User:LordsReform/New

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

For main article see: Lords Reform

Contents

[edit] Introduction

[edit] The Main Issues

There are three main issues which need to be resolved for a comprehensive reform:

  1. Should Parliament be bicameral or unicameral?
    Most Westminster type Parliaments are bicameral but not all. The Parliament of New Zealand for example has had only one House since the Legislative Council was abolished in 1951.
  1. If there is to be a second chamber what powers should it have?
    The Senates of Canada and Australia, like the pre-1911 House of Lords, have essentially equal legislative powers with the lower houses. More recent Commonwealth of Nations constitutions have given lesser powers to such bodies.
  2. If there is to be a second chamber what should its composition be and how should the members be chosen?
    There are many different possibilities. The original Greek Democracy had an upper chamber chosen by lot. The Senate of Canada is appointed. The Senate of Australia is elected by proportional representation within each State and Territory. The former Senate of Northern Ireland was indirectly elected by the members of the Northern Ireland House of Commons, with the Lord Mayor of Belfast and Mayor of Londonderry as ex-officio members. There are also new possibilities such as having a citizen's jury to appoint the members.

Most British politicians over the past century have valued the existence of a second chamber and have agreed that it should not be as powerful as the House of Commons. However, there has been little agreement about the precise powers and none about the issue of composition.

[edit] Roles & Relationship of Commons and Lords

In a bicameral parliamentary system, the Upper and Lower chamber need to work together to be effective. Reform of the House of Lords therefore raises questions about the respective roles of the House of Lords and House of Commons. As the UK does not have a written constitution the relationship has developed through a variety of means including legislation, information agreements and custom and practice.

[edit] Origin of the Relationship between Commons & Lords

Historically the purpose for a separate House of Lords was to represent a different constituency, namely the Lords & Bishops, whereas the Commons represented the commoners. Over time, social attitudes have changed and the idea of the Lords being there to represent this difference constituency no longer has widespread acceptance in the UK. But, the House of Lords are widely accepted as fulfilling a useful function, but as the reason for their original existence has become unsupportable, it leaves open the purpose that they should fulfil and their relationship with the Commons.

Constitutional experts say:

The United Kingdom is a Parliamentary democracy. Sovereignty rests with the Crown in Parliament. Law making rests with the tripartite sovereignty of Crown in both Houses of Parliament. [1]

However, in practice the history of this tripartite system of government has been one the gradual growth in the power of the Commons at the expense of the Crown & House of Lords; and by its domination of the Commons so the largest political party has come to dominate them all.

In former times Kings & Queens claimed an absolute right to rule called the divine authority of Kings (though no king or Queen ever truly ruled without council). Over the centuries this power of the Crown to act on its own has increasingly been reduced and the Crown's powers transferred to the Lords and the Commons.

Even in the 15th century the Commons was asserting the sole right to grant or withhold supply. The power of the Commons significantly increased from the 17th century onward following changes to public finance and the end of the practice of granting the yield of certain taxes for life. As government required more and more money to operate, this right was a strangle hold over finances which gave the Commons a formidable weapon by which it gained control over government.

Since 1678, when the Commons formally resolved that "all aids and supplies, and aids to His Majesty in Parliament, are the sole gift of the Commons", the Lords have rarely even attempted to challenge the effective supremacy of the commons. Today although all ministers, including the Prime Minister, are still nominally the Crown's employees and act for the crown, in practice they now owe their position and their allegiance solely to their party.

The basis on which the Commons asserted its right was always said to be its position as the representative body of the people, even when the people who elected it comprised a small minority of even the adult male population. Beginning with the 1832 Reform Act, the increasingly democratic elections increased the democratic legitimacy and authority of the Commons.

Since 1968, the Commons has been totally elected by universal franchise. In theory this gives the people of the UK a free choice of government; in practice however, that choice is restricted to a few main political parties and except in the unusual case of a hung parliament, the party with the largest majority will form the government.

Modern elections are therefore essentially a choice of the party to govern and the leader who is to be Prime Minster. One view of elections is that they are a choice of party manifesto and a way for the people to decide between the policy agendas in each manifesto. By choosing the party of government, the people mandate them to form a government and carry out their manifesto commitments. But, general Elections also return individual MPs who are expected to look to the interests of their constituents irrespective of Party affiliation.

The largest party or party able to obtain the majority of support in the Commons party forms a government. They appoint Ministers who are said to be continuously accountable to the House of Commons through debates and votes. In practice this accountability is limited because most governments have a majority in the Commons and so effective control over the Commons. The non-Government Parties form an Opposition, with the largest non-Government Party occupying the position of Official Opposition.

[edit] Powers

Originally the two Houses of Parliament had equal legislative powers. The agreement of both was necessary before a Bill could be submitted to the Monarch for royal assent, which if granted made the Bill an Act of Parliament. After the English Restoration a constitutional convention arose that the House of Lords would defer to the House of Commons on measures to raise and spend money.

The Parliament Act 1911 divided Bills into three classes.

  1. Money bills, to which if the Lords did not consent within one month, they could be given royal assent without their approval.
  2. Other bills where the House of Lords was given a suspensory veto.
  3. Bills extending the maximum term of the House of Commons beyond five years. Where the House of Lords retained equal legislative powers.

The Parliament Act 1949 reduced the suspensory veto to two sessions and one year. Legislation can now be passed by the Commons without ratification from the Lords provided: it starts in the Commons; is passed by them in two successive Sessions with Second Reading in the second Session at least 12 months after that in the first; and is sent to the Lords in each Session at least a month before the end of the session. Or in other words the House of Lords has the power to delay legislation but not to prevent it.

