House of Lords reform
From Democracywiki
Central Lobby
 Our View It is 96 years since the 1911 Parliament Act was passed. This legislation committed Parliament to replacing the House of Lords with “a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis” adding that “such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation.” Unlock Democracy is calling on the Government to hold the first elections to the Second Chamber in May 2011, to ensure that the first elected Members are in office before the centenary of the Act. Following the historic vote in the House of Commons in March, supporting the options for an 80% elected and fully elected second chamber, the Government has now stated it is committed to reform along these lines. However, it has postponed actual reform until after the General Election. Unlock Democracy and the Elect the Lords Campaign have been marking “Lords Reform Day” for the past three years. During this period, House of Lords reform has gone from a fringe issue to a central part of the Government’s agenda. |
Contents |
July 2008 White Paper: "An Elected Second Chamber"
On July 14 2008, the Government published a White Paper outlining its proposals for the next stage of Lords reform. The Paper summarises the broad consensus built up by the Cross-Party Working Group since the March 2007 votes, and invites views on those aspects of the reforms - such as the final composition of the reformed chamber, and the electoral system to be used - which remain to be confirmed.
Four principles underpin the Government’s proposals:
Any alteration or reduction of the Lords’ powers is ruled out; democratising reforms may make the second chamber more assertive, but this is not seen as a threat to the continuing primacy of the Commons.
- Members of the second chamber should be elected on a different representative basis from members of the House of Commons;
- Members of the second chamber should be able to bring independence of judgement to their work;
- Members should serve a long term of office; and
- The second chamber should take account of the prevailing political view amongst the electorate, but also provide opportunities for independent and minority views to be represented.
Structural change
The reformed chamber will be significantly reduced in size from its current membership of 745; it will be smaller than the House of Commons.
- There is no commitment as to size, but much of the White Paper works with a theoretical membership of 400-450, in line with the current average daily attendance of the House of Lords.
The Government embraces the two options agreed by the House of Commons in the March 2007 free votes – a wholly elected second chamber, or a chamber comprising 80% elected and 20% appointed members.
- No commitment is made to either option, but it is heavily implied – by repeated emphasis on the need for independent members – that a partly-appointed chamber is preferred.
Elected members
Elected members will be elected directly by large, multi-member constituencies for single, non-renewable terms.
Elections will take place alongside general elections to the House of Commons, and a term will last for three Commons electoral cycles. Together with a ‘rider’ provision, which excludes cycles lasting less than three years, this establishes a minimum term of 9 years and a maximum of 15.
Elections will be staggered, with a third of elected members being returned at each general election.
- There is no commitment as to which voting system will be used, although it is noted that the Conservative Party favours a first-past-the-post system while the Liberal Democrats have argued for election by Single Transferable Vote.
Appointed members
There will be no party-political appointees, and any appointed members will be expected to act as independents.
The Appointments Commission will be given a statutory basis, with published selection guidelines devised by the Commission and approved by Parliament. There will be 7 Commissioners on fixed and non-renewable 10-year terms, appointed by the Monarch on ministers’ advice after open competition. (It is suggested that Commissioners be selected on a non-party basis but with “a balance of political views.”) The key focus of the selection criteria will be “an individual’s ability, willingness and commitment to take part in the full work of the second chamber.”
Appointments will be made on the same electoral cycles as above and appointees will have the same status and responsibilities as elected members.
Appointments will be made by the Monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister. This is envisaged as providing a power of veto in instances where national security requires it.
Other reforms
Peerage
The link between peerage and membership of the second chamber will be severed, as recommended by the Public Administration Select Committee in December 2007.
Lords Spiritual
There will be no reserved seats for Church of England bishops in a wholly-elected chamber. A partly-appointed chamber will include a number of bishops reduced in proportion to the overall reduction of appointed members. There will be no other faith-based appointees.
Disqualifications
The minimum age for membership will be reduced to 18, with no maximum.
- There will be some disqualifications from membership, but views are welcomed on whether the full breadth of House of Commons disqualifications (i.e. for members of the police or armed forces) should apply.
- A ‘cooling-off’ period between leaving the second chamber and entering the House of Commons is also proposed, with views invited as to whether a similar restriction should be imposed on individuals seeking to move from the Commons into the second chamber.
Salary
Members will receive a salary. It is suggested that salaries may be linked to a member’s contribution or attendance, pending advice from the Senior Salaries Review Body.
