User:LordsRefrom/LordsReform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User:LordsRefrom
Look up Lords Reform in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Contents

[edit] Introduction

For almost a century British governments have attempted to find a way comprehensively to reform the UK House of Lords. 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.[1]

In 2001 the government undertook a public consultation. This helped to create an unprecedented public debate on the issue of Lords reform, with 1101 consultation responses and numerous debates in Parliament and the media. Despite this huge level interest in the issue, and a second public consultation, no consensus on the way forward has yet emerged.

For information on the House of Lords see: House of Lords For information on the various Bills see their respective entries.

[edit] History of Reform

[edit] Reform before 1997

For details see: Lords Reform - History

[edit] Powers as of 1997 Election

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.

Together with the Parliament Act 1949, these acts enable the Commons to pass legislation without approval from the Lords in exceptional circumstance and subject to certain time delays. In effect they give the House of Lords the power to delay legislation but not to prevent it.

Since 1911 there have been various attempts to reform the Lords, but none tackled the powers of the House except the Parliament Act 1949 which reduced the suspensory veto to two sessions and one year. By the time of the 1997 UK election there was still no consensus about a comprehensive reform of the upper chamber of Parliaments.


[edit] Reform since 1997

In 1999 the Labour party did a deal to remove most of the hereditary peers leaving amongst the majority of appointed peers a rump of Peers who were elected from within those who had had a right to be members of the House of Lords as a result of their Hereditary status. This arrangement was intended to be purely temporary until "the second stage of reform was completed" (House of Lords Act 1999 [citation needed] ). This led to some claims (perhaps not all serious) that the elected Hereditary Lords were the only democratic members of the House.

[edit] 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[2] (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[2]

[edit] White Paper & First 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. [3]

In the white paper although the government said it "stongly endorsed" the Royal Commission's views, it also listed its own proposals:[3]:

  • 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 a 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"[3] 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 unprecended[citation needed] 1101 submissions were made to the consultation. In May 2002 the government published a statistical analysis.

Votes In February 2003 there were a series of chaotic votes.

A Joint Committee on House of Lords reform met in February 2003 to examine at least removing the remaining 92 Hereditary Peers was formed.

Creation of Department for Constitutional Affairs In june 2003 Tony Blair announced the creation of a new department to oversee constitutional change with Lord Falconer as its first Secretary of State. The department was tasked with:

  • Establishment of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.
  • Creation of a new Supreme Court to replace the existing system of Law Lords operating as a committee of the House of Lords.
  • Reform of the Speakership of the House of Lords.
  • New arrangements for the conduct of Scottish and Welsh business.

A Joint Committee on House of Lords reform met in February 2003 to examine at least removing the remaining 92 Hereditary Peers was formed.

When in 2003 Lord Falconer signalled the governments preference for an all appointed House of Lords, three members of the Liberal Democrat party issued a statement:

We, together with other members of the committee, issued a statement at the same time stating our belief that the committee could not continue to act in the absence of an indication of the government's preferred route to achieve its manifesto commitment to a more representative and democratic House of Lords." Ministers responded saying "We cannot accept the removal of the remaining hereditary peers on its own, but only as part of much wider measures of reform to create a democratic and accountable second chamber... We therefore see no role which the joint committee can usefully play in achieving the reformed House of Lords which we seek.[4]

[edit] Second Consultation

In September 2003, the department of Constitutional Affairs starting a new consultation on an all appointed House of Lords and published the paper: "Constitutional Reform: Next Steps for the House of Lords". On 18 March 2004, before the statistical analysis had been published, the government announced that is would not proceed with legislation to enact the proposals in the consultation.

When the statistical analysis was published on 22 April 2004 the government reported that on the main issue (issue 2) "87 percent of respondents dealing with issue 2 (a) were in favour of a Commission composed of representatives of the three main political parties and the cross-benchers and a number of independently appointed members." With such a high figure of support it is unclear why the government did not choose to proceed, however some insight can be gained from unofficial reports which put the actual level of support at closer to 35%.