Scottish Legislation
Paradoxically, the Lords has no role in the oversight of Scottish legislation.[citation needed]
Secondary Legislation
As of 2001 the Lords had the powers to approve of reject secondary legislation called statutory instruments The royal commission proposed changing this power of outright rejection to one of allowing the Lords to delay a statutory instrument by 3 months allowing the Government and Commons time to reconsider the issue.

[edit] Roles - Recommendation of the Royal Commission

The Royal Commission recommended that:

The role, function and powers of the House of Lords should remain largely unchanged. The House of Commons should remain pre-eminent, but the House of Lords should have the power to criticise, question and delay but not to veto Government legislation approved by the House of Commons. The House of Lords should continue to be a forum for national debate, informed by but not dominated by party loyalties, able to command a body of independent and expert opinion not directly available to the House of Commons. It should be able to make a distinctive contribution to the consideration of legislation and to debate on the issues of the day; (House of Lords completing the reform Nov 2001)

[edit] Roles The Government's View

In the White paper the government set out its view that: "the pre-eminence of the House of Commons, has provided Britain with effective democratic Government and accountability for more than a century" they agreed with the Royal Commission that "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" (paragraph 4.7) and stated their views that the reforms should not upset this balance but instead strengthen the capacity of Parliament to legislate, deliberate and hold the Government to account.

it must not alter the respective roles and authority of the two chambers and their members in a way that would obscure the line of authority and accountability that flows between the people and those they elect directly to form the Government and act as their individual representatives. Decisions on functions, on authority, and membership of the House of Lords need to be consistent with these settled principles of our democracy.[1]

In the White paper the government saw the specific roles of the House of Lords & commons as:

House of Lords
  • One of the checks and balances of the UK constitution.
  • A body with the power to press Government to justify its actions, but except for highly exceptional circumstance not in the end to frustrate the will of the Commons.
  • An important & distinctive role as a revising & scrutinising chamber for legislation obliging the government to justify further its legislation in a less partisan spirit than the Commons.
  • A body with a different perspective & expertise that complements that of the Commons and "reform should be geared to strengthen its role in scrutiny".
  • As many Ministers are members of the Lords the chamber should continue with the important role holding these ministers to account.
  • A place to debate public issues.
  • Although its role of reviewing the impact of constitutional reform was seen as important, the government felt that "this is something that should develop within the existing constitutional framework"
Commons
  • The primary authority for the approval of legislation
  • The place where the government (not individual ministers) is held to account.

[edit] Roles - View of Consultees

Its distinctive role should derive from the range of experience and insights of its members and their representativeness of the national community (Peter Bradley MP)

Pre-eminence of Commons

Although it is commonly said that the House of Commons has pre-eminence in the British constitution[1], there were however aternatives views expressed in the consultation:

  • That if we live in a democracy the people should are supreme[citation needed] .
  • That in practice, the Commons is not the supreme body as it is effectively under the control of the Party HQ of the ruling party and therefore the party rather than the Commons is in practice the supreme in the UK constitution[citation needed] .

if the members of the second Chamber were to serve longer terms of office than those is the House of Commons they could claim a greater legitimacy.... with the House of Commons retaining its primacy. It is possible for it to do so, if the powers and functions of each chamber are properly defined. [2])

the Commons should retain its primacy[3]

The second chamber's powers must be subsidiary to those of the Commons and limited to the delay but not the rejection of legislation. [4]

House of Experts

Many saw the House of Lords as being a means to bring into government expertise that would not otherwise be available either because the experts would not wish to stand in an election. For example, many notable politicians when they are no longer prepared for the more active politics in the commons, continue to serve the public in the House of Lords. In particular experts are needed who can

"scrutinize the details of bills... so that organizations like the universities, scientific institutions and the NSPCC could be represented" (Charlotte Atkins MP)

Scrutiny

I believe that the correct role of the House of Lords to take is as a body of scrutiny on legislative business with the perspective that appointed or chosen experts can offer acting as a second chamber to the House of Commons [5]

A second chamber has a role of scrutiny and revision [6]

Different Constituencies

A number of the new proposals aimed to reform the House of Lords so that it did serve a different constituency from the Commons. Some saw the reform as an opportunity to allow the increased representation of various groups that are otherwise under-represented in the Commons. Typical aims were to:

  • Increase the proportion of Ethnic Minority candidates
  • Allow more of a voice for the regions
  • Allow representation from smaller parties like the Greens
  • Include more apolitical candidates (less than 2% of the UK belong to a political party)
  • To retain some form of moral or religious representation in the upper house.
Watchdog/The Engine & Breaks
The UK parliament is like an old Banger

A number of consultees saw the House of Lords as a kind of watchdog or break on the commons.

(to) have a reviewing body, placing checks and balances on the first chamber [2]

The general principle is that the commons is the main body for passing legislation. As such it should be allowed to pass legislation. But those holding this view want the Upper house to be in a position to stop the commons "going off the road". A good description of this view is contained in the analogy of an engine and breaks.

The Commons - The Engine
In a general election the public hold a debate on the manifestos presented by the political parties and by selecting one or other manifesto they provide a mandate to the government providing an indication of the future direction the voters wish the government to take them.
The Upper House- The Brakes/watchdog 
The House of Lords, like the breaks on a car, or a watchdog, has a more passive role; it is not the prime creator of legislation but a check on the commons if it goes out of control

[edit] Rationale - Aims of Reform

Prior to 1997 the House of Lords had a massive inbuilt conservative majority. During the 1975-76 session of the previous labour government the Lords had inflicted 126 defeats, the greatest on any administration. In its 1997 election manifesto the labour party promised that:

"The House of Lords must be reformed - the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute .

[edit] Democratic Legitimacy

When the Labour Party came to power 1997, it had in its manifesto the promise to reform the House of Lords:

We are committed to completing House of Lords reform, including removal of the remaining hereditary peers, to make it more representative and democratic.[7]

The Royal Commission's key recommendations expressed the need for a more democratic chamber as:

...It should be broadly representative of society in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the 21st century. ... It should give the United Kingdom's constituent nations and regions, for the first time, a formally constituted voice in the Westminster Parliament." (Recommendation 1)

A significant divide between proposals stemmed from their different interpretations of the meaning of democracy. Democracy as a term has been applied to many different, even contradictory forms of government since it was first coined sometime in the 5th century BC. This gave rise very different views on the meaining of a "democratic" House:

I find the White Paper proposals on House of Lords reform thoroughly inadequate and anti-democratic (i.e. not of the people). If they were enacted as they stand we would have in the second chamber a majority of people who were unaccountable, unelected and unrepresentative of the people on whose behalf they claim to act. The White paper Proposals amount to very little, if any, real change to the social, economic and political interests that currently exist in the House of Lords and would in reality lead to a continuity in the exercise of power by the established interests.

[citation needed]

The second chamber must derive its democratic legitimacy from the electoral accountability of the majority of members. [8]

Athenian based quote.[9]

[edit] Greek Democracy

One group of proposals draw their inspiration from the original Athenian model for democracy. One of the earliest writers to describe this model was Herodotus and he sets three tests for the system of government that he also called both isonomia (equality of political rights):

The rule of the people has the fairest name of all, equality, and does none of the things that a monarch does. The lot determines offices, power is held accountable, and deliberation is conducted in public. (Herodotus quoting Otanes c492BC)

We can see from this quote three tests for democracy:

  1. A democracy requires that offices be selected by allotmentt or ballot (now used mainly for selection of Juries in the Anglo-Saxon legal systems).
  2. At the end of their allotment Athenian officials were required to account for their actions in office before the people.
  3. Ordinary citizens conducted Discussion about government in public.

Greeks writers commentating on Greek Democracy never use democracy to mean an elected system of government:

Democracy is a form of government in which the offices are distributed by the people among themselves by lot; (Aristotle, Rhetoric)

it is thought to be democratic for the offices to be assigned by lot (Aristotle, Politics 4.1294b)

Solon, ... liberated the people from slavery and restored the ancestral democracy with a skilful blending of the constitution: the Council on the Areopagos being an oligarchic element, the elective magistracies aristocratic and the law-courts democratic. (Aristotle, Politics 2.1273b)

And a democracy, I suppose, comes into being when the poor, winning the victory, put to death some of the other party, drive out others, and grant the rest of the citizens an equal share in both citizenship and offices--and for the most part these offices are assigned by lot. (Plato, Republic 8.557)

by making the law-court, which was elected by lot, all-powerful … as the law-court grew strong, men courted favour with the people as with a tyrant, and so brought the constitution to the present democracy. (Aristotle, Politics 2.1274a, c350BC)

And it is interesting to note that according to figures from Mogens Herman Hansen, at the time of Demosthenes approximately 90% of all magistrates were allotted. The notable exception being the strategoi (generals) who were elected.

[edit] Modern Democracy

However, although democracy started as a system in Athens, most proposals were based on a more modern interpretation of the meaning of democracy: an evolution of the Greek concept.

Democracy as a concept first entered the English language in the 16th century when political writers started using it to describe the Greek style of government:

An other publique weale was amonge the Atheniensis, where equalitie was of astate amonge the people...This maner of gouernaunce was called in greke Democratia, in latine, Popularis potentia, in englisshe the rule of the comminaltie.

(Elyot Gov. 1531)

Although the American and French revolutions are often described by modern writers as democratic, at the time their founders called them republics as they were based on the Roman republican form of government with elected assemblies and not on the Greek democratic system. Almost all of the US founding fathers who mention democracy use it in a derogatory sense for a type of "popular" government:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!

(Benjamin Franklin)

In the first dictionary definition of 1828, although democracy was not seen as a form of allotment it was still inextricably seen as the form of Government in Ancient Athens:

Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the power of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.

(Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

It was not until the working class movements of the late 18th and 19th century that we find the beginning of a mass pro-democracy movement with many organisations including the American democratic party incorporating the term in their names. One of the main demands of these movements was for fairer more democratic elections through universal franchise. It was not until the 1930s that people like Woodrow Wilson began to use "democracy" as a generic term for countries with Universal franchise.

Everything for which America fought has been accomplished. It will now be our fortunate duty to assist by example, by sober friendly counsel, and by material aid, in the establishment of just democracy throughout the world.

With the advent of the cold war, democracy became a disputed term between the communists East which understood it as a term for equality of class and the capitalist West where "free" elections were characteristic of their governments.

Most consultation responses were based on this more modern popular view of democracy.

[edit] Views on Democracy Expressed During Consultation

[edit] The Meaning of Democracy for an Upper Chamber

Unlike the primary chamber, an upper chamber (with a revising role) has no need for an electoral mandate, indeed a mandate can be seen as positively harmful as it would be in conflict the primary chamber.

The usual definition of democracy is normally applied to "democratic government", as the upper chamber is not a government there is therefore some debate how it should be applied and a large range of views were expressed on this issue in the House of Lords consultation. The following is a summary of some of these views:

[edit] Makeup

Democratic may mean a body whose members match the statistical profile of the general population of voters, in terms of age, sex, and political persuasion. If taken literally however, it would suggest that as less than 2% of the UK have any membership of a political party then an upper chamber ought to aim to have a similar percentage.

