Main issue of House of Lords

"The remedy for admiring the home of Lords was to go and appearance at it"[1] recalled Walter Bagehot in 1867. The issues from the higher house have undergone three cycles of reform since that time, in regards to to both its power and its composition. The two are, of course, interconnected but composition is perhaps a lot more fundamental of the two, since the structure of the Lords, and for that reason its perceived degree of democratic legitimacy, basically determines the energy it will legitimately wield. One therefore needs to examine the problems created by the existing structure of the Lords, also to evaluate whether there exists a more preferable alternative to the position quo. Yet in order to do that, it's important to know what role the home of Lords should fulfil in the politics process.

The role of the second chamber in a bicameral legislature varies from country to country, but in the UK the home of Lords should seek to fulfil three separate constitutional functions. First of all, it should become a delaying device on federal government legislation. This isn't to say it should always seek to amend, or even reject, proposals that appear from the lower house, but instead it should simply offer a chance of your energy for the public to become aware of the proposals and their effects, as well as permitting various interest teams the time to reflect also to mobilise their lobbies in response to any objections they could seek to improve. Finally, as Archer argues succinctly, such a delaying work as fulfilled by the Lords "protects the law from an ephemeral dash to judgement in response to a particular dramatic event"[2].

The second role that the House of Lords should embark on is to scrutinise authorities legislative proposals in greater detail than happens to be achieved by the home of Commons or its position committees. Evidence shows that such position committees are sparsely attended and sometimes omit large sections of a given bill from detailed exam[3], and therefore the Lords fulfil a vital role in making certain the legislative program is extensively examined. As a result of the life span Peerages Work of 1957, it is currently not unreasonable to claim that the Lords is more abundantly outfitted with technical know-how than the lower chamber and, consequently, expenses may be improved by revision. That is particularly necessary where proposals have been subjected in the Commons to amendments drafted in haste by federal ministers, in response to criticisms and compromises from both MPs and exterior interest teams. This charge of rapidly imposing an ill-thought-out legislative plan is one which is frequently levelled at the New Labour federal government, whose ambitions have led to an unprecedented range of new bills having through Parliament across different parliamentary trainings.

Finally, top of the chamber must seek to protect those constitutional key points which are key to our democracy. The Parliament Action of 1911 removed the total veto over legislation that your Lords had recently enjoyed, completely deprived the Lords of its powers over any bill accredited by the Speaker as a money bill and introduced the thought of a suspensory veto whereby any laws transferred in three (later two post 1949) successive consultations would receive Royal Assent regardless of Lords' objections. Yet the Lords continue steadily to retain certain overall powers. Perhaps most of all, it remains in a position to reject any charges proposing to extend the life of Parliament beyond the statutory five years. In addition to this fundamental right, the House of Lords' consent is required by a government seeking the dismissal of a High Court judge, Charm Court judge or a judge of the new Supreme Court. Top of the chamber thus offers some protection against a federal government seeking to subvert either the electoral or the judicial process. This function of constitutional protection, although limited, is nevertheless of great importance, since Britain lacks a codified constitution guaranteeing regular elections and the self-reliance of the judiciary. Without the House of Lords therefore, there will be a dangerous gap in the political system; it's the only body which can prevent a transient majority inside your home of Commons from increasing its life or dismissing a judge whom the federal government discovers inconvenient.

In order to fulfil these functions effectively, Alexandra Kelso[4] argues that any top chamber in a liberal democracy must be considered legitimate. In order to be genuine, she argues that the chamber must have 'suggestions' legitimacy, and 'output' legitimacy. The previous stems from "the control exercised by the public in deciding [the chamber's] characteristics and composition", as the latter concerns the amount to which the "institution executes its particular functions within the broader politics system and fulfills the needs of the general public' (ie, those requirements complete in the three roles listed previously). Clearly, the home of Lords in its current state, having gone through the reforms of 1999, suffers from input illegitimacy. Despite the removal of almost all hereditary peers, that 92 still retain their seating in the upper chamber must affect any impartial observer as an anomaly; no modern day parliamentary system can claim democratic legitimacy at a time when customers of the legislature owe their positions to an accident of birth. You will find arguments suggested in their defence which demand that by virtue of their entrenched positions, they are simply less inclined to be affected by short-term political decisions and as such can propose alternatives which are of benefit to the united states in the long term. Yet such problems are already resolved by the Life Peerages Work of 1957, which allowed administration to nominate life peers who be as evenly unaffected by such short-term thinking. Hereditary peers were evidently alert to their limited legitimacy in objecting to legislation emanating from a democratically elected chamber, for the regularity of rebellion contrary to the commons prior to 1999 was relatively low. However, since their removal, the propensity of the top chamber to reject both bills and amendments has markedly increased, as the recently reformed house obviously now perceives itself as more democratically authentic. According to the Constitution Device at University School, London, the Lords rejected clauses submit by the commons a total greater than 350 times in between 1999 and 2007[5]. Furthermore, a vote to oppose federal government legislation cannot be transported by one get together alone anymore in the way that it could when the Conservatives savored many in the Lords; top of the house's verdicts nowadays, therefore, hold more weight. Around 40% of the defeats that the government has endured since 1999 have been accepted by the federal government[6].