The government published most of the responses to both consultations. Many of these responses were highly critical of the consultation process and some there were complaints that the UK government breached its own code of conduct for consultations by failing to mention many of the new ideas arising from both consultations.


[edit] 2006 Discussions

In the UK Cabinet reshuffle, May 2006 on 5 May 2006, governmental responsibility for this topic was transferred from the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) to the Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal (Jack Straw).

In March 2006 the House of Lords reform was again under discussion. This new interest resulted from the Cash for Peerages affair, together with recent attempts by the Lords to block, water down (or add safeguards to, according to viewpoint), recent controversial legislation such as the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Hunting Act 2004, Terrorism Bill 2005, the Identity Cards Bill 2005, and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

Although the nature of any membership changes is currently unclear, it has been reported that the Government are considering removing the ability of the Lords to delay legislation that arises as a result of manifesto commitments, and reducing their ability to delay other legislation to a period of 60 days [1].

[edit] Current Status

It is expected that a Bill will be announced in the Autumn 2006 Queen's speech.

[edit] The Debate

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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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] The relationship Between the 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.

For more information see Lords Reform - Roles

[edit] Aims of the Reform

[edit] Other Issues

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • The House of Lords has a judicial function and this is clearly affected by the reform process.

[edit] The Range of Options (Alphabetical)

With 1101 submissions to the first consultation, several hundred to the second and many articles and discussion, it is only possible to give a broad outline of the many different proposals and even then only those where the same proposals were mentioned by a number of respondents.

For fuller details see: Lords Reform - Proposals

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
 Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.

[edit] Allotment/Sortition

Allotment or selection by lot was the form of selection used in the first democracies in Ancient Greece, and is now used in Anglo Saxon legal system to select juries. Advocates maintain it is inherently democratic. Opponents point to the need for some expertise for members of the chamber. Most proposals suggest some form of Citizen's Assembly alloted from all voters at random, but there is considerable variation.

[edit] Appointment

The reason the UK still retains an appointed House of Lords is that, although it is clearly undemocratic, it works. In particular the large number of cross bench peers would be impossible to achieve in most electoral systems.

  • A panel chosen by the Prime Minister or via Noland procedures appoints the members of the House

[edit] Combination

Many combinations are possible, the main ones are:

[edit] Democratic Appointments

A minority "grass roots option" [5] not found before the second consultation. It was supported by an organistion called Allot and many individuals. Democratic Appointments is a combination of allotment and indirect appointments using a "democratic" citizen's jury to appoint the members of the Upper House. It is claimed that it: "retains the best aspects of the present house and makes the system of selection more democratic in nature"[5]

[edit] Election

Supporters of election largely believe that the chamber will not be democratic unless it is elected.

It has also been suggested that leaders of local councils (who have already been elected to their position) sit in the House of Lords.

[edit] Hereditary

A large number of hereditary peers were crossbenchers with a wide range of interests outside politics which was a valuable asset to the House. Unfortunately, their inherent bias toward the conservative party and bias on other issues means few now support this form of selection.

  • A hereditary House of Lords where members pass on their right.

[edit] Indirect Election/appointment

  • A variety of institutions such as the Royal Society, Charities etc. are able to elect or appoint a member

[edit] No Upper House

  • Some maintain that there is no need for an Upper chamber.

For more details of proposals see: Lords Reform - Proposals

[edit] Secondary Mandate

A system proposed by musician and activist Billy Bragg whereby the share of each party's votes at each general election is aggregated and each party is allocated a number of places proportionately using a closed list system.

[edit] References

{{:tl:unreferenced}}

  1. ^ Labour Party 1997 Election Manifesto
  2. ^ a b Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, A House for the Future, January 2000
  3. ^ a b c White Paper & Consultation, The House of Lords Completing the Reform, Nov 2001
  4. ^ bbc.co.uk
  5. ^ a b Http://www.allot.org.uk

[edit] Further reading

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/r/User%7ELordsRefrom_LordsReform_46b9.html"