For those wishing some form of meritocracy which selects better candidates, there is also an obvious conflict because those selection will clearly be better than average.

[edit] Freely Chosen by the People

It is a compelling argument to say that democratic means "freely chosen by the people".

Unfortunately this only raises another question of how what we mean by "free choice". A slave free to choose between two masters could in some sense be said to have a free choice, but most people would not consider them free. When elections are very heavily dependant on the support of a party election machines, many maintain that it is impossible for someone outside a political party to get elected. Therefore they say that party political electorate really don't give the voters a free choice as only candidates backed by a party have a real chance of success.

[edit] Answerable to the People

Another suggested meaning of democratic takes the form of a form of selection in which the person chosen is answerable to the public in some way. In the original democracies this was achieved by an examination of each person at the end of their term of allotment. The UK doesn't have any concept of examining politicians at the end of their term. The nearest we have is the idea that politicians will be answerable when (or if) they stand for re-election.

Of course, parties as long-term political institutions are always answerable to the public at the next election.

[edit] Appointed cannot be democratic

A large number of consultees were of the opinion that any form of appointed chamber would be undemocratic:

"In a democracy, I find it offensive that we can have a chamber of the Parliament substantially nominated or appointed. Powers of patronage are an affront to democracy and I have little confidence in an independent panel given our experience of the so-called "people's peers" who are indistinguishable form those appointed through political patronage. Accountability is an essential element of a democratic society and the ability of the ruled to remove their rulers [10]

[edit] More accessible, Less elitist

It should be driven by the aim to be more accessible and less elitist. It should encourage greater participation in democracy, rather than undermine it. (Harold Best MP)

[edit] Religious

There is no justification for the establishment of one particular religion or denomination. I consider the disestablishment of the Church a fundamental part of this reform process (Harold Best MP)

[edit] Political Neutrality

I find the idea of political neutrality interesting, in practice I find that the term says more about the neutering of political activity than a neutral position and that again is relevant to the exercise of power.(Harold Best MP)

[edit] Political Parties

But, an upper revising house, is not a government. The very party system that gives the public a democratic choice in the main chamber, is counterproductive in the upper house. Parties fight and win on their manifestos or their leadership, a manifesto is a commitment to move in a particular direction, a leader is someone who takes us their. If both the upper and lower houses are given mandates through an election, they have conflicting instructions.

There may be no better way for the public to choose the direction of its government than for several parties to present to them their manifestos for government. By voting for the party, the public mandate the party to form a government. This process is a democratic way for the public to select their government.

[edit] Miscellaneous Issues

Appointment of Ministers

Government Ministers (from the House of Lords) should be appointed only from those elected members of the second chamber(Peter Bradley)

Deadlock

I do not think a largely elected House of Lords would be wise because the potential for deadlock on legislative proposals arises. (Nigel Beard MP)

Modernisation

Labour supports modernisation of the House of Lords' procedures to improve its effectiveness. [11]

Scottish Parliament
At present the Scottish Parliament has devolved powers over areas like Health and Education. The Scottish Parliament does not have an upper Chamber but instead MSPs scrutinise legislation in a committee system. This means that e.g. Legislation on English Health and Education is subject to the House of Lords, whilst Scottish legislation is not.
Feeder Body
There are some concerns that the Lords may be "a feeder body into the House of Commons" (Charlotte Atkins MP) and others are concerned that the Upper House may be filled by MPs that loose their seats. Various proposals have been put forward to prevent this happening.
Judicial Role
The House of Lords has a judicial function and this is clearly affected by the reform process.
Names
  • Second chamber [2]
  • "Senate", in January 2002 the Conservatives unveiled plans for a 300 member 'Senate' [12]

[edit] Consultation

In November 2001 the government launched a white paper & consultation stating:

A credible and effective second chamber is vital to the health of Britain's democracy ... The Government is determined to proceed with this wider reform of the House of Lords. The Royal Commission offered an excellent way forward and the Government has a clear electoral mandate to undertake it. Our mission is to equip the British people with a Parliament and a constitution fit for the 21st century. A reformed second chamber has an indispensable role to play, and this White Paper prepares the way for its introduction. [1]

In November 2001, the government initiated a public consultation with the words:

Within the boundaries of its electoral mandate, the Government is keen to seek consensus. Accordingly, it welcomes views on what is proposed. In some important areas, including the length of term for elected members in the reformed Lords, it has not put forward a single proposal, but set out options for consultation.[1]

In the white paper although the government said it "strongly endorsed" the Royal Commission's views, it also listed its own proposals:[1]:

  • The House of Lords should remain subject to the pre-eminence of the House of Commons in discharging its functions;
  • No group in society should in future have privileged hereditary access to the House;
  • Its principal function should continue to be to consider and revise legislation; to scrutinise the executive; and to debate and report on public issues;
  • Membership should be separated from the peerage, which would continue as an honour;
  • Its political membership should be broadly representative of the main parties' relative voting strengths as reflected in the previous General Election;
  • It should be largely nominated including a significant minority of independent members as well as members elected to represent the nations and regions within the UK;
  • There should be increased representation of women and those from ethnic minority backgrounds;
  • There should be a statutory Appointments Commission to manage the balance and size of the House, to appoint the independent members, and to assure the integrity of those nominated by political parties.

The white paper invited comments from interested parties stating the government intending to introduce legislation "incorporating decisions on the issues raised in the consultation"[1] and listed the following as the main points of consultation:

  • The overall balance between, elected, nominated and ex officio members, and the balance between political and independent members;
  • Whether elections to the Lords should be linked to General Elections, those for the European Parliament, or over time linked to those from devolved and regional bodies within the UK;
  • The length of term for elected members;
  • The term of appointment;
  • What grounds should lead to statutory expulsion from the House;
  • Should there be a change from an expenses-based system of remuneration.