Recall ballots
The introduction of US-style recall ballots is proposed. The Government also suggests an automatic recall in the event of six months’ non-attendance. The current code of conduct for members will be strengthened, with clearer sanctions attached to its breach.
Remaining peers
The Government considers three options concerning the fate of the Lords’ current members:
- All peers will leave after the third staggered election, when the full complement of new members has arrived;
- The remaining hereditary peers will leave after the third staggered election, and life peers will remain members for life;
- Peers leave in three tranches at each of the first three staggered elections.
No commitment is made between the three options.
Implementation
Finally, the Government makes a clear commitment that any final proposals will form part of a general election manifesto before the reforms are pursued to completion.
Consultation
Comments on the proposals are sought from parliamentarians, interest groups and members of the public. They can be submitted by email to lords.reform@justice.gsi.gov.uk, or in writing to:
- House of Lords Reform Team
Ministry of Justice
6.07
Selborne House
54 Victoria Street
London
SW1E 6QW
May 2008
On 14 May 2008 Lord Sheldon asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What proposals they have for reform of the House of Lords
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice Lord Hunt of Kings Heath replied that
the Government plan to publish a White Paper on Lords reform before the Summer Recess.
Lord Howarth of Newport asked
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath replied that
Lord Tyler commented that
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath replied that
Lord Wright of Richmond asked that
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath responded
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean added
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath replied
February 2008
On February 18, Patrick Cormack MP (Conservative) asked how many times the Cross-Party Committee on the House of Lords has met since November 2007; and if the Secretary of State for Justice will publish the minutes of those meetings. Lord Chancellor Jack Straw replied:
January 2008
On January 30, Virendra Sharma MP (Labour) asked when the Ministry of Justice would publish a new White Paper on House of Lords reform. Lord Chancellor Jack Straw replied:
December 2007
On December 11, in response to an oral question from Andrew MacKinlay MP (Labour), Lord Chancellor Jack Straw said:
November 2007
On November 19, Gordon Prentice MP (Labour) asked whether all peers would be required to declare annually that they were resident in the UK for tax purposes. Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Bridget Prentice replied:
July 2007
Following the votes in the House of Commons on the 7th of March, the government reconvened a cross-party working group to discuss plans for House of Lords reform. Following this, on the 19th of July Jack Straw made a statement outlining government plans for House of Lords reform as follows:
- The cross-party working group have agreed that the remaining 92 hereditary peers must be removed and
- That the lower chamber should ignore calls from within the House of Lords to create a wholly appointed chamber.
- Discussions will now centre on whether the House of Lords will be fully elected or will comprise of 80% elected peers and 20% appointed peers.
- There will be further consultation on powers, electoral systems and the need for written guidelines to replace the conventions that govern relations between the two chambers.
“We will look at ways to enshrine in a constitutional settlement the current balance of powers and the different roles of the two houses”
A full copy of the statement can be found here
March 2007
Following the government White Paper in February, both Houses debated and voted upon the different reform options presented to them.
The Lords Debates
The House of Lords debates on reform were held on the 12th and 13th of March. The discussion was characterised by significant areas of disagreement, and eventually the House rejected all the options except the one of a fully appointed chamber. However, many speakers agreed that it was necessary to reform the existing system and many of them made reference to Lord Strathclyde who expressed his hope that the Lords would not “lift the drawbridge against reform”.
The main problems which were addressed included:
- The need for a ‘democratic connection’.
- The public perception that our political system is not transparent or accountable enough.
- The new relationship between the Commons and the Lords once reform has been completed and the implications this has for the primacy of the Commons and for the day to day working of government.
- The need to secure diversity of opinion, interest and background.
- The threat that reform poses to the ‘independence’ of the House of Lords, i.e. the ability of the Lords to rise above party politics and electoral politics.
- The idea that the Lords provide much needed ‘expertise’.
- The cost of reform.
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton opened the debate, favouring a hybrid house.
He pointed out that:
“We, in this House, are partners in making legislation. Our role in scrutiny is vital, effective and far-reaching. We are not a quango; we are a legislative Chamber. We need a democratic connection.”
Lord Strathclyde followed him and again emphasised the need for more reform, although he phrased his argument in terms of a need to provide greater checks and balances on the executive:
“Most important are the power of this House and the authority to use it. That is what is at stake. An elected senator would inevitably use the powers of this House more assertively than Members of the current House do, just as this House has done since 1999. I have no complaint about this, as I want a stronger House with the authority to use those powers... If reform does not serve to strengthen this House … it has no purpose and will fail.”
