The Discussions on House of Lords Reforms - Essay Example

Topic: It has been argued that the House of Lord is out d, outmoded and in need of reform. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed reforms, giving your opinion on the appropriateness of these suggested changes. The discussions on House of Lords reforms have been going on since the nineteenth century but the pace had been quite slow. Before that in 1880s, attempts were made by Liberal and Conservative peers to bring changes in the membership to make the House of Lords more efficient. The House of Commons had been debating the issue of Lords reforms by passing resolutions criticising the hereditary right to a seat in parliament in 1886 and 1888 but without any positive result. Later, in 1907, a bill was introduced to put an end to hereditary right of peers to sit in the House of Lords. The bill was taken back and a committee was formed, headed by the Earl of Rosebery to discuss proposals for reforms. The cause of this initiation of reforms was the then government’s incapacity to enact major proposals for lack of majority in the House of Lords. The journey of reforms till now had seen some important break-through in the year 1911 and 1949. In 1911, the then government succeeded in passing the Parliament bill dealing on composition and relationship between Lords and Commons by pressurising the Lords to pass the bill otherwise Liberal peers would be created to ensure it becomes an Act. The three major issues of the Parliament Act of 1949 were that the House of Lords should be complementary to House of Commons, having no permanent majority for a political party, heredity not a basic qualification to sit in the reformed second chamber and women being given the rights to become Lords of Parliament. The latest break-through has been the House of Lords Act 1999, providing for the election of 75 hereditary peers by their own party or crossbench groups and election of 15 hereditary peers by the Whole House to be deputy speakers and committee chairmen. So far, through the House of Lords Act 1999, dominance of one political party has ended and Royal Commission has been established under the chairmanship of Lord Wakeham to discuss and finalise reforms. The proposed reforms have their advantages as well as disadvantages. Some of the advantages are: Legitimacy: The proposed reforms will give legitimacy to the upper house, as it will come into being after passing through democratic process of election. It will be formed on the needs and aspirations of the electorate through democratic mandate. Status of members: Members of the upper house would have particular and significant functions to perform, related with their duties, for which they would be accountable to the general public. Representation: Reforms would bring balanced representation of people from all walks of life. All areas would get equal attention and varied range of political thought would get represented. Age: The country’s youth would get a better chance to represent their class. In a nominated house seniors are in majority but elected House of Lords would have a fair number of youth, which is good for democracy. Entrenched bicameralism: Reforms show government faith and resolve to a dedicated bicameral legislature. The main disadvantages are: Conflict with the House of Commons: There could be the danger of the supremacy of the House of Commons being questioned and challenged, as the House of Lords might use the strength of its own electorate. The constitution of the UK is, most part of it, unwritten, therefore, it may create issues of contention that won’t be easy to resolve; powers, functions and duties of both houses are not straightforwardly written in the constitution. If both houses represent the electorate, there may be conflicts of rights and duties between both the houses. Loss of independents and ex officio membership: An elected upper house would eliminate the scope of independents getting entry; the voice of independents should be valued in a true democracy as the voice of common man. Transitional difficulties: The transitional process to a wholly elected House would interfere with the normal proceedings of the parliament, creating turbulent scenes in the Houses. Higher costs: It is feared that election, fixed salaries and the research facilities might increase expenditure to the tune of £1.092 billion for a period of fifteen years. Another matter of concern is whether the Upper House functions democratically or not depends on the form of election. There has been the example of Athenian democracy in which they didn’t elect Upper House or assembly; any citizen could attend the assembly. Opinions are divided on backing a system of proportional representation or as Tories propose the second chamber to be elected by the first Past the Post. Proposed changes in the House of Lords -- There will be pending removal of the rest of the hereditary peers by taking reforming action in coming months. The present non-statutory Appointments Commission will be replaced by a statutory one. These changes were not made earlier as it was a transitional phase. As there has not been a parliamentary consensus for more radical reforms, the government has decided to consolidate those reforms on which decision has been taken. Letting the remaining hereditary members be there in the Upper House was intentionally done to encourage them to move towards the second stage of reforms. It is also going to limit the Prime Minister’s right of patronage to the Lords in a statute so that no future government tries to back away from the set arrangements. The government will bring uniformity in rules concerning disqualification from membership of the House as laid down for the members of the House of Commons. Life peers will have to forego their titles and membership of the House like hereditary peers. Government has been issuing white paper on reforms and the latest inline has been its House of Lords reform: 2007 White Paper. Jack Straw, leader of the House and member of the Cabinet with the responsibility for Lords reforms had held eight group discussions with the cross party group and after reaching a consensus on particular issues, released the white paper. It has given statement on principles of composition of reformed chamber. Primacy of the House of Commons, complementarity of the House of Lords, removal of hereditary peers, legitimate House of Lords, no overall majority for any party, a non-party political element, and a more representative House of Lords are basic principles of its composition. White Paper 2007 has been somewhat different in proposals from the earlier proposals of 2003, which could not stand the test. All is not well in the given proposals. An alternative vote system to permit the House of Commons to verify a divide between appointed and elected members in the House of Lords is highly repugnant. Some of the proposals are welcome like the fifteen year terms but the proposal of partially open lists for election to the reformed House of Lords can not be