The result was that an unprecedented[citation needed] 1101 submissions were made to the consultation. In May 2002 the government published a statistical analysis.

[edit] Summary of Issues in First Consultation

The Government said it was particularly interested in views on the following questions:

  • The overall balance between elected, nominated and ex officio (Law Lords and Bishops), and the balance between political and independent members.
  • Whether elections for regional members should be linked to elections to the European Parliament, or should they be held at the same time as elections to the House of Commons.
  • The length of time (5, 10 or 15 years) that regional members are elected.
  • The length of service of appointed members (again 5, 10 or 15 years)
  • Rules for disqualifying members, whether temporarily unfit for membership, by e.g. Mental Health or by bring the House into disrepute.
  • Remuneration of members and whether the rules for elected and nominated members needed to be the same.

[edit] Proposal of Royal Commission

In 1999 a Royal Commission was appointed, under Baron Wakeham, to examine proposals for Lords Reform and make recommendations. It published its report[13] (See Wakeham Report) in 2000 with 132 recommendations of which the main were:

  • The new second chamber should have the capacity to offer counsel from a range of sources. It should be broadly representative of society in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the 21st century. It should work with the House of Commons to provide an effective check upon the Government. It should give the United Kingdom’s constituent nations and regions, for the first time, a formally constituted voice in the Westminster Parliament.1
  • The House of Commons, as the principal political forum, should have the final say in respect of all major public policy issues, including those expressed in the form of proposed legislation. Equally, the second chamber should have sufficient power, and the associated authority, to require the Government and the House of Commons to reconsider proposed legislation and take account of any cogent objections to it.2
  • The upper House should ensure changes to constitution are not made without full and open debate15 and that there is increased scrutiny of secondary legislation35
  • There is no reason why the second chamber should not continue to exercise the judicial functions of the present House of Lords.para 9.5
  • The House should be authoritative without challenging the democratic authority of the Commons60, should be broadly representative of British society62, contain a substantial proportion of people who are not professional politicians, who have continuing experience in a range of different walks of life and who can bring a broad range of expertise to bear on issues of public concern.63
  • Representation should reflect the political balance of the reformed second chamber should match that of the country as expressed in votes cast at the most recent general election69 but it should not be capable of being dominated by any one political party67 and continue to include people who can help it to maintain a philosophical, moral or spiritual perspective on public policy issues65.
  • Although possession of a peerage should no longer be a necessary qualification for membership127, the House should contain people of considerable personal distinction and established reputations66
  • The question of the name of the second chamber and the titles of its members should be left to evolve 128
  • Provisions should be in place to permit ministers to be drawn from the Upper House44)
  • There should be an independent Appointments Commission69

But the commission could not recommendPara 11.36:

  • a wholly or largely directly elected second chamber;
  • indirect election from the devolved institutions (or local government electoral colleges) or from among British MEPs;
  • random selection; or
  • co-option.

(Unless otherwise shown, Numbers represent conclusions in Commission report[13]

[edit] The Main Government White Paper Proposals (2001)

The Government is pledged in its Manifesto to complete reform of the Lords to remove the hereditary element entirely and to reconstitute the House on a modern representative basis.[1]

The Governments Principles for Reform (White Paper)

The House of Lords should be[1]:

  • A revising and deliberative assembly complementing the work of the Commons - not seeking to usurp the role of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent chamber;
  • Composed of a membership distinctive from that of the Commons appropriate to its revising and deliberative functions, and not duplicate or clone the Commons; They should have experience and expertise to contribute and be attractive to those who are not full time politicians.
  • Although political in approach, there should be an independent element and should not dominated by any one political party.
  • More representative than the current Chamber of the nation as a whole, though not
  • Representative of independent expertise and of the broader community in the UK - but not so as to disrupt the relationship between elected members of the Commons and their constituents.

    In the white paper the most important changes proposed were:[1]:

