FAQ (Elect The Lords)
From Democracywiki
Main wiki page | FAQ | Website
What is the Elect The Lords Campaign?
The Elect the Lords campaign is calling for a predominently elected second chamber to replace the existing House of Lords at the earliest opportunity.
It was set up and is administered by the New Politics Network and Charter88, and is supported by a growing number of organisations, politicians and individuals.
Why do we need a second chamber?
We believe that the second chamber has a crucial role to play in British democracy as a deliberative body, complementing rather than duplicating the work of the House of Commons.
In general "unicameralism" - having a single House of Parliament or legislative chamber - is rare, particularly in a democracy the size of the UK. Comparable European countries, Germany, France, Italy, as well as the USA and Australia are all bicameral (two legislative chambers). It is only smaller, relatively homogenous states such as Sweden that have just one chamber.
Without a second chamber there is always the danger that a unicameral parliament could become an elective dictatorship. In Britain the Executive is particularly powerful and can dominate the House of Commons to a greater extent than in other comparable democracies. A second chamber constituted differently from the Commons and with democratic legitimacy can act as a check on the Lower House.
What powers does the House of Lords have?
The powers of the House of Lords are laid out in the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. Currently the House of Lords has the power to:
- Initiate legislation - increasingly Government legislation is being introduced in the House of Lords
- Revise legislation
- Delay legislation (other than Bills dealing with taxation) for about a year after which it can be reintroduced in the following session and pass without the Lords consent
- Veto leglislation that extends the life of a Parliament (i.e. delays a General Election beyond five years)
- Scrutinise the Government
There is also a convention that the House of Lords will not oppose any Bill mentioned in the governing party's election manifesto. This is so a governing party can get key Bills through parliament even if they do not have a majority in the House of Lords.
Very few advocates of Lords reform favour giving a new second chamber any powers in excess of those allowed under the Parliament Act 1949, and many favour further restrictions on powers to bring them more closely in line with those the Lords have exercised in practice.
Doesn't appointment guarantee a representative and expert chamber?
It has been argued that appointing members to the second chamber is the best way of ensuring an expert chamber. On the basis of the current House of Lords appointment is not an effective way of creating a chamber of high expertise. Of sitting life peers,
- Only 7% are 'experts'
- 37% are former MPs, MEPs, councillors and party officials
- 19% are from private business (including the media)
- 13% are from a legal background (excluding the sitting Law Lords)
- 9% are from public service (including the voluntary sector)
It is also suggested that this is the best way of increasing the representation of women and ethnic minorities in the legislature. The composition of the current House of Lords disproves this theory. Of the 729 members of the House of Lords, only
- 135 are women
- 24 are black or minority ethnic
Indeed, even political representation is not guaranteed under a system of appointment. A recent article in the Times reports that Tony Blair is planning to appoint 11 Labour working peers, 8 Conservative working peers and 5 Liberal Democrat working peers in New Year 2006. Labour, which drastically lost its share of the vote in the 2005 General Election, was elected on a manifesto commitment to make the House of Lords "more representative", yet these appointments will increase Labour's representation of working peers, despite already being already over-represented.
| Party | Peers | %age in Lords | %age in General Election (change since 2001) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Labour Party | 214 | 43.1% | 39.3% (-2.8%) |
| Conservative Party | 209 | 42.1% | 36.1% (-2.9%) |
| Liberal Democrats | 74 | 14.9% | 24.6% (+5.7%) |
| Party | Actual amount | Proportionate amount A* | Proportionate amount B* | Proportionate Amount C* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour Party | 11 | 9 | 11 | 14 |
| Conservative Party | 8 | 9 | 10 | 0 |
| Liberal Democrats | 5 | 6 | 7 | 68 |
- A assumes a total of 24 peers; B assumes 11 Labour appointments; C assumes making the House of Lords fully proportionate compared with the 2005 General Election vote while not removing any current peers.
Note that both tables factor out all other political parties.
Wouldn't an elected second chamber lead to gridlock?
