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 political biased. In the Lords, the low attendance meant that the conservatives didn’t actually have a majority in the lords of the regular attendees. This can be seen in the Thatcher and Major reign where the Conservatives were rejected around 100 times. If there were a majority for the conservatives in the lords, then the rejections would not have been as much but would in fact be lower. This idea can also be linked with the Salisbury Doctrine, which meant that the Lords could not reject or defeat bills passed by the government if the bill was in the governments manifesto. This means that even if there was a majority for a party, it would not make that much of a difference because of the doctrine- bills would only be rejected if seen as radical or unfair.
Hereditary peers and life peers are obviously Lords for as long as they live. This means that the peers, both hereditary and life could not be deselected under the Life peerage acts of 1958. If the peers were part of a political party or followed a certain ideology, then if they were to disagree with that party's policy, then the peers could not be deselected or forced out of a job like MP's can under party whip systems. This means that Lords are not actually subject to party whips and therefore can choose to agree or disagree with a party freely without the possibility or deselection. This could get rid of the idea of Lords being biased because they don’t have to be. Their choice does not make them commit political suicide.
There could also be the argument of inadequacy with the clashes between the govt and the Lords. There have been clashes over issues such as fox hunting where the lords rejected the ban, the infamous section 28 were the lords rejected the repeal of section 28, and the privatisation of air traffic control 2000. These clashes imply that the lords are just not willing to come to conclusions with the government, and thus could be seen as not complementing the work of the parliament, but contradicting it.
(c) How satisfactory were the recommendations of the Wakeham commission for stage 2 of the Lords reform?
First of all, I will have to discuss what the Wakeham Proposals actually were and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of them. The proposals detail quotas for religious lords and judicial lords, partially elected lords and how the elections for the partially elected lords would occur.
Partially elected lords in theory would make the Lords partly legitimate and represented for the people, but it would not be legitimate enough to challenge the supremacy of the lords. But the question is, will a partially elected lords be legitimate, or partially legitimate? There would be elected lords and appointed lords and problems could arise in the idea that some of the Lords would be legitimate and others wouldn’t.
There is another "con" with the idea of a partially elected lords would be that there is already the House of Commons which is elected, why have a second chamber which is elected? The Lords could start to reject more because they can argue that they are legitimate and thus can undermine the work of the lords.
If the lords is partially elected, then the elected members would have to be part of a party, and would thus be subject to party whips. The lords is not meant to be a duplication of the Commons, but an elected lords, so be it partially, is leading to that duplication.
In the Wakeham proposals, there are three electoral methods, each with a different amount of elected lords.
The first would consist of 65 elected members which would be voted on general election day under the closed list system. The regions would vote for the party who put forward the members. The second and third method would be under open list systems for 87 and 195 members respectively. These methods are based on regions and larger constituencies. The lords elected would sit in the house for 3 poling cycles (3 governments). This could be seen as an advantage because it means the maximum a Lord can sit in the house is 15 years, which means the Lords would build up on experience, and for people elected for long periods, independence would occur, and there would be a decrease in the power of the whip.
The proposals plan to give the lords no extra power but say the lords can delay legislation for 3 months. The Lords don’t use their current delaying power of 1 year and it is hoped that a 3-month delay would encourage the lords to use it more.
The proposals also include the idea of an appointments commission. This means that the power to nominate peers would be taken off the Prime Minister and given to an independent appointments commission. This can be seen as an advantage because it removes a possible biased towards the PM appointing peers. The PM could just appoint peers who would support him and agree with his policies. The independent appointments commission would appoint peers to suit the House of Lords instead of a party.
The Quota's introduced by the Wakeham proposals are that 20% of the lords should be back-bencher this can be seen as an advantage because it means that no party would have an overwhelming majority and this would in turn leave little bias in the lords. There was the quota for at least 30% men and 30% women. There would be 16 Church of England Bishops, 5 from other English Christian denominations, 5 from other non-Christian religions, and 5 Christian representatives from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This can be viewed as more culturally represented because there would be religious reps from Christians and non-Christians which represent a multi-cultural society.
There are also 12 judges included in the proposal. This can be seen as advantage and a disadvantage. An advantage because the judges could provide legal expertise to the Lords. It is a disadvantage because it could lead to the judges becoming politically biased, which as the judicial, is meant to stay completely politically independent.
In Conclusion, I think that the Wakeham proposals is a good way for possible reformation of the lords because it is looking towards the future- to provide a completely unbiased House of Lords which is full of experience from all professions. Because it would be partially elected, the lords would be more represented and by getting rid of the peers, the lords would be more updated.
The Political parties however have different views of reformations. The Conservatives want an upper house of 300, in which 240 (80%) would be elected and the other 20% would be appointed. The Conservatives think that the elected lords would be elected by First Past The Post by 80 county constituencies to serve for 3 poling sessions. The independent appointments commissions should appoint the 20 % lords. The Judges and the bishops would be retained but the Lords would have no extra powers.
The Lib Dems believe that a senate of 100 should be the upper house which would all be elected by the PR system. The lords would be elected for 6 year periods. They think that the lords delaying power should be changed from 1 year to 2 years.
Labour's Lord Irvine created the govt. white paper. This was their views for the lords. There should be a chamber of 600 where 20% is elected, 20 % would be cross benchers, a max of 55% would be appointed by powers to reflect the results of the general election. The Bishops and the judges should be retained.
Many Labour members thought that the white paper was unfair- there needs to be more elected- around 40-50%. The Got. Then agreed to set up a joint select committee of lords and commons to suggest proposals for lord's reform. The MP's would then get a free vote. The conservatives, I think, have only created their view of the reform of the lords to point score over labour. Because there is little point in having an 80% elected secondary house which is legitimate without giving them any extra powers- there is little point.