The House of Lords in the United Kingdom - Case Study Example

The House of Lords Name Course Task Date Introduction The house of Lords is the United Kingdom's Upper Chamber of the parliament. Its primary function is to scrutinize legislation proposed by the House of Commons. It scrutinizes the legislations through debates or by proposing amendments. Over the years, the years, there has been raging political debate as to whether to reform the House of Lords or to leave it as it has been. The house of Lords can be considered from two major perspectives. The first perspective is that the house is very effective in its work and no reforms are necessary. This perspective has support from the conservatives who believe that the house is very efficient in its work and no reforms are necessary. The second perfective is that the house of lords is greatly inefficient and need rapid reforms. The Labour Party supports this perspective claiming that the House of Lords as it is outdated and thorough reforms are necessary. When discussing the future of the House of Lords, there are four options that stakeholders constantly debate on; retain; reform; replace; and remove. The people who have a preference for the house of lords prefer that it be retained in its current form. The house of Lords forms a part of the ancient triumvirate for the people of the United Kingdom. Initially, the Lords worked with the commoners to check the authorities and powers of the king. In the modern times, the Lords' responsibilities are to scrutinize and sometimes challenge the actions of the government. This keeps in check the actions taken by the government. For this reason, it is necessary to retain the Lords in the British political life. Those people who do not support the current state of the House of Lords advocates for its reformation. Several suggestions have been brought forward including having a fully appointed house, a fully elected house, and a hybrid set of appointed and elected members. However, most supporters of the reform process advocate for an elected house members to promote democracy and accountability from the members. People from different regions and different specialties will be elected to sit in the House of Lords. This will abolish the hereditary methods of filling seats in the House of Lords. The other option is by replacing it with a senate with elected members. The senators will be elected from all the constituencies to represent all the people, unlike the current house whose most members hail for the capital and neighboring areas. This will reduce the gap in representation between London and other provinces. A committee of experts could also replace the House of Lords. This committee will have the expertise, knowledge and experience needed to scrutinize the works of the House of Commons. The last option is removing the House of Lords entirely from the British parliament. Supporters of this view hold that the house is an outmoded and does not have a place in the modern systems of governments. The 1911 Parliamentary Act The house had so much powers including ability to delay government bills. The act was passed on 10th August 1911 after the House of Commons proposed it. The House of Commons enacted the Act after the House of Lords rejected the people's budget drafted by David Lloyd George. David had introduced a land tax in the budget which the Lords rejected. the liberal majority in the House of Commons passed the bill. This Act's aim was to cut off some powers of the House of Lords. It eliminated the Veto Rights of Lords to delay bills that had been introduced by the House of Commons. The House of Lords would initially delay the bills from the House of Commons they did not like for a long time making it hard for such bills to be enacted as laws. The bill brought many reforms and changes in the operations of the House of Lords. The veto power to vote for any bill certified as money bill was removed. Any money bill would be presented for Royal assent devoid of Lord's consent if they failed to pass the bills within a month after the bill left the House of Commons to the house of the lords. The Lords were not allowed to delay any money bill for over a month1. The 1911 bill reduced the time the Lords would delay other public bills to two years. If the House of Lords rejected a bill but the House of Commons passed it in 3 successive sessions, then the bill would become a law and receive Royal Assent without the approval of the Lords, for as long as, a duration of two years had passed since the second reading and the final passing of the bill by the house of commons. The Act still gave the Lords the veto voting rights over bills seeking to extend the duration of the parliament. The bill also allowed the Lords to verify a provisional order and they would use it to force through a bill that came from the lower chambers. The act also reduced the duration of the British Parliament from a period of seven to five years. The 1949 Parliamentary Act This parliamentary Act was developed within the provisions of the 1911 parliamentary Act. The bill sought to amend the 1911 Act by further reducing the duration in which the Lords would delay a public bill from duration of two years over three parliamentary sessions to duration of one year over two parliamentary sessions. The reason for this was that, the Commons feared that the Lords would delay their nationalization programme and this would result to the failure to complete the programme within the lifetime of the parliament2. The bill reformed the House of Lords in that it recommended that the house would be complimentary to the House of Commons and not a rival. This meant that any reforms should be based on modifying the existing house and not establishing a new house that would be rivals with the House of Commons. The bill also introduced provisions