It is frequently argued that if both chambers were elected and therefore had democratic legitimacy, this would lead to gridlock. However this would only be the case if both chambers had equal powers as is the case with the US Senate. We believe that the second chamber should remain the subordinate chamber but that appointing members is not the way to achieve this. A combination of the right roles, functions, powers and composition would not only remove the risk of gridlock, but also produce a healthier relationship between the two Houses and between Parliament and the Executive.
Wouldn't an elected second chamber challenge the primacy of the House of Commons?
One of the main criticisms of an elected second chamber is that it would challenge the primacy of the House of Commons and create legislative gridlock. We believe that the House of Commons should remain the pre-eminent chamber of Parliament. A second chamber could provide the additional capacity and deliberation required by an overburdened House of Commons. It should bring a different perspective to the scrutiny and development of legislation.
We do not agree that direct elections to the second chamber would threaten the primacy of the House of Commons. The House of Commons would have to legislate to reform the House of Lords and would therefore have the final say in terms of precisely what powers the second chamber should have. The supremacy of the House of Commons is determined by its powers and functions and not its method of selection. There are also specific measures which can be introduced such as Government Ministers only being selected from the House of Commons which would further guarantee the supremacy of the House of Commons.
Local authorities are also democratic institutions that often have more recent mandates than the House of Commons, but councils have very rarely attempted to use this to challenge the authority of parliament. Their powers are regulated by law and they do not have the power, much as some may wish, to prevent the decisions of parliament from applying in their localities - even if they could claim a local popular mandate for such a course of action.
Wouldn't including elected members in the second chamber create a "two tier" House?
It has been argued that including elected members in the second chamber would create a hybrid house - that there would be competition and difference in status between members selected by different methods.
The current House of Lords is a Hybrid House. Some members are life peers while others are elected on the basis of being an hereditary peer. There is no reason to suggest that members with different mandates can't work together as they do at present.
How do other countries select the members of their second chambers?
Election is now the most common means of selecting upper house members - a total of 27 of the world's 66 second chambers use direct election by the people as the primary means of selecting their members.
A further 21 use some form of 'indirect' election.
Only 16 countries have second chambers which are wholly or largely appointed. Amongst them Canada is the only Western democracy. Other examples include Barbados, Cambodia, Jordan and Thailand.
However, a greater number of second chambers include a few appointed members. For example, the Italian Senate combines direct election with a handful of appointees and ex officio members, and the Indian upper house combines 233 indirectly elected members with 12 who are appointed for their achievements in the arts, science and literature.
Two-chamber parliaments are generally favoured by larger nations. The average population of a country with a single chamber parliament is 24 million; the average population of a country with a two-chamber parliament is 47 million. This figure takes into account the exceptionally large, unicameral China (population 1.2 billion) and the exceptionally small, bicameral Palau (17,000), Antigua and Barbuda (65,000) and Grenada (92,000) (source: Coakley J. and Laver M. 1997 'Options for the Future of Seanad �ireann').
Composition of second chambers in all two-chamber parliaments
Summary:
- 65 countries in total have a two-chamber parliament.
- Of the 46 countries that wholly or mostly elect their second chambers, 29 are established democracies.
- By contrast, of the 19 countries that wholly or mostly appoint their second chambers, just 5 are established democracies.
- Of the 46 countries that mostly or wholly elect their second chambers, 28 hold direct elections (in the case of established democracies, 19 out of 29 hold direct elections).
- The UK is the only established democracy to appoint its members for life terms of office. The tiny African Kingdom of Lesotho is the only country in the world with a comparable second chamber to the House of Lords.
Wholly directly elected (20)
- Established Democracies (14): Argentina (PR), Australia (PR), Bolivia (PR), Brazil, Colombia (PR), Dominican Republic, Japan (PR), Mexico (PR), Paraguay (PR), Philippines, Switzerland, Thailand, Uruguay (PR), USA.
- Other Democracies (6): Czech Republic, Haiti, Kyrgyzstan, Palau, Poland, Romania (PR).
Wholly indirectly elected (14)
- Established Democracies (6): Austria, France, Germany, Mauritania, Morocco, the Netherlands.
- Other Democracies (8): Congo, Ethiopia, Gabon, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russian Federation, South Africa.