    • The hereditary peers will finally cease to have any privileged rights of membership;
    • A majority of the members of the new House will be nominated by the political parties, in proportions intended to reflect the shares of the national vote in the previous General Election. There will also be about 120 appointed members with no political affiliation, 120 directly elected members to represent the nations and regions, and a continuing role for Law Lords and Bishops of the Church of England;
    • An independent statutory Appointments Commission will have substantial powers. It will appoint the independent members and decide - within certain bounds - how many seats each major political party is entitled to, thereby substantially reducing Government patronage;
    • The size of the House will be capped at 600 in statute, with an interim House as close as may be to 750 members to accommodate existing life peers;
    • There will be formal commitments to achieving balance and representativeness in the House;
    • The link with the peerage will be dissolved.
      Nominated members
      Best suited to securing a properly representative membership able to fulfil the functions of the second chamber, whilst complementing and not usurping the Commons.
      The government rejected the idea that only direct elections can provide legitimacy for the second chamber. Only a minority of democratic governments have an elected second chamber.
      The limited, subordinate powers of the second Chamber do not require it to be elected and if selected on the same basis as the first chamber it would inevitably challenge the primacy of the Commons. "We would be strongly opposed to a situation in which the two House of Parliament had equivalent electoral legitimacy.
      A fully elected chamber would mean the independent members would virtually disappear.
      Elected politics is increasingly a full time occupation. Such a commitment would risk loosing the expertise and experience of those members "who are leaders in a wide range of national endeavours".
      The larger the elected element, the greater the number from each geographical area, and inevitably they will be in competition with MPs and undermine their representative role.
      One alternative suggestion is to adopt a form of indirect election under which elected sub-national government would appoint members.
      Regional Representation
      The Government accepted the Royal Commission's recommendation that there should be a minority elected element of regional members representing the nations and regions of the UK. Of the three options given (65, 87 & 195 members) the government favoured 120 members chosen from the regions in a slightly larger House than envisaged by the Commission.
      Government proposed regional members should be selected by the same form of regional list in the same multi-member constituencies, at the same time as the European Parliament. However it did not discount electing regional members at the time as the general election or local councils.
      Term of membership
      Although stating its preference for a "the shorter option in each case", the government sought views on the length of appointment or election which had been suggested by the commission at 5,10 or 15 years whilst appointment for life with a fixed retirement age was also mentioned.
      The government were aware of the argument for a longer term for those appointed
      Other issues
      The commission proposed that there should be no provision for re-election because the need to regularly seek a party mandate might undermine the independence of members. The government did not propose to bar re-election, and wished to allow re-appointment of members.
      Vacancies should be filled by next person on the list.
      Independent members
      Fully endorsed Royal Commission's belief in the value of non-political members, due to their "different perspective and expertise ... particularly valuable to a second chamber with the revising, scrutinising and deliberative role of the Lords". It endorsed the Commission's suggestion of a reduction of some 24-30 members to around 120 independent members in a 600 member Chamber. These 20% were to be appointed by the Appointments Commission.
      Summary of Numbers
      120 non-party political, 120 directly elected, 16 Bishops, at least 12 law Lords and a balance of 332 nominated party political members where the number for each main party was determined by the Appointments Commission.
      Appointments Commission
      It will determine the size and political balance of the House.
      It would carry out proprietary checks & if necessary a veto on those appointed by political parties . The minimum threshold for a party to have a right to representation was intended to be a vote of 5% of the electorate
      Using an "open and transparent procedure" it would appoint some of the 120 independent members thus "removing a further source of Government patronage". However the government intended to retain the right of the Prime Minister to appoint some 4 or 5 members each parliament.
      Conditions of membership
      Membership to cease to be connected with the awarding of honours. In future the government proposed that members would not become Peers.
      Judicial Members
      As of 2001 the House of Lords had 28 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary colloquially known as Law Lords and this position continued for life after a person ceased to carry out a formal judicial function. The Government proposed having a maximum age of 75.
      Religious representation
      Recognising that "religious representation helps in the recognition of the part that moral, philosophical and theological considerations have to play in debating political and social issues", the government agreed with the Commission that the Church of England should continue to be represented in the House. For practical reasons, it did not support formal representation of other faiths as proposed by the Commission, but believed that the Appointments Commission should appoint leaders of other denominations and faiths.
      Payment
      As of 2001 Lords were entitled to a daily subsistence expenses of £60; travel costs; a £51 secretarial allowance per day of attendance and accommodation for non-London based peers. The government did not itself favour a move to a formal payment of salaries, but recognised this could cause problems so was "open to views".
      Size of House
      In 2001 the size of the House was around 700. The Commission proposed a target of 550, the government favoured 600.

      [edit] Other Proposals (Alphabetical)

      [edit] Allotted Houses

      Under this heading are proposals to Reform the House of Lords by selecting the members of the upper house using allotment also known as sortition(random selection by open ballot)

      Bodies, Roles, Membership & Selection
      Commons: There will be no change to the main function or selection of the House of Commons. However, the committees in the Commons would be required to act as a quality control check on legislation as the Upper House would no longer carry out this function.
      House of Lords: The present members of the House of Lords would be removed from office and replaced with a fixed number of perhaps 100 who are allotted.

      The Upper House would no longer act as a revising chamber leaving this role to the committee system in the commons. Instead its prime role would be to ensure that the government carry out its manifesto promises and does not exceed its constitutional authority.

      Procedures/Elections

      The new members of the upper house would be chosen by allotment (open and random ballot) from all those eligible to vote in UK elections and hold office for a fixed term. To ensure jurors do not try and avoid their service, they would receive very significant recompense so that there was no personal loss to most jurors. Juror's employment rights would be secured by statute, and provisions made to assist employers through agency staff and/or compensation.

      The proceedings will be open to the public and televised.

      Variants
      1. To keep a much smaller Second chamber with a role limited to revision and quality control of legislation without any powers to hold back legislation.
      Advantages

      Proponents of this range of proposals base their concept of democracy on Athenian democracy which was mainly allotted. Herodotus states the main advantage of allotment as isonomia (equality of political rights). In a modern context this is often used to infer a more demographically representative upper chamber, which is statistically similar to the UK voting population.

      Disadvantages

      The present House of Lords has a large range of skills and draws on a lifetimes experience from ex politicians, civil servants who are mostly highly dedicated despite the low wages.

      The role of this new body is ambiguous. E.g. would it or the commons have supremacy? These questions may result in conflict between the commons and this assembly.

      See also
      External links

      [edit] Appointed Houses

      Put flowchart here!

      Many of the existing members of the House of Lords and many MPs favour the retention of the House of Lords as a fully appointed body.

      Bodies, Roles, Membership & Selection
      Commons: Most proposals do not suggest a change to the main function or selection of the House of Commons.
      House of Lords: Most proposals retain the present members of the House of Lords.
      Procedures/Elections

      The Prime Minister and the independent Appointments panel would appoint members.

      Variants
      1. That the 92 Hereditary Peers are removed.
      Appointments Commission

      The Appointments Commission should itself broadly reflect the cross section of the community and should seek and receive nominations to a national panel from which it can propose appointments to the second chamber subject to the ratification of its elected members[8]

      Advantages

      The Upper House would retain its skills experience and longer term perspective. The Commons clearly retains its supremacy over the Upper house.