to disqualify a member from the chamber, if he/she neglects his/her duties or if the person becomes unable or unfit to perform such duties. Lastly, the bill recommended that just like men, women should have the capability of being elected in the House of Lords3. Recent reforms from 2000 Major reforms on the Upper chamber in the United Kingdom were undertaken in the recent times in the twentieth century. The initiative to reform the house started in January 1999 when Tony Blair the then prime minister presented a white paper with a title to modernizing Parliament. According to Tony Blair, Britain needed an Upper House, but the chamber in place lacked legitimacy due to its composition. The paper came with several suggestions on how to reform the Lord's chamber4. First, the paper suggested abolishing the powers of the hereditary Lords to vote. Secondly, the paper suggested the creation of a transitional chamber that would lead to a reformed chamber. Thirdly, it suggested the establishment of a Royal Commission that would foresee of all the issues relating to the upper chamber. The amount of activity undertaken by the House of Lords has been increasing over time. However, pressure continues to mount on the House of Lords to reform. This is especially since the ascension to government by the Labour Party. The party aimed to make the house an effective chamber that fits in the modern world. The primary role of the House of Lords is to compliment the work of the House of Commons. The house the house has the power to delay the legislations from the lower chamber. This ability has enabled different stakeholders to take note of a legislation, which they initially considered worthless. In the beginning of this year, the Lords fell a repeal that banned promotion of homosexuality in schools. The delaying of legislations are usually great setbacks to the government and shows that the Lords still have a lot of powers. The position and status of the upper chamber has gone up over the years. In 2000, the Royal Commission, published a report on the House of Lords called, a House for the Future. The report compiled several recommendations, one of them being that the house of lord be an advisory chamber whose role was to compliment the roles of the lower chamber. The house’s powers to amend and change legislations strengthened over the years. In 2001, the government came up with another White Paper, named completing the Reform. The paper suggested reduction of the Members of the chamber from 700 to 600. 120 of the members would be elected directly. The political parties with representations in the Lower Chamber were to nominate 332 members. The appointment commission would appoint 120 members. 16 Bishops instead of the previous 23 would sit in the Commission. The 92 remaining hereditary members lost their power to sit in the house. 30% of the seats were reserved for women5. The power to delay legislations was reduced to three months but the veto powers were eliminated. The house of lords greatly appreciates the suggestions that the public elect members. This will give the chamber superior influence than the House of Commons. This will ensure that the legislations pass democratically. In February 2002, a select committee reviewed the white paper and wrote a report called The Second Chamber: Continuing the Reform. The committee came up with recommendations that 60% of the seats in the Upper Chamber be filled by way of elections. The other recommendations was that, the Appointments Committee would fill the remaining 40% of the seats through appointments; 20% of whom would be appointed from political parties and 20% would be from the independent members6. Most of the members of the House of Lords comprised of members who inherited their position from their parents and relatives. In September 2003, the government produced a consultation document, which would give guidelines on the future steps in the reform of the Upper Chamber. The paper suggested the removal of the remaining hereditary peers and establishment of a new Appointments Commission, which would be answerable to the parliament and not the ministers. The commission would make decisions with relation to the number and timing of filling the seats in the House of Lords. In November 2003, the Upper Chamber's select Committee published a report that gave several recommendations; first, the report recommended that a speaker be elected from the members for a term of five years with the likelihood of re-election. The speaker should be neutral and should leave all the party politics7. In 2004 February, a constitutional Reform Bill was presented to the Upper Chamber. The bill sought to abolish the Lord Chancellor's office and make the necessary changes as to how the responsibilities of this office would be undertaken. The bill also recommended the creation of a Supreme Court and a Judicial Appointments Commission8. The prime minister had the power to nominate a certain number of peers to the Queen. In 2005 January, the prime minister presented a statement to the Lower Chamber where he set a limit on the powers of a prime minister to nominate peers of the House of Lords directly. The prime minister decided that under the statement, the number of the peers he nominates would be limited to ten. There have been proposals to create a hybrid type of Upper Chamber, with both elected and nominated members. In 2007 February, a white paper was released by the government giving options for reforming the house of lords, there was the option of 100% elected house, a 100% appointed house or a hybrid system with 50% elected members, 30% appointees of political parties and a 20% non-partisan appointees by the appointments commission. The hybrid option was the most preferred option. The paper also suggested that the number of the Lords be reduced from 600 to 5409. Elections