The United Kingdom's unique system of Government finds itself located in the center of London, in a little place called Westminster. So famous is our system of government, is now referred to as the "Westminster Model" when used by other countries. Dickens writes in Our Mutual Friend that "We Englishmen...are very proud of our constitution...it was bestowed upon us by providence. No other country is as lucky as us". While intended to be satirical in nature, on the contrary are now true in what they echo, i propose.
The epicenter of political activity occurs in the House of Parliament, which is perhaps the most famous legislative arena in the world (i say Legislative because the most famous Political Arena would be the White House, but i find that more administrative than a law creator that is Parliament.) It provides the make up of our bicameral legislature, that is we live our lives as a result of the decisions made in two chambers: the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
The House of Commons is an elected body, and is where the Prime Minister will be held accountable by the 648 MPs that sit in the Commons(The PM and Speaker of course excluded from the 650 seats in the Commons). Indeed, the Commons is favored as a political body because how it is elected, and hence in touch with the electorate when they hold MPs to account every 5 years at General Election. Decisions are constructed/made on the basis of a Party Manifesto which they were voted into government with, or as a reactionary measure. It is the epicenter of Party Politics, which as a result is the arena in which are Governed.
The House of Lords on the other hand, while just as important in the make up of our system, plays a supporting role. The Lords cannot create law. Parliament makes law, and very rarely the Commons on its own will make law, but this is very rare and tends only to relate to Bills which effect the Lords itself (hence it is not considered by the Lords).
The House of Lords is made up of 92 hereditary peers and just under 700 life peers (as well as 26 Lords Spiritual). They are all appointed to their posts, by means of either party nomination, independent Appointments Commission, or by virtue of Birth (Hereditary). Life Peers which make up the majority of the Lords Composition are said to be experts, hence their admission to the Lords.
The House of Lords however lives in a curious state of flux. All party's seem to agree that it should be replaced by a system of elected members, much like the United State's upper House, the US Senate. This is a bad idea, and here's why.
In order to best discuss my beliefs on the Lords, i'm going to break it down now into areas which need to be addressed.
- Legitimacy - One of the most frequent of all criticisms of the Lords is its "legitimacy." I'd recommend taking a moment and considering what this means. In terms of what people think/want it to mean, it would be better referred to as being "democratically legitimate". As an unelected body the decisions it makes arguably should bear no importance because it is an unelected legislative chamber. As aforementioned, it does not "make law", instead uses its expertise (since the introduction of life peers) to amend, comment and debate on the Bills which originate from the Commons. The Lords may introduce a Bill, but it cannot "make law" on its own, it must go through the Commons in order to gain Royal Ascent, which in theory would give democratic legitimacy to any Bill that was introduced by the Lords. By extension, the Civil Service plays a key role in policy development, but they are unelected/anonymous in their role, does that make the Civil Service illegitimate?
- Its Function - This follows on nicely from the last point. While not democratically legitimate, it IS legitimate in its output. Some, including myself, argue that its output legitimacy is justification for keeping the Lords as it is. Because the Lords have no constituency duties, this allows for much more time to get things done. As a result, debates can last longer and cover more ground. Further, because Lords have more time, they can sit on the relevant Select Committee (according to their area of expertise). The work of Lords Select Committees is indispensable in the process of Law making. In the last full length session to have data published (2008-2009 [2009-2010 shortened by general election]) the Lords tabled over three thousand amendments to Bills as a result of their Select Committees. The Scrutiny of Bills is a vital part of our democracy, and the Lords' role in it is wholly important.
- Composition - Again, moving nicely on to its composition. As of the House of Lords Act 1999, the Lords now sits with only 92 hereditary peers. Formally, the Lords only sat by virtue of a birth right. Now, the vast majority are Life Peers, given their status as a Lord for Life on the basis of their achievement. Lord Rees for example, sits on the Science and Technology Select Committee by virtue of his expertise in the field of Astronomy and Astrophysics, having won prizes in his field and taught at Oxbridge. The idea is that if anyone has a justification to comment on Bills and suggest amendments, its the experts in the Lords rather than the Party Politicians in the Commons. Given the Lords is now made up of many Cross-Benchers, there is no longer an overall majority in the Upper House. This means that Governmnets passage through Parliament now has a hurdle in the way, called the Lords. In other words, in order for a Bill to get through the Lords, it must appeal to more than just its minority members to get through. (It is also important to note, that on issues of manifesto policy [the manifesto being the basis of which a Government is eleced] the Lords do not reject the bill. This is called the Sailsbury convention).
- Weak Powers - realistically, the Lords cannot do much in terms of Governing. Ats biggest job is scrutiny, rather than initiation of Bills. They cannot reject manifesto Bills, hence their power really only lies in the rejection of any reactionary Bills it considers or in their delaying of a Bill. Bills (most of the time) will be struck down if they are not passed by the end of the session, hence if they delay a bill it might not pass. This is really their best hand in competing with the Commons.
In reforming/replacing the Lords, the is speculation that some form of Elected Senate is the best idea if we are to have continued use of a bicameral system. However, principle questions such as "what role would it play?", "would it rival the commons?" and "On what basis to people stand for election?". The "rivalry" question is the most important, where would it fit within our constitutional framework? If it continues to the be the "upper house" and gains democratically legitimate status, surely its powers (already weak) would have to be lowered even more considerably in order to confirm its status as a subordinate. Otherwise, Bills would bounce back and forth, with potential for a Power Struggle within Westminster?
I propose therefore that we keep the Lords as it is. We continue to allow the Lords to play the supporting role it has, and continues its vital scrutiny work. In a recent Seminar (with Lord Norton) we asked the question would you retain/reform/replace/remove the House of Lords. The same question was asked across three different 12 person groups. All but 1 voted for retain.
I welcome comments/questions on the matter, and again i ask the question: Retain, Reform, Replace or Remove?