The Liberal Democrat Lord McNally came next in the debate. He highlighted the problems that the current selection method for the Lords creates: “…we are a House of patronage and appointment. Patronage and appointment have become linked in the public mind with sleaze and corruption. That is a major reason why the other place (The House of Commons) acted so decisively last week. There was a strong desire on its part to draw a line under the whole grubby business of cash for peerages. I think that the other place is right to do so.”
Lord Irvine of Lairg the former Lord Chancellor, was opposed to a hybrid house which he described as “neither fish nor fowl." He explained that "Such a House, with two different classes of Members, is fundamentally wrong since all Members should be and should be seen to be of equal status. No Member should be able to claim for his opinion or vote greater legitimacy than another.” He continued by stating that he favoured an all-appointed house because "Our stable system of parliamentary democracy rests on a single tier of accountability of the Government to the House of Commons and through it to the people. That is the context of the consensus that the basic role of this House should remain as a revising, scrutinising and deliberative Assembly with the power to delay but not to seek to veto legislation. That limited but exacting role is best served by an appointed House, which has an appetite for it in a way that the other place does not.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire argued vigorously in favour of an elected element and pointed out that the “deep distrust of the electoral process”, which was apparent in many of the Lord's speeches, was an “inadequate response” to the problem of “rising distrust of our political institutions and a declining electoral turn-out” and the “popular image of Westminster as a closed world.” He argued that it is an illusion that the Lords are somehow more expert than the Commons and pointed out that many Lords once sat in the Commons. In fact, he sees those who have been through the electoral process as being the greatest asset:
“When I first came to this House, I was struck by the fact that those who did most of the hard work of legislative examination were almost entirely former county councillors, district councillors and people whose expertise had come through the elected process, through learning about education, local housing (and) local environmental issues”
Baroness Whitaker argued that the Lords needed to take account of the views of the public: “it is astonishing that it can still be held, in our secluded Chamber, that the appointment of political Peers is an acceptable principle. I do not think that that is the view outside; in fact, I know it is not… in the outside world, which is what our legislative activities are concerned with, very few share their view. YouGov’s highly professional and representative poll has 82 per cent supporting a fully or partly elected House and only 6 per cent in favour of a fully appointed one."
Confessing to being a "belted earl" himself, the Duke of Montrose was one of those who argued for retaining the hereditary peers "I am sure it is not so long ago that being British was not just about accepting certain concepts and philosophies for today but was also to do with owing allegiance to a whole history, good and bad… The presence of hereditary Peers in this House has ensured that history was a living tradition, because there were people walking about not just supporting the names that conjured up both the fame and the infamy of the past, but contributing the view that that particular background gave them"
The Commons Debates
The House of Commons debated the reform of the House of Lords on the 6th and 7th of March. Despite Jack Straw’s efforts to achieve cross-party consensus, there was a wide spectrum of differing opinions, ranging from those who wanted to abolish the second chamber entirely, to those who felt that it worked perfectly as it stood and should remain unchanged.
Points of discussion included
- The value of democratic elections as opposed to appointments.
- The view of the general public on Lords reform.
- The possibility that, if the House of Lords had an elected element it would be able to claim greater legitimacy and thus threaten the primacy of the House of Commons.
- The claim that a powerful second chamber is necessary to provide a check against the very powerful executive.
- The fact that the current conventions of operation between the House of Commons and House of Lords would have to change if the composition of the House of Lords changed.
- The method of elections to the House of Lords – for example if a closed list system was put in place would this not simply be party appointments by another name?
Jack Straw opened the debate by arguing that we need a bicameral legislature because of the volume of work that needs to be done and that the second chamber needs to have an elected element.
“Society has changed dramatically in recent decades, and Parliament must keep up with those changes. I simply do not believe that in this less deferential, more assertive age the public will tolerate a wholly appointed chamber for much longer. The choice in my judgement is stark: it is change or wither away.”
To those who have concerns about the primacy of the House of Commons Jack Straw said: “the primacy of this House depends on three key elements: first, the exclusive right of this House to determine who forms a Government; secondly, this House's exclusive right to raise taxation and to allocate public spending; thirdly, the right of this House to the final—and pretty prompt—say over any legislation that is the subject of dispute between the two Houses.”
Theresa May argued in a similar vein to Jack Straw but explained that her preference was for an 80% elected House.
“A second Chamber should have the confidence and the ability to make Governments think again... The political parties' power of patronage, and with it the risk of abuse, must be removed. If we are to strengthen Parliament as a whole, the other place needs greater democratic legitimacy if it is successfully to challenge Government policy."
