House Of Lords Reform - What did the 1999 act reforming the lords do, and how was it passed?

Authors Avatar

Jasper Chandel

House Of Lords Reform

(a) What did the 1999 act reforming the lords do, and how was it passed?

The formation act of the lords in 1999 was an act to get rid of hereditary peers from the House of Lords. The hereditary peers were the lords who inherited their place in the House of Commons from their fathers who were lords before them. The 1999 act indeed did get rid of all except for 92 hereditary peers, whom were decided by an election within the House.

Immediately, it could be seen that this act would be difficult to pass because it would have had to gone through the House of Lords and thus the Lords would not vote themselves out of their own titles - they would not commit political suicide and thus a "deal" was created with Lord Cramborne and the labour party. This deal done with the conservative behind William Hague's back. The deal was that 92 hereditary peers would be left in the House of Lords, and Lord Cramborne agreed to this deal because he knew the act would go through and he then tried to save himself, and as many other possible lords from being

Edged out.

(b) Why, and with what justification, was the pre-1999 House of Lords thought inadequate?

The House of Lords is the second chamber in the bi-cameral system in the UK. The Lords works with the Commons to pass bills and legislation - complementing the work of the Commons. This is why the Lords has to be seen as unbiased because they revise legislation for the good of the people. Before the 1999 act, Labour however deemed the Lords to be politically biased towards the conservatives because nearly all of the hereditary peers were Conservatives. This had to have been mostly true because Labour do not believe in inheriting titles. This is Labours argument to the political inequality in the Lords.

There were 26 Bishops from the Church of England whom were Lords. This seemed to be an over-representation of a largely secular, diverse society which has many religions, not just of the church of England denomination. Also the fact that Landowners/agricultural community were dominant in the lords. This seems to be an over-representation.

The amount of hereditary peers was thought to be inadequate particularly by the Labour party. 64% of the Lords in the house were in fact hereditary peers. This was thought to be inadequate because these Lords had inherited the title from their fathers and they may know little to do with being part of the second chamber. Just because their father was a lord, it does not necessarily make the inherited lords any good at doing the job.  Also, the life peers may have been very old and thus could mean that many of the life peers could not attend the House. This can be linked to low attendances of the House of Lords which has remained inconsistent after the life peerages act in 1958.

Join now!

However, on the other hand, the Lords could have been seen as a good second chamber who would complement the work of the lords. The Lords can be described as "upper class" which could suggest experience. For example, even though the lords were grossly over-represented by landowners/farmers, there were still members from many leading professions such as industry, law, Civil service, Military whom could provide their experience in their field which would contribute to the revision of legislation. This also means that if they were professionals, they would not be politicians, which might get rid of the idea of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay