Reappraising the House of Lords

Michael McCartney (Bradford Grammar School) considers whether it is time to reappraise the performance and reputation of the House of Lords.A printable version of this article appears in the latest edition of FPTP - tutor2u's digital magazine for AS & A2 Politics students.

It’s probably fair to say that the House of Lords is not an institution much admired by students of Politics, never mind many other people. True, respect for politicians has witnessed a steady decline in recent years. But it is the lack of accountability to the electorate via the ballot box (an argument which predates many of the scandals - such as parliamentary expenses - which have caused opinion poll figures on trust to hit an all-time low), that is the main reason why thinking about these ermine-cloaked figures seems to leave a bad taste in the mouth. By extension the lack of elected element affects the ability of the upper chamber to reflect what the public want in terms of a more balanced polity with less executive dominance.

Students might also consider the Lords as an institution to be elitist, unrepresentative of the general population (mostly old white men from privileged backgrounds), and conservative in outlook (an argument, incidentally, that is also levelled at the senior judiciary). A new book by Meg Russell from the Constitution Unit, however, suggests that these traditionally held assumptions obfuscate much of the good work it does.

Before going on to look at some of Meg Russell’s arguments, a brief précis of a few additional points on why it can be argued the Lords should be reformed.

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.

Russell argues in “The Contemporary House of Lords: Westminster Bicameralism Revived” (and the title somewhat gives the game away) that since the 1999 reforms (which as students will know were initiated by the Blair government, and involved a compromise decision to leave all but 92 of the 700-plus members who held their place as a right of birth) the Lords has become a thorn in the side of successive governments (of whatever colour/s), and can no longer therefore be regarded as a weak institution.

The statistical evidence Russell provides backs this up. Blair and Brown collectively suffered over 450 defeats and the current coalition government is approaching 80 defeats. Yes the Commons has primacy over the Lords and can overturn these defeats, but most are not. There are also many behind the scenes compromises which involve changes to legislation in the Commons, and this has effected changes in the way ministers and civil servants compose bills.

While this writer thinks the previous point is central to a reconsideration of the place of the Lords in the British constitutional landscape, Russell has also gone on record to tackle other arguments. The Lords is not as much of a warped mirror of the British population as it used to be. It contains the same percentage of women as does the Commons, has proportionately more ethnic minority members than the lower house, and better reflects the votes cast in the 2010 election. Furthermore it is unfair to think of it as a bastion of conservatism. As an example the Lords voted to support the Gay Marriage Bill (essentially by rejecting an amendment to wreck it) by a massive majority of 242 votes. Contrast this with a vote before the 1999 reforms took place which voted against a bill to equalise the age of consent (for straight and homosexual couples) by 222 to 146.

But we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, Russell argues. The most obvious reform to the Lords that should be undertaken is the removal of the small rump of hereditary peers that remain. But is an elected chamber a panacea? And is such an outcome even worth pursuing? Some readers might have well-formed ideas on this already, nevertheless the book is still worth a browse. Failing that, this website is entirely devoted to the changing role of the House of Lords: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/p...

Questions

Outline the role of the House of Lords

Use the internet to research constitutional reform further via The Constitution Unit website (a very useful source of up-to-date material).

Discuss whether further House of Lords reform is necessary. If so, what would these changes involve?