Lords reform and the new Labour government

Labour has announced this autumn that it plans to eject the hereditaries, but will it be a panacea?

Some activities to get started...

1. Provide students with a list of key terms related to the House of Lords and hereditary peers, such as "hereditary," "reform," "peerage," and "constitution." In pairs, have them discuss the meanings of these terms and how they might relate to the proposed changes in the House of Lords. After a few minutes, ask each pair to share one term and their interpretation with the class.

2. Divide the students into small groups and ask them to brainstorm arguments for and against the abolition of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Allow them 5 minutes to note down points and then have each group present their strongest argument to the class.

3. Ask students to write down their thoughts on the statement: "Should the government be able to decide who has the right to make laws?" Give them a minute to think, then have them share their opinions with a partner, allowing a couple of minutes for discussion before inviting a few students to express their views to the entire class.

House of Lords reform is, of course, as well as being an old chestnut, is a frequent topic on exam papers.

The arguments for and against reform go something like this, and are worth examining to provide context to the most recent news, as well as reaction to it.

Arguments in favour of reforming the Lords

• Probably main argument is that the Lords as an institution is often viewed as elitist, unrepresentative of the general population (mostly old white men from privileged backgrounds), and overly conservative in outlook.
• The hereditary element: a feature shared with only one other country. Lesotho; which has 22 tribal chiefs in its Senate.
• Empirical evidence: The only other country in the world that is composed of entirely non-elected members is the Canadian Senate – itself modelled on the House of Lords. Surely that must tell you something?
• Legitimacy: An elected chamber would be more be more confident of its role in the political process, thus a stronger bulwark against the over-mighty Commons.
• Public demand: opinion polls consistently show 2/3 and above favour some elected element.
• Representation: employing a PR based voting system would enable a more accurate portrayal of support for smaller parties in our national legislature (think UKIP 2010).
• Unfinished business: after the ejection of all but 92 hereditaries, and the decamping of the Law Lords to the Supreme Court, the Lords sits untidily and contains a number of anomalies.
• But without trying to defend the indefensible, we should also consider the arguments of those in favour of preserving the status quo.

Arguments against reforming the Lords

• The current chamber works well. It is the most active chamber in the world. It sits for longer and meets more frequently than any other: Since 1999 the Lords has proved to be a useful check on the executive dominated Commons. See Meg Russell's research on this.
• It provides an antidote to the lower house as it provides the opportunity to create a chamber which contains people who have experience of something other than professional politics. A chamber with mostly appointed rather than elected legislators is not without its advantages.
• Legislative gridlock would occur. An elected chamber, granted a new sense of legitimacy would see no need to bow to the Commons.
• Problems of election excess. There are nearly 1,000 elected office holders above local level in the UK. Do we really need any more?
• On a related note, this raises concerns about the (low) quality of the new legislators – would it be stocked full of the ‘has beens’ and ‘never weres’.
• As with a clutch of other potential reforms to the constitution, there is no real public appetite for reform.
• Another problem in common with other constitutional reform proposals is the lack of consensus on the issue. Size, method and timing of elections, etc.
• Introducing elections would be no panacea. Voters in countries with elected second chambers, such as the USA, are not over the moon with the job they perform.

Read this article from the Guardian and consider the following questions.

Questions:
1. What historical reforms were made by Tony Blair's government regarding hereditary peers in the House of Lords?
2. Why have campaigners long called for an overhaul of the system involving hereditary peers in the upper chamber?
3. How will the proposed bill impact the composition of the House of Lords, particularly concerning the earl marshal and lord great chamberlain?
4. According to Nick Thomas-Symonds, why is it considered necessary to remove the hereditary principle from law-making in modern Britain?
5. What commitments has Labour made regarding the future of the House of Lords as outlined in their manifesto?
6. How has the government sought to increase its representation in the House of Lords through recent appointments?
7. In what ways does the current composition of the House of Lords differ from that of the House of Commons?

Correct answers:
1. Tony Blair's government revoked the 700-year-old right of all hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords in 1999, allowing only 92 elected members to remain until further reforms could be implemented.
2. Campaigners have called for an overhaul of the system involving hereditary peers due to concerns about the lack of diversity among the remaining 92 white male peers, who are on average nearly 70 years old.
3. The proposed bill will result in the removal of all hereditary peers, including the earl marshal and lord great chamberlain, from the House of Lords.
4. Nick Thomas-Symonds believes that removing the hereditary principle from law-making is essential because people should not be voting on laws based on their birth status, which is out of step with modern Britain.
5. Labour has committed to introducing a retirement age of 80 for life peers, reducing the size of the House of Lords to match that of the House of Commons, and ultimately replacing the Lords with a more representative second chamber.
6. The government has appointed new life peers, such as James Timpson and Patrick Vallance, to bolster its numbers in the House of Lords and fill ministerial positions.
7. The House of Lords consists of appointed life peers, archbishops, bishops, and hereditary peers, while the House of Commons has elected MPs. The Lords currently has around 800 members, whereas the Commons has 650 elected representatives.

But some people, including some who actually sit in the upper house have expressed concerns. See here for example.

And some questions on this article...

Questions:
1. Why does the author believe there is no place for hereditary peers in the House of Lords?
2. How does the author describe the process by which hereditary UK peers may sit in the House of Lords?
3. What surprising observations did the author make about some hereditary peers once appointed to the House of Lords?
4. Can you explain how individual hereditary peers influenced government action on the issue of sewage, as mentioned in the text?
5. What is the author's stance on the reform proposed by Labour regarding hereditary peers in the House of Lords?
6. Why does the author question the focus on removing hereditary peers while leaving other aspects of the House of Lords untouched?
7. In what ways does the author suggest the current system of appointing peers could be open to exploitation and corruption?

Correct answers:
1. The author believes that hereditary peers represent parliament's feudal roots and symbolize a past where a select group of people were born to rule.
2. Hereditary UK peers can sit in the House of Lords through a limited democratic process involving ballots within the House to vote them in.
3. Some surprising observations made by the author include the diversity of backgrounds among hereditary peers, with actors, computer technicians, and artists being part of this group.
4. Individual hereditary peers, such as the Duke of Wellington, played a crucial role in influencing government action on issues like sewage dumping into rivers, leading to significant changes.
5. The author supports the idea of a wholly elected second chamber but questions the effectiveness of focusing solely on removing hereditary peers without addressing other issues like prime ministerial patronage.
6. The author raises concerns about the potential exploitation and corruption in the system of peerage appointments, highlighting the need for broader reforms beyond just removing hereditary peers.
7. The author suggests that the current system of appointing peers could be exploited by prime ministers giving titles to party donors or those who have provided political favours, leading to a lack of true representation and accountability in the House of Lords.

Exam style question

Evaluate the view that the House of Lords has no place in a modern democracy