Majority directly elected, minority indirectly elected (1)
- Established Democracies (1): Spain
Majority directly elected, minority appointed (2)
- Established Democracies (3): Chile (direct elections by PR; appointed members have fixed terms), Italy (direct elections by PR; appointed members have life terms).
Majority directly elected, plus indirectly elected, appointed and hereditary (1)
- Established Democracies: Belgium (direct elections by PR; appointed members have fixed terms) (1)
Majority indirectly elected, minority appointed (8)
- Established Democracies (4): India (fixed term), Ireland (fixed term), Madagascar (fixed term), Nepal (fixed term)
- Other Democracies (4): Algeria (fixed term), Belarus (fixed term), Kazakhstan (fixed term), Tajikistan (fixed term)
Wholly appointed (15)
- Established Democracies (3): Canada (fixed term), Jamaica (fixed term), Trinidad and Tobago (fixed term).
- Other Democracies (12): Antigua and Barbuda (unknown), Bahamas (fixed term), Barbados (fixed term), Bahrain (fixed term), Belize (fixed term), Bosnia and Herzegovina (fixed term), Burundi (fixed term), Cambodia (fixed term), Fiji Islands (fixed term), Grenada (fixed term), Jordan (fixed term), Saint Lucia (fixed term).
Majority appointed, minority indirectly elected (2)
- Established Democracies (1): Malaysia (fixed term)
- Other Democracies (1): Swaziland (fixed term)
Majority appointed, minority hereditary (1)
- Established Democracies (1): United Kingdom (life term)
Majority hereditary, minority appointed (1)
- Other Democracies (1): Lesotho (appointed members have fixed terms)
Main sources: Inter-Parliamentary Union database; International Idea; CIA World Factbook.
Glossary
Established Democracy: a country that has been democratic for at least 20 years and has at least a quarter of a million people. Definition first coined by political scientist Arend Lijphart.
Indirect Election: The second chamber is not elected by the public but by some third party which itself is directly elected. In most cases, this is a regional tier of government, although in the Republic of Ireland county councillors and parliamentarians elect a proportion of senators.
PR: Proportional Representation. Political parties have representation in a the second chamber roughly proportionate to the number of votes cast for them in the election. This is distinct from majoritarian systems in which the candidate who gets the most votes in each constituency is elected.
Fixed term: Members who are appointed to the second chamber have a fixed term of office, normally around 4-6 years.
Life term: Members who are appointed to the second chamber remain in office until death.
Hereditary: These members inherit their places in the second chamber from their ancestors, and pass their office onto their eldest son.
Does the public want an elected second chamber?
Yes. Polling evidence suggests that the public want an elected second chamber, and support is growing.
In February 2007, the Hansard Society published a YouGov poll showing that 42% support a fully elected second chamber, 40% support a mixture of elected and appointed while only 6% support a fully appointed second chamber.
The first State of the Nation poll by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust in 1991 found that 40% of the public supported replacing the House of Lords with an elected second chamber compared with 29% who were opposed. In 2006, they found that 65% of the public supported a majority or wholly elected second chamber, compared with 15% who supported a two thirds appointed House of Lords.
In September 2005, the Electoral Reform Society commissioned an ICM poll on behalf of the Elect the Lords campaign to monitor public support for Lords reform. Two questions were asked - what model of reform did people support, and did they support specific proposals for an 80% elected second chamber. The results were as follows:
Some people say that members of the House of Lords should be elected by voters while other say that they should be appointed as now. Do you think the House of Lords should be...?
