Have Prior Reforms Of The Lords Been Effective And Can Anything Further Be Done In Its Aid ?

The government does not intend to stop at this point, they have made clear their intentions to further reform the Lords. The second step of Blair’s was to implement an elected minority. To do this they have created the Royal commission, chaired by the Conservative peer Lord Wakeham. This committee was created to advise the government and make recommendations upon the Lords and its functionality and whether it could be updated to perform better. Lord Wakeham, from his report, has recommended that government supporter’s and those who wish to have a complete overhaul of the system compromise. This is due to both parties wanting different appointment methods for members of the house. Those supporting the government believe that a fully nominated house would function better, compared to those that believe a directly elected house would function better     (Lord Chancellors Department White Paper (Lords Reform, November 2001)).

If the Lords were to be fully nominated it would allow for a better starting place on authority. This authority would be provided by the members themselves as they would be bringing some form of expertise to the house, their personal opinions and beliefs would also figure predominately, again, if membership were to be nominated as well as there apparently being no dominate party in the reformed house, it would lead to fairer politically unbiased discussions views being put forth. However, a fully elected upper chamber would also have its disadvantages, first, at the moment the lords members are not full time, however, with a fully elected chamber the possibility of a full time political career would become apparent, individual knowledge and expertise may also be lost within an elected lords. Finally, comments regarding the disappearance of individuals and cross-benchers have come to light in regards to an elected house (Lord Chancellors Department White Paper (Lords Reform, November 2001)). The reformed lords, if it were to follow the commission’s recommendations, should work effectively alongside the commons, while still being able to act as both a check and balance without overpowering the lower chamber. It is also believed that even though no one party should dominate the upper house, party affiliation should still be present, these members should also echo society and be more representative.

Lord Wakeham has also made the point that regional members should be introduced to give another form of representation to the mass electorate. Lord Wakeham has noticed that as the UK continues to inevitably involve, ethnic minority religions also continue to grow in size and has stated that these will need a form of representation (Lord Chancellors Department White Paper (Lords Reform, November 2001)). The commission, therefore, has proposed that all, or at least most, should receive fair representation in the lords based upon their overall number. It has not been said how this could be implemented, however. They may find it difficult as a number of problematic areas may arise. The first is of their role, would they have political power or would it be purely an advisory function ?. Some political writers have further asked if these religious figures did have political power would they require an education of the system or other fundamental skills needed to supplement their possible role within the lords. The commission, leading on from the last point, also affirms their belief that ethnic minority’s, on the whole, should be better represented. This is possibly due to today’s diverse society requiring equal rights and representation. Again, on the issue of minority’s, it is felt that females should now play major role within the lords and command a minimum membership total. The lord, in its entire existence, has always been heavily dominated by conservatives. The Royal commission, therefore, has stated that no singular party should ever be able to dominate the lords. The Royal commission also believe that parts of its membership should consist of non political figures, for example, historians, and others who can bring their knowledge to use in any given area. The upper chambers membership can and is seen as male, upper class and entirely an older generation (Lord Chancellors Department White Paper (Lords Reform, November 2001)). The second chamber, it is believed, should not be given any new powers in regards to British constitution, but, in correspondence with the US, should be allowed to examine the law and see if it conforms to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the UK implementation Human Rights Act 1999.  Legislation will continue to be scrutinised in the lords, with the commons retaining the right to have the final say. To decrease the chance of conflicts within parliament, a joint committee will be introduced, this committee will try to help the separate chambers agree. Finally the commission believes that the method of appointment could possibly be taken from the prime minister and handed over to an entirely independent appointment body. The royal commission have argued that the power of a suspended veto should be kept, and that the power of veto should succumb to the influence of the Commons if required. In comparison to the US, the Lords should be able to scrutinise all legislation for conflicts with the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as judging upon the constitutionality of any possible legislation. The power of veto is also being discussed (Lord Chancellors Department White Paper (Lords Reform, November 2001)), It is being asked whether this should be in effect an application of delaying. A new proposed power of the House of Lords concerns the matter of secondary legislation, the recommendation of the commission is to allow powers of statutory consideration as well as the current powers of rejection or acceptance. The lords shall also be able to implement a three month delay for any statutory instrument.

An Independent Statutory Appointments Commission has been created, it has three main functions, first, it analyses the structure of the lords and allocates seats for party affiliated members on the basis of their strength via votes received. Second, this newly established commission caters for the proposed independent segment, all of these appointments and allocations will have to be, as far as possible, representative of modern society. Finally, the commission will also appoint non political members. I feel that the people, and any partisanship, within this planned ‘independent’ commission will have a significant bearing upon the lords, in general, and with its membership. This commission, however, has not made a large amount of difference with small minority that it elects as it still tends to appoint the same sort of people that were initially forced out by the Labour government through the House Of Lords Act 1999. The government proposes that membership of the lords should be, mostly, elected but that checks should be implemented to prevent future governments changing the system (Lord Chancellors Department White Paper (Lords Reform, November 2001)). The current government also believes that a Statutory Appointments Commission could act as a check on future governments by being in the position of authority in regards to appointments and seats available to each party. Taking these ideas into account, membership should consist of around 550 – 600. This will compose of 120 non partisan members who should be appointed by the aforementioned check of a Statutory Appointments Commission, a further 120 will be elected directly, 16 bishops to represent the state religion, a minimum of 12 law lords to bring a judicial element of knowledge and, finally, no more than 332 nominated members who may/will be party affiliated, and if so, their number will mirror their strength.

In conclusion, I believe that the existing administration is working hard to find a solution to the current status of the lords, whether they are doing this to benefit themselves and their own party is a different question. The reforms so far, I believe, have been effective on the surface, below however, the same issues continue to arise but on a smaller scale. After the House Of Lords Act 1999, the upper chamber still does not constitute a representative or democratic institution. Those peers that have been elected to stay, however, show that the reforms have been partially effective by claiming legitimacy and, although the conservatives still have a majority in the house, it has been reduced. Peers are also more likely to challenge the government due to this increased ‘legitimacy’, this it can be said enables the Lords to work more effectively.  

 Bibliography;

 “The Wakeham Commission Recommendations”        (09/04/2003)        

 “Lords Reform”                                (09/04/2003)        

 “Transport In Britain”                                (13/05/2003)

                                                 (07/04/2003)

 “Citizens Enquiry Factsheet – House Of Lords”        (13/04/2003)

Politics Review (volume 5, number 1, September 1995) “House of Lords)

Politics Review (volume 3, number 1, September 1993) “Constitution, Approaches To Reform”)

Politics Review (volume 1, number 2, November 1991) “Can We Get Rid Of The State”

Politics Review (volume 11, number 3, February 2002) “Reform”

Politics Review (volume 10, number 3, February 2001) “Equalising Voting Power”

The LCD White Paper “Completing the reform”                        (04/04/2003)

The New British Politics 2nd Edition, I. Budge I. Crewe D. McKay K. Newton, 2001

US Politics In Focus, E. Ashbee N. Ashford, 1999

British Politics In Focus 2nd Edition, D. Roberts, 1999