of the 50% of the members would take place simultaneously with the Parliament Election through the same electoral boundaries. The paper also suggested a longer non-renewable term for all the members to maintain independence of members. The paper suggested a term of 15 years. Membership of the House of Lords has constantly suggestions that the number be reduced. In 2006 April, after the cabinet reshuffle, Jack Straw, the then leader of the commoners took the lead role in reforming the House of Lords. According to Jack, the house to comprise 50% elected members and the number be reduced from the then 741 to 450. He also proposed a term of 12 years for all the members. He also suggested the abolition of life peerages. In addition, the proposed that the members receive a salary rather than the per diem allowances10. The positions of hereditary and religious seats in the House of Lords are likely to be abolished. The 2007 paper also suggested the reduction of the number of bishops to sit in the reformed house. It also suggested elimination of the seats of the hereditary peers, either by abolishing their rights vote or by placing them in the equal position with life peers. In March 2007, the lower chamber members voted for a 100% elected Upper Chamber. The reform of the House of Lords has received a lot of support from the Labour government. In 2008, the government produced another White Paper following the 2007 vote. The paper suggested mainly elected Upper Chamber, and a non-renewable term of 12-15 years. It also suggested that the elections be held at the same time with the House of Commons' elections and not as the parliamentary elections11. The process of recruiting the Lords has received a lot of attention. There are suggestions of establishing an Independent Appointments Body to foresee the process. In response to the 2008 white paper, the House of Commons wrote a report in January 2009. The report recommends the establishment of an independent appointments commission, which will not be answerable to the prime minister. Instead, the commission should be answerable to the parliament. It also suggests that parties should provide the commission with a long list of nominees, and the committee would select the members based on principles of public interest and probity. The integrity of the Lords has been maintained from the time the house was established to date. The lords retain their status by not engaging in politics that the ordinary politicians engage in. In January 2010, the government discussed and amended the constitutional reform and governance bill. The amended bill proposed the appointment of peers for a fixed term as a step to reform the Upper Chamber. This would increase commitment and quality of work from the members. This would also check the ever-increasing number of peers. The government would then replace the existing peers with term peers gradually12. The reform issues follow House of Lords 100 years after the process started. Debates continue as to whether to get a 100% elected or 80% elected members rages every day. Moreover, debates as to whether to elect members through the single transferrable method or through the alternative vote forms the basis of reform discussions in 2011. This forms the subject of the May referendum. The house of lords is a traditional establishment and plays a very crucial role of complimenting the work of the lower chamber. Many of the functions of the house should remain as they are; for instance, their role as the revising and the advisory chamber should not change. However, more reforms are necessary to make the house more democratic and professional than the House of Commons. Chances of abolishing the House of Lords are minimal and they are open to changes and reforms. This will lead to the creation of a chamber, which is effective efficient and fits in the modern world. Bibliography Bernan, 2008, Bill of Rights for the UK? Twenty-Ninth Report of Session 2007-08: Vol. 2 Oral and Written Evidence: House of Lords Paper 165-II Session 2007-08, London, The Stationery Office. Barnette, H & Jago, R, 2011, Constitutional & Administrative Law, London, Taylor & Francis. Carmichael, P & Dickson, B, 1999, The House of Lords: its parliamentary and Judiciary roles. London: Hart Pub. Great Britain, 2001, The house of lords: completing the reforms, London, Stationery office. Great Britain, 2007, The House of Lords: reform, London, The Stationery Office. Great Britain & Ministry of Justice, 2007, The Governance of Britain, London, The Stationery Office. Great Britain & Ministry of Justice, 2008, An Elected Second Chamber: Further Reform Of The House of Lords, London, The Stationery House. Harrison, K & Boyd, T, 2006, The Changing Constitution, Edinhurgh, Edinburgh University Press. Ivor, R & Welfare, D, 1999, Unfinished Business, New York, Vintage. Purton, C, 1850, The House of Lords as a Court of Appeal, London, V & R Stevens and G.S Minogue, M, 1977, British Government and Constitutional Change, Cambrigde, CUP Archive. Oliver, D , 2007, The Changing Constitution, London, Oxford University Press. Russel, M, & Constitutional Unit (Breat Britain), 2000, Reforming the House of Lords, London, Oxford University Press. Rush, M, 2005, Parliament Today, Manchester, Manchester University Press. School of Public Policy & University Press, 2005, Reforming the House of Lords: breaking the deadlock, London, Stationery office Seldon, A, 2007, Blair's Britain, 1997-2007, Cambrigde, Cambridge University Press. Shell, D, 2007, The House of Lords, Manchester, Manchester University Press. Slapper, G & Kelly, D, 2009, The English Legal System: 2009-2010, London,Taylor & Francis. Smith, M., & Spear, J, 1992, The Changing Labour Party, London, Taylor & Francis. Social Democratic Party ( Great Britain), 1987, Reforming the House of Lords, London, SDP. Read More