      Disadvantages

      It is not democratic.

      See also
      External links

      [edit] Combination Election & Appointed

      Put flowchart here!

      Proposals falling under this category combine elements from a fully elected and a Wholly appointed House and encompass the whole range of proposals under those categories. The main issue for a part elected, part appointed House is the percentage of Lords, which are elected, and those appointed.

      According to Graham Allan MP at the time of the Consultation on reform of the House of Lords "an informal survey of Parliamentary Labour Party backbench opinion arrived at the figure of 58% elected, the conservative Party position is for 80%" and the following table shows the range of views in the PLL on this issue:

      Preferred % of the elected element
      Region Replies Average
      London South 18 51%
      London North 17 66%
      Scotland 35 48%
      Eastern 10 70%
      North West (A) 13 68%
      North West (T) 19 55%
      South West 10 68%
      Wales 21 66%
      Northern 18 50%
      West Midlands 29 51%
      Yorkshire 22 55%
      South East 10 64%
      East Midlands 17 65%
      Total 239 58%
      Reasons for Combination

      A minority of members ... should be appointed in order to ensure that the second chamber is not dominated by one party, is representative of the national community and can bring to bear experience and insights broadly complementary to the Commons (Peter Bradley MP)

      Bodies, roles, membership and selection
      Commons: There will be no change to the House of Commons.
      House of Lords: The powers of the House of Lords will remain as at present. The size of the chamber would be similar.

      Because a part-part option has a reduction in the number of Lords rather than keeping them or removing them all, it raises the question of how to select the smaller number of appointed members in the initial house. Various options were suggested:

      Procedures/Elections

      For procedures to appoint the Lords first see elected or appointed.

      Variants
      • The main issue is the exact proportion of elected and appointed.
      • The Conservatives unveiled plans in January 2002 for a 300 member "Senate", with 240 members elected by FPP for 15 years [12]
      • The Liberal Democrats unveiled plans in January 2002 for a 300 member assembly, with a minimum of 80% of members elected by [[Proportional Representation][14]
      • The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee published a report on House of Lords Reform[15] (14 February 2002), recommending that 60% of the members should be elected, that the remainder should be appointed by the Appointments Commission so that 20% of the Chamber would be nominated by the political parties and 20% would be independent.
      Advantages

      By introducing an elected element the House will be more democratic. By retaining some appointed Lords the House will retain some of the skills, experience and longer-term perspective of the current Lords.

      Disadvantages
      • One of the main advantages of the present Lords is the range of characters present. By severely restricting the numbers only the most high profile candidates will obtain a place and many of the less obvious candidates that give the Upper house its breath of knowledge will inevitably go.
      • "As politicians we have enough difficulty encouraging people to come out and vote for 100% of the House of Commons" (Charlotte Atkins MP) By electing only a proportion of the House the voter interest will be much lessened and there is a serious risk that turn out for the Lords will be so low as to undermine its credibility.
      • The two different classes of peers will inevitably conflict at times and will undermine each other's legitimacy.
      See also
      External links

      [edit] Democratically Appointed Lords

      Flow chart for a democratically appointed House of Lords using a Citizens Jury

      Most information on this proposal comes from an organisation called Allot. It only appears in the second consultation where around 10% of respondents supported it. The proposal was to use a democratic citizen's jury as the appointments panel to replace the Lords appointments panel which was the government's intended body to appoint the new Lords.

      Bodies, roles, membership and selection
      Commons: There will be no change to the House of Commons.
      House of Lords: The present members of the House of Lords remain in position, though the remaining 92 Hereditary Lords could be removed. The powers of the House of Lords remain as at present. The number of Lords would be similar, but set by statute and each jury would be able to appoint up to this limit.
      Lords Appointments Jury: The jury would act as an interview panel for prospective Lords. Like a normal jury professional advocates and a chair would support it in this role. The exact number of jurors is not critical to this proposal but might be 12 jurors with 3 reserves.
      The Lords appointments Jury would be chosen by allotment (open and random ballot) from all those eligible to vote in UK elections. The jurors would take office for one year. To ensure jurors do not try and avoid their service, they would receive very significant recompense so that there was no personal loss to most jurors and indeed by being paid the equivalent of an MPs salary on top of their normal income, there would be a positive gain. Juror's employment rights would be secured by statute, and provisions made to assist employers through agency staff and/or compensation.

      Procedures/Elections Each year a new jury would be chosen with a number of reserves in case of illness or death.

      Applications along with named proposers and seconders would be requested. Anyone would be able to apply and applications would be judged on an equal footing. However, given the nature of the work, one would expect each party leader to put forward their own candidates. Working with a permanent staff, the jury would sift the applications and invite candidates and their supporters to an interview. The candidate, proposer and seconder would be asked set questions by the professional staff, following which the jurors would be able to ask questions either directly or through the chair.

      If a majority of the jury vote to accept the candidate, they would then become a new member of the Lords.

      The proceedings will be open to the public and televised.

      Variants
      • Instead of one jury, each region in the UK has its own jury with a set number of seats in the House. The advantage is that jurors could sit closer to home and that there would be better regional representation. The disadvantages are that many prospective Lords may not have a regional affiliation and the cost of running the juries are likely to increase.
      Advantages

      This proposal keeps the skills, experience and longer-term perspective of the current House of Lords and makes the process of selection more democratic. By appointing the members using a jury which the supporters claim is democratic as juries were the predominant feature of Greek democracy, it is said to create a democratically legitimate revising chamber whilst avoiding the likely conflict when there are two house that are each democratically elected.