welcomed. Statutory Appointments Commission needs to be given more powers. There is need to be steady and enthusiastic about the reforms; lack of energy on the government part can block the road to reforms at a dead-end because the reforms package seems to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Legitimacy of the Upper House should be to the extent of challenging the government on taking wrong turns but not to the extreme of putting regular brakes in the proceedings of the Parliament. Reforms should not overshadow the larger perspective of creating a House of Lords, which is more democratic and representative than what the present House of Lords is. It is quite strange and awkward otherwise that most of the people including Mr. Jack Straw, leader of the House, who is in charge of the Lords reforms confirm to the point of view that the Upper House is fulfilling its responsibilities very well. Its negative aspect is the way of choosing the members on the heredity basis – either by birth or by religious affiliations or by disgracing appointments. Government proposals are on test to in improvise on all such abnormalities. The issue of Lords reform has been lingering in the by lanes of Parliament for such a long time that people are not as enthusiastic as is expected of them. Mr. Straw has to compromise on the diminished zeal of the public at large about his preferred option. It seems that most probably the new House would be built on the second best alternative material instead of first choice of all because there is no unanimous way so far to which all sections of society agree. Instead of a fully elected second chamber, one with a 50% elected and 50% appointed seems the best alternative. Although MPs are a divided lot on the percentages of elected and appointed members. The Prime Minister has been in favour of a fully appointed “revising” chamber; getting least support of other MPs and an 80% elected and 20% appointed chamber was the least disliked option. But the question arises that when the current House of Lords is fulfilling its responsibilities in a prudent manner and there is popular agreement on its performance, why to choose a totally appointed or a totally elected Upper House. There would remain no difference between the two Houses if we favour fully elected House. Politicians are not that respected a lot as they used to be earlier. Politics has become an income generating profession; MPs want to lead a luxurious life through the so-called democratic means. In an elected Upper House, we can not get a large number of cross-bench peers. The Lords have been not just a group of experienced retired MPs but a batch of people with specialist knowledge and experience from an array of fields, that won’t be available by elections otherwise. The Lords have been fulfilling a judicial function, which will be affected by a fully elected House. Common public is a divided lot on the issue of election. Survey conducted by ICM on 1,003 people revealed that 63% supported the reforms in comparison to 26% who were against reforms. 41% have strongly favoured elected Upper House to 16% who disapprove elected Upper House. So far, the Upper House has contributed a lot in improving legislation and putting brakes on the excesses of the Executive. The Upper House should be truly representative of people from all walks of life, even Bishops besides a sprinkling of Rabbi, Imams, and Hindu and Sikh priests. Youth should get their fair share of representation. Rather than professional politicians treading on the party lines, bouncing forward and backward at the command of the political parties – true representatives of the people are required, who carefully discuss the problems and come out with best of the solutions. It would be undemocratic for the government to elect their own good people and send them to the House of Lords through P.R. system. What is the difference then between the Commons and the Lords? Coming back to Mr. Straw’s proposal, it is very important that we come out of the deadlock of 2003. As Senators will be elected for non-renewable terms, they will work in an impartial manner and not follow the party lines. Election for a longer period will provide stability and there will be change in the formation of the Upper House by only one third at each election. Therefore, the government claim of the Upper House representing electorate will not be on the lines of the Commons. Difference of the two chambers will remain, as the small number of appointed members will maintain the status quo between the Houses in representational power. Besides, senators appointed by the independent commission will be beyond the control of the current Prime Minister, removing any chance of favouritism. Let’s hope that appointed members of the reformed Upper House work independently and take judicious decisions on excluding the Bishops, judges and others with expertise and wisdom. The House of Lords has been working prudently even under the stress of not remaining in future. It has worked in favour of civil liberties and examined such government proposals with sincerity that aroused little interest in the Commons. To work for the legitimacy of the Lords and contribute in better showing off the diversity of the UK, all options are better than the status quo. References: BBC News. (Wednesday, 5 February, 2003, 08:32 GMT). Lords reform left in disarray. Retrieved Tuesday, April 10, 2007 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2721979.stm. FAQ (Elect The Lords) What method of election do you propose? Retrieved Tuesday, April 10, 2007 from http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/wiki/index.php/FAQ_%28Elect_The_Lords%29#What_method_of_election_do_you_propose.3F. House of Lords: Briefing: Reforms and proposals for reform since 1900. (2006). Retrieved Tuesday, April 10, 2007 from www.parliament.uk. House of Lords reform: Voting results and key information. (14 March 2007). Retrieved Tuesday, April 10, 2007 from http://www.parliament.uk/lords/index.cfm. Public backs House of Commons on Lords Reform by more than 2-to-1 11.59.00pm GMT Mon 12th Mar 2007. Retrieved Tuesday, April 10, 2007 from http://www.electthelords.org.uk/news/000079.html. Reform of the House of Lords. Wikipedia Retrieved Tuesday, April 10, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_House_of_Lords Richard Kelly. (2007). House of Lords Reform: 2007 White Paper. Retrieved Tuesday, April 10, 2007 from http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-04255.pdf. The story so far -- House of Lords reform: a brief history since 1997. Retrieved Tuesday, April 10, 2007 from http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/holref/index.htm#para71. Tom Shakespeare. Land Reforms: A disability Issue. Retrieved Tuesday, April 10, 2007 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/columnists/tom/080307_index.shtml. What will remain unchanged for now. Retrieved Tuesday, April 10, 2007 from http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/holref/index.htm#para71. Read More