appointed House, an all-elected House, or a hybrid of the two. Based on the recent enquiries into the future of the House of Lords, the Royal Commission (2000), the report of the Public Administration Select Committee (2002) and the 'Breaking the Deadlock' group in 2005, it is proposed that a reformed Lords should be a hybrid chamber. The difficulty lies in striking the right mix between the elected and appointed members. The proposed hybrid chamber assumes that 50% of the Lords is elected through a partially open list system. In any model for a hybrid House, the appointed element, both non-party and party-political members would be appointed by the Appointments Commission. The total size of the reformed Lords should be 540 members chosen in staggered elections simultaneously held with the European Parliament elections before the same constituencies. Elections and appointments should also be staggered so that it would be difficult for individuals to claim greater legitimacy. Members should become a part of an institution embodying a number of diverse principles designed to deliver an effective second chamber to review laws and temper the Commons. Holding a free vote on composition of the Lords in both chambers will provide a guideline but such free vote is not an alternative vote on a legislative proposal but an alternative vote designed to give the Government a parliamentary guideline on the specific form of legislative composition. The most appropriate system of election for the proposed Lords is a partially open regional list system where parties ensure that their lists are representative of the diversity country in respect of gender and/ or ethnicity, and/ or other factors. Members, either appointed and elected, sit for 15 years without re-election and/or re-appointment. One-third of the elected members and one third of the appointed members of a reformed House will be replaced. When changes to composition have been initially introduced, it is discretionary for the Parliament, through appropriate legislation, to alter the proportion of elected members it deems desirable. Although the Lords seems to be less powerful than Commons, it is an established part of our political system playing an integral part in our political system. Despite the recognition that the Lords is working, its unelected status means that it lacks the mandate and necessary legitimacy. In fact, the question on its legitimacy goes into the core of calls for reform. A new Lords should be more transparent and accountable to the electorate increasing the people's confidence in the Lords and strengthening the Parliament. However, the need for legitimacy should balance the primacy of the Commons and the Lord's complementary role. No Dominant Single Party To further maintain the Lord's relatively non-partisan nature and ensure their independence and long-term focus, it is proposed that the reformed Lords serve long terms without re-election and/or re-appointment. If a proportion of members of the chamber are to be elected, the elections must be done in staggered terms and frequency, with a third of the elected element being introduced at each direct election. Lords who finish serving in the chamber should not be allowed to sit in the Commons for a certain number of years after they leave. The Lords at present is comprised an approximately equal number of Labour and Conservative members. The third group by number is the non party-political members, and the fourth the Liberal Democrats. Since 1999, no single party has been able to control the party-political members of the Lords even if the Labour Party which is the largest party holds 42% of the party-political seats in the Lords. Overall, it makes up approximately 29% of the Lords.6 It is important and vital that there is no single majority political party in the Lords because it is crucial in maintaining the Lords' complementary role. A balance party system enables the Lords to continue to be independent from the executive or any one political party, unique from the Commons ensuring that legislation is negotiated free from the control of the dominant party. The balance of power prevents a party, Government or opposition, from dominating and imposing upon the Lords either through legislation blocking or acting as a rubber stamp. Non Party-Political Element By virtue of their appointment, the powers of the Lords and their life term, they encompass a diverse range of different views. One of the strengths of the Lords, which should be maintained, is the presence of non party-political members who ensure that debates are conducted on the merits and less of partisan politics. These non party-political members currently play a very important role both in committee work and debates. As to the proportion of these non party-political members, Wakeham Commission suggested that at least 20% is sufficiently enough to ensure that there is no single party dominance. Diversity It is believed that the work of the Lords will be enhanced if it is comprised of the diverse views. Thus, the reformed Lords must reflect as far as possible the diversity and aspirations of the people and viewpoints taking into consideration gender and racial diversity and the range of religious opinion. Moreover, religious communities must be represented in the Lords. Considering that the Church of England enjoys a peculiar status in the social and political life in our society, Lords Spiritual have since sat in the Lords since its inception.7 Recognising the role played by Lords Spiritual, a more flexible approach should be adopted such that representation is determined based on best contribution rather than seniority. As noted by the Wakeham Commission: "It is clearly not possible to find a way in which all other faith communities could be formally represented on any kind of ex-officio basis. None of them has a suitable representative body." The Wakeham Commission also observed that the membership in the Lords was heavily biased towards the south-east of England and Scotland in terms of the origin of its members. The proposed Lords must to ensure that better representation of the nations and regions.8 It is vital that diverse interests of the people are represented in the proposed Lords since the present membership is representative of contemporary society. Under any system for choosing members, the method of selection should consider the diverse population of the country. Appointment ensures the necessary diversity of the Lords. Under this proposal, 20% non party-political members and 30% of the reformed Lords would be appointed party-political members by a new independent Statutory Appointments Commission directly reporting to Parliament. Continuity The continuity of the Lords is one of its strengths because a longer term ensures that members takes a long-term view of the issues looking beyond election cycles and other short-term considerations. Since it ensures enormous experience in the Lords' works and in the legislative process, the continuity of the Lords must be maintained because it helps them maintain their independence. This arrangement, without re-election and/or re-appointment makes allows members to espouse unpopular positions on issues without due regard to political considerations. None of the current life peers will be forced to resign but a financial package to those willing to retire should be studied. A remuneration package based on attendance should be implemented by the Review Body on Senior Salaries. The right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the Lords based on ancestry must be abolished. 9 Reforms of the Lords has been a political agenda for so long. But the most controversial issue on reform is the hybrid option, with elections run on a staggered partially-open list system at the same time as European elections. A hybrid ensures that the second chamber complements the Commons, independent and effectively representative of the regions, gender, religious and ethnic origin. The Lords will become more legitimate while not being overly political. It is hope that the foregoing proposal represents the best compromise and a sensible system in the House of Lords reform. 10 BIBLIOGRAPHY Government Response to the Joint Committee On Conventions' Report of Session 2005-06: Conventions of the UK Parliament Cm. 6997 House of Lords Information Office, excludes 14 Peers on Leave of Absence Labour Party Manifesto 2005, Britain Forward Not Back Parliaments Across Frontiers: A Short History of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, 1975 Reforming the House of Lords: Breaking the Deadlock, The Constitution Unit, 2005 Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords, A House for the Future, Cm. 4534, January 2000 Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords, A House for the Future, Cm. 4534, paragraph 15.15 Read More