Further suggestions illegitimacy may be argued to be visible in the right of Church of England officials to remain in the Lords. The objection is straightforward: why should the promise of the cathedral to representation be higher than that of another interest group? Within an increasingly secular years, it is persuasive to claim that no spiritual group should be entitled to such representation. On the other hand, were someone to reject such secular reasoning, then one must acknowledge that provision should also be made for the representation of other churches and religions.

How, then, to solve the problem of input illegitimacy? The Royal Payment on Reform for the House of Lords was required, by its terms of reference, to own regard 'to the necessity to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent chamber of Parliament'[7]. This essay wholeheartedly agrees with this principle, however in so doing looks for to argue that as the result of this term of reference point, the upper chamber cannot include any associates that are immediately elected. This will not necessarily bargain Kelso's suggestions legitimacy necessity however, providing that you were to simply accept that representatives remain democratically reputable even if not elected straight. If the higher house were to be 100% appointed by get together leaders and the crossbench peers by the Individual Appointments Fee, the make-up which is based on the hands of democratically elected leaders inside your home of Commons, then type legitimacy could be preserved. The process that no party should gain an overall majority also needs to be retained. Furthermore, peers which were appointed for the express purpose of fulfilling a authorities role, such as Lord Adonis or Lord Sugar, should relinquish their seating in top of the house when their services are no longer required in the role that these were appointed. Should they feel that they are able to offer further service to Parliament, they could ask their names be placed forward for a more everlasting position by the party leaders, if not desire to be nominated by the Appointments Commission. It is of course appealing to argue for an elected element to the upper chamber, but one quickly comes into the traps illustrated by Bogdanor[8]: briefly, a completely or majority elected chamber risks being more reliable than the home of Commons, both therefore of the electoral system used, the terms of representation and timing of an election; furthermore, such a chamber would also have problems with having less technical competence that so helps the current House of Lords contain the Commons and administration legislation to accounts; a minority elected chamber hazards subsiding into a two-tier chamber, whereby it could be noticed that democratically elected associates have an increased amount of legitimacy than their appointed counterparts. This essay retains therefore that the sole attractive option for House of Lords reform is to maintain a 100% appointed chamber, while eliminating any staying hereditary peers, as well as those representing the Church of England, from the chamber.

Having made a proposition regarding the most preferable composition of the Lords, and argued which it confers to Kelso's classification of suggestions legitimacy, one must proceed to output legitimacy, and take a look at the situation for reform with regard to the forces of the upper house. To be able to justify reform from the position quo, one must persuasively argue that an top chamber formed across the lines layed out above either wouldn't normally have sufficient capacity to fulfil the roles expected than it, or else very much power as to lead to a danger of the Lords becoming more powerful than the Commons. The reformed, more-legitimate Lords would be able to continue to wait legislation, though it is important that its capabilities remain limited to a suspensory veto. The straight elected house must never be perpetually constrained by the one that is in a roundabout way elected. Secondly, a residence which is 100% appointed, with a lot more cross-bench peers, would be able to fulfil the next function, scrutiny of authorities legislation, to a higher standard than before. Considering that the suspensory veto would be looked after, this too is a positive step which wouldn't normally give the Lords undue electricity. Finally, providing that the current absolute rights of the Lords are maintained, the upper chamber would be able to continue steadily to fulfil its final constitutional role. Result legitimacy is looked after.

The structure of top of the house will will have due to on the reliable use of its forces. The current House of Lords lacks insight legitimacy as a result of the continuing existence of both hereditary peers and staff of the Cathedral of England. Furthermore, the gift idea of a life peerage allows recipients to act essentially with impunity, as the House is also at risk of learning to be a graveyard of ex-government employees. The introduction of a term limit could solve the first problem, while forcing administration ministers in the Lords to stand down following completion of their role could solve the second. By only marginally amending the Lords' structure, then, you can confer type legitimacy House of Lords, which would subsequently make the use of the powers of the House, already sufficient for the completion of its constitutional obligations, both more effective and more reliable.

  1. Lords Save Us, The Economist, 2002
  2. P Archer, The House of Lords, Recent, Present & Future, Political Quarterly 1999
  3. P Dorey, 1949, 1969, 1999: The Labour Party and the House of Lords Reform, Parliamentary Affairs 2006
  4. A Kelso, Reforming the home of Lords, Parliamentary Affairs 2006
  5. House of Lords: post-reform, Constitution Device, University College or university London, 2007
  6. V Bogdanor, THE BRAND NEW British Constitution, 2009
  7. A House for future years: Survey from the Royal Fee on Reform of the home of Lords, HMSO, 2000
  8. V Bogdanor, Reform of the House of Lords: A Sceptical View, Political Quarterly 1999.

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)