      The cost is also low. It involves ordinary people in government in a way that should reconnect the politicians and ordinary people.

      Disadvantages
      See also
      External links

      [edit] Elections to House of Lords

      Put flowchart here!

      Proposals under this section cover those who wish to elect all members of the Lords and the elected element of a part-part house.

      Bodies, roles, membership and selection
      Commons: There will be no change to the House of Commons.
      House of Lords: Powers of the House of Lords will remain as at present.
      Size of the chamber would be similar.
      • Harold Best MP suggested "at most half of the number of seats in the House of Commons."
      • Peter Bradley MP suggested "considerably less than 600".

      Participation of members Peter Bradley MP suggested "members should be required to participate fully in it activities and functions" & "Those who fail to participate in at least 40% of divisions in the lifetime of a Parliament should be debarred from seeking re-election or reappointment.

      Variants
      • First Past the Post, representing countywide constituency (seats based on number of voters) (Harold Best)
      • Proportional Representation

      Timing of elections

      • At a different time from elections to Commons (Harold Best MP)
      • Peter Bradley MP suggested that elections to the Lords should be "dependant on and secondary to general election of MPs" (presumably meaning elect lords at general election?)

      Term 5, 10 or 15 years were proposed by the white paper[citation needed] .

      • Four-year term

      Firstly, I believe that those in the second Chamber should be fully accountable to the people and as such the renewal of their mandate every four years would be better for democracy. Secondly, if the members of the second Chamber were to serve longer terms of office than those is the House of Commons they could claim a greater legitimacy. (Harold Best MP)

      Advantages

      By electing the House it will be more democratic.

      Disadvantages
      • The skills, experience, longer-term perspective and diversity of the present lords would be missed.
      • There would be two conflicting mandates potentially causing conflict between the commons and Lords
      • Voters already fail to turn out at elections. More elections may simply cheapen the idea of elections and result in even lower turnouts particularly for a body, which can't have its own agenda for change.
      See also
      External links

      [edit] Hereditary House

      Put flowchart here!

      The House of Lords recently moved away from hereditary membership. Some [citation needed] support the continuation of this principle either in full [citation needed] or part of other proposals.

      Bodies, roles, membership and selection
      Commons:
      House of Lords:

      Procedures/Elections

      Variants
      Advantages

      There are advantages of a hereditary House of Lords just as there is to a Hereditary Leader like a king or queen.

      Disadvantages

      Any continuation of the hereditary principle as the basis for constituting one chamber of Parliament is an affront to modern representative Government[16]

      See also
      External links

      [edit] Indirect Appointments

      A range of proposals favoured some kind of indirect appointment, many basing their proposals on the current method of appointment bishops of the Church of England.

      I believe that the second chamber should be wholly appointed from the various bodies and organisations from across the country, which already represent society as a whole. These would include the various professional organisations, the charity and voluntary sector, business groups, the unions, the various churches, the public sector, local government, the unemployed, students etc. These organisations would elect their own representatives to this second chamber" [17]

      Some like Harold Best MP wanted mainly appointments with "the remaining seats made up be representatives from the other aspects of democratically elected government, such as representatives from regional government, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and so on."

      Bodies, roles, membership and selection
      Commons: Unchanged
      House of Lords: Unchanged
      Procedures/Elections
      Variants
      This section is a stub. You can help by expanding it.
      Advantages
      Disadvantages
      See also
      External links

      [edit] No Upper House

      Put flowchart here!

      This is a proposal by organisations such as ... to select the House of Lords using....

      Bodies, roles, membership and selection
      Commons:
      House of Lords:

      Procedures/Elections

      Variants
      Advantages

      it is not the exclusive province of a second chamber but the duty of all of Parliament - and indeed principally of the House of Commons where most legislation originates - to scrutinise the executive and hold it to account.(Peter Bradley)

      Disadvantages

      when the Government controls a large majority in the Commons, the scope and potential need for the enhanced scrutiny and more effective revision which a second chamber can provide is all the greater (Peter Bradley)

      See also
      External links

      [edit] Other

      Put flowchart here!

      This is a proposal by organisations such as ... to select the House of Lords using....

      Bodies, roles, membership and selection
      Commons:
      House of Lords:

      Procedures/Elections

      Variants
      Advantages
      Disadvantages
      See also
      External links

      [edit] References

      1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j White Paper & Consultation, The House of Lords Completing the Reform, Nov 2001
      2. ^ a b c Harold Best MP
      3. ^ "Peter Bradly MP
      4. ^ "Peter Bradly MP
      5. ^ Nigel Beard MP, Submission to consultation
      6. ^ "Peter Bradley MP, Submission to Consultation
      7. ^ Labour Party 1997 Election Manifesto
      8. ^ a b Peter Bradley MP, Consultation submission
      9. ^ ?
      10. ^ John Austin MP
      11. ^ Labour party 1997 Election Manifesto
      12. ^ a b Conservative Party Press Notice: 'Conservatives call for a new elected Senate'
      13. ^ a b Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, A House for the Future, January 2000
      14. ^ Parliamentary Democracy for teh 21st Century:Liberal Democrat Response to the Lords Reform White Paper.
      15. ^ The Second Chamber:Continuing the Reform (HC 494,2001-02)
      16. ^ White Paper & Consultation, The House of Lords Completing the Reform, Nov 2001
      17. ^ John Baron MP, consultation submission

      [edit] Externam Links

      [edit] See Also

       This article related to the politics of the United Kingdom, or its predecessor or constituent states, is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
      Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/r/User%7ELordsReform_New_9bde.html"