On the subject of the expertise of the Lords she pointed out: "Let us imagine that an appointed Lords would somehow give us a Chamber of enlightened philosopher-kings. Even if that were so, how should one decide which interests and groups should be represented? An expert in one field is not necessarily an expert in another… For example, I doubt that there is anybody more expert in human fertility than Professor Lord Winston, but is he as expert about the other 99.9 per cent. of the other place's business?”
Simon Hughes spoke in response to those who called for the abolition of the second chamber explaining that “in a very busy modern democracy consisting of four countries and much local government, one House of Parliament would not be able to do the job sufficiently. Secondly, the tradition and history of recent years is that we have not done the job well, and we have needed a second Chamber, not to overrule us, but to correct us and make us think again, and to ensure that legislating and holding the Executive to account were done better.”
He pointed out that the primacy of the commons need not necessarily be challenged: "If the other place was elected by thirds, that would also weaken any potential challenge. No one could arrive there saying, "We have a majority, we are elected by the people all over Britain, and we can challenge the Commons." They would come in as a partially returned group, and they would not have the same authority as we have after being elected on the same day from all over the country, on the basis of manifestos, with everyone knowing that from us the Government will be chosen."
Pete Wishart argued in favour of complete abolition
“It strikes me at times that all the people who inhabit that place are, first, incredibly wealthy. They are unrepresentative of our general community. I do not know how many multimillionaires there are in the communities of hon. Members here, but there is certainly a number of them down the road. At times it seems to me that the House of Lords exists to emphasise class difference, to suggest a separateness. This belief that we should expect our betters to help us legislate suggests a throwback to a pre-democratic age, and it should have no place in a modern 21st-century legislature.”
David Clelland was concerned that even a partly elected reformed House of Lords would challenge the primacy of the House of Commons.
“I am opposed to elections for any part of House of Lords on the basis that a hybrid Chamber would, as I said, lead to a conflict with some Members claiming legitimacy and others not. I also believe that, as the Father of the House said yesterday, any hybrid Chamber would inevitably lead to a fully elected second Chamber in the long term, which would definitely challenge the primacy of the House of Commons.”
Douglas Hogg argued for a fully elected chamber strongly from the point of view that a second chamber is necessary to hold the executive to account
He pointed out that the functions of the House of Commons are: “to scrutinise the Executive; to scrutinise legislation; and to call Governments to account. We know, if we are honest, that we do not do those things well, because the House has become largely the creature of party… provided that the Executive retain control over their party, they can do what they please. That is not a proper way to govern in a democratic state.
For this reason Douglas Hogg argued that we need a fully elected second chamber that is truly independent of the executive.
John Maples argued that the question of the legitimacy of the House of Lords was not really a problem because it already performs its function perfectly well.
“The House of Lords is exactly what we say we want. It is independent; some of its Members have significant expertise; it has limited power; it does not challenge the House of Commons; and all parties are represented, although none of them has a majority. It does almost everything that we want it to do, but it does not satisfy the test—apparently, it must do so—of whether or not it is democratic.”
February 2007
Government white paper on House of Lords reform
The aim of the White Paper was to set the stage for the subsequent free votes on the composition of a future House of Lords.
Its main arguments are that:
- The link between the peerage and a seat in Parliament should be broken altogether.
- The lords should neither be a rival nor a replica of the Commons, but neither should it simply provide a rubber stamp on the government’s decisions – it needs a distinct voice in revising and scrutinizing legislation.
- The principle of primacy of House of Commons must remain.
- A reformed house should be a hybrid house, partially elected, partially appointed.
- It is difficult, in a modern democracy, to justify a second chamber where there is no elected element and in which the public has no direct input into who sits in it.
- It will be much easier to secure the necessary diversity of the Lords if there continues to be an appointed element to the House.
- No party in the House of Lords should have a majority of members.
- There will have to be a long transition period for existing members. None of the current life peers should be forced to leave the House.
The model suggested is a House of 540 members where:
- 50% of the house would be elected through a partially open list system, 20% of the house would be non-party political appointed members and the remaining 30% would be party political appointments.
- Members would serve long terms that are not renewable to ensure that they can demonstrate independent thinking and long-term focus.
- Appointments to the reformed House would be made by a new Statutory Appointments Commission, which would be independent and report directly to Parliament.
- There would be no Prime Ministerial appointments.
2005-2006 session
For more informations on what happened regarding House of Lords reform in 2005-2006 please see House of Lords reform 2005-2006