| Party Support | Gender | Age | Social Class | Region | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Conservative Party (24%) | Labour Party (30%) | Lib Dems (11%) | Other (6%) | Not say / don't know (29%) | Male | Female | 18-24 | 25-34 | 35-44 | 45-54 | 55-64 | 64+ | AB | C1 | C2 | DE | South East | Midlands | North England | Wales & South West | Scotland | |
| Fully elected | 25% | 23% | 30% | 37% | 28% | 18% | 31% | 21% | 16% | 28 | 24% | 32% | 26% | 25% | 31% | 23% | 22% | 26% | 22% | 27% | 24% | 30% | 27% |
| Majority elected | 14% | 12% | 15% | 17% | 24% | 11% | 14% | 13% | 16% | 11% | 14% | 15% | 14% | 14% | 15% | 12% | 12% | 16% | 14% | 12% | 15% | 13% | 17% |
| 50/50 | 26% | 31% | 26% | 21% | 20% | 24% | 23% | 29% | 40% | 23% | 29% | 19% | 30% | 20% | 25% | 27% | 30% | 22% | 29% | 25% | 26% | 22% | 26% |
| Majority appointed | 5% | 6% | 6% | 8% | 0% | 4% | 5% | 5% | 7% | 5% | 4% | 6% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 6% | 4% | 5% | 6% | 6% | 3% | 7% | 4% |
| Fully appointed | 11% | 17% | 8% | 10% | 11% | 8% | 12% | 9% | 11% | 11% | 9% | 10% | 8% | 15% | 10% | 14% | 10% | 8% | 10% | 12% | 12% | 13% | 4% |
| Don't know | 19% | 11% | 13% | 6% | 17% | 35% | 14% | 23% | 11% | 22% | 20% | 19% | 17% | 20% | 13% | 18% | 22% | 23% | 20% | 18% | 19% | 16% | 21% |
| (at least 50%) | 65% | 66% | 71% | 75% | 62% | 53% | 68% | 63% | 72% | 62% | 67% | 66% | 70% | 59% | 71% | 62% | 64% | 64% | 65% | 64% | 65% | 65% | 70% |
Note: the bottom row is an aggregate of the "fully elected", "majority elected" and 50/50 options for ease of reference.
Some people have suggested that the House of Lords should be 80% elected by voters and 20% appointed. Would you suport or oppose this proposal?
| Party Support | Gender | Age | Social Class | Region | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Conservative Party (24%) | Labour Party (30%) | Lib Dems (11%) | Other (6%) | Not say / don't know (29%) | Male | Female | 18-24 | 25-34 | 35-44 | 45-54 | 55-64 | 64+ | AB | C1 | C2 | DE | South East | Midlands | North England | Wales & South West | Scotland | |
| Support | 62% | 64% | 66% | 73% | 57% | 52% | 61% | 62% | 61% | 64% | 64% | 60% | 63% | 58% | 60% | 58% | 67% | 62% | 57% | 64% | 62% | 64% | 64% |
| Oppose | 22% | 26% | 23% | 20% | 32% | 18% | 26% | 19% | 21% | 21% | 19% | 24% | 24% | 25% | 28% | 23% | 18% | 21% | 27% | 22% | 18% | 22% | 24% |
| Don't know | 16% | 10% | 11% | 7% | 11% | 30% | 13% | 19% | 18% | 15% | 17% | 16% | 13% | 17% | 12% | 19% | 16% | 17% | 16% | 15% | 20% | 14% | 12% |
Aren't MPs divided on the issue of Lords reform?
In March 2007, the House of Commons voted in support of both the 80% elected and fully elected options for House of Lords reform:
| Option | Commons | Lords | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elected | Appointed | For | Against | For | Against |
| 0% | 100% | 196 | 375 | 361 | 121 |
| 20% | 80% | - | - | - | - |
| 40% | 60% | - | - | - | - |
| 50% | 50% | 155 | 418 | 46 | 409 |
| 60% | 40% | 178 | 392 | 45 | 392 |
| 80% | 20% | 305 | 267 | 114 | 336 |
| 100% | 0% | 337 | 224 | 122 | 326 |
| Retain Bicameral | 416 | 163 | - | - | |
| Remove Hereditaries | 391 | 111 | - | - | |
The Government has now declared that it is now working on the assumption that the only possible options are now for either an 80% or fully elected second chamber.
There has been some speculation that some opponents of reform voted for the fully elected option to derail reform. However, detailed analysis of the voting reveals that relatively few supporters of the fully appointed option also voted for the fully elected option, and certainly not enough to change the result.
Where do the political parties stand on House of Lords reform?
Taken from the main parties' 2005 manifestos:
| Party | Policy (from manifesto) | Elect The Lords Response |
|---|---|---|
| Conservatives | We will seek cross-party consensus for a substantially elected House of Lords. | We welcome the support for an elected element of the House of Lords, but this statement is very unclear as to what degree the Conservatives will work to build consensus, or what exactly their own position is. Supporters of reform are therefore urged to write to their local Conservative candidates and ask what their own personal position is on democratic Lords reform. |
| Green | The House of Lords will be reformed to become a fully elected body chosen by proportional representation. | While the Elect the Lords campaign is for a predominantly elected second chamber, we would by no means reject a fully elected one and welcome the Green Party's longstanding commitment to Lords reform. |
| Labour | In our first term, we ended the absurdity of a House of Lords dominated by hereditary peers. Labour believes that a reformed Upper Chamber must be effective, legitimate and more representative without challenging the primacy of the House of Commons.
Following a review conducted by a committee of both Houses, we will seek agreement on codifying the key conventions of the Lords, and developing alternative forms of scrutiny that complement rather than replicate those of the Commons; the review should also explore how the upper chamber might offer a better route for public engagement in scrutiny and policy-making. We will legislate to place reasonable limits on the time bills spend in the second chamber - no longer than 60 sitting days for most bills. As part of the process of modernisation, we will remove the remaining hereditary peers and allow a free vote on the composition of the House. | We welcome the commitment to a free vote, but would urge Parliament not to make the same mistake as in February 2003 when reform was narrowly defeated despite most MPs supporting a mostly or wholly elected second chamber due to the inept voting system used. The manifesto makes clear that all Labour candidates must be straight about their personal position on House of Lords reform - they cannot duck the issue. Supporters of reform are therefore urged to write to their local Labour candidates and ask what they would personally support in a free vote. |
| Liberal Democrats | Reform of the House of Lords has been botched by Labour, leaving it unelected and even more in the patronage of the Prime Minister. We will replace it with a predominantly elected second chamber. | This accords with the Elect the Lords campaign's own position and we welcome the Lib Dems' longstanding support for Lords reform. We do however note that in February 2003, the proposal for an 80% elected second chamber was defeated in the House of Commons by just 3 votes, and that Lib Dem MPs Lembit Opik, David Laws and Andrew George all voted against. In the likelihood of a free vote on Lords reform taking place in the next Parliament, it is therefore legitimate to ask how Lib Dem candidates would personally vote. |
| UK Independence Party | The UK Independence Party believes unreservedly in our institutions - our democratically elected House of Commons, our constitutional monarchy, our system of common law and our House of Lords. These institutions deserve our respect not just because they define our system of government but also because they are part of what it British. The Lords, in particular, continue to show their worth in pointing out flaws in draft legislation and performing a check on the Commons.
The Labour government, however, has clearly found the interference by the Lords in the legislative process to be irksome and has sought to diminish its powers. UKIP would resist any further dilution and is not convinced by proposals to include a proportion of elected members. The virtue of the Lords is their independence from the government and this would be diminish if they had to seek re-election. | UKIP's argument is highly flawed as it dismisses all forms of democratic reform as automatically leading to the government to dominate the second chamber. The proposals published by a cross-party group of MPs chaired by Paul Tyler earlier this year for example explicitly state that members of the Second Chamber should only serve a single term of office and hence would be more immune from party whips. They has also argued that no single party should be allowed a majority in the second chamber, again increasing its independence from government. |
Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National Party, Scottish Socialist Party and Scottish Green Party all support independence for Wales and Scotland respectively and thus do not take a specific policy line on House of Lords reform. MPs of Plaid Cymru and the SNP have however voted for an elected Lords.
See also:
What method of election do you propose?
The report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform recommended that the second chamber should be elected by a different system to that used for the commons.
Opinion polls have shown that there is public support for a more proportional electoral system for the second chamber. A Charter88/YouGov poll conducted before the vote in 2003 found that 65% supported the use of PR in electing members to the second chamber.
We believe that the second chamber can only be legitimate when the people have given their consent though elections but we do not have a common position on the method of election that should be used.
