Reform of the House of Lords has been a topic which politicians have discussed for generations. The main reason behind this desire for reform has been the undemocratic position of the House as it is appointed (and was previously based on a hereditary system) as opposed to being elected. As a scrutinising Upper House which can delay legislation, the House of Lords has no elected members and it is this lack of legitimacy and accountability which causes problems. Democratic instinct is what prompts suggestions that the House of Lords should be elected. By looking at Europe and the USA it can be seen that the majority of other democratic countries elect; either in-directly or directly; their Upper House.
The democratic elections of members’ of the House of Lords would results in the eradication of its’ legitimacy and accountability. Another advantage to this is that the Upper House is likely to be rejuvenated by this legitimacy and have more confidence in delaying legislation and using its full powers, thus ensuring that it is carrying out its functions effectively. By electing the House of Lords democratically the advantages would be two fold, the legitimacy of the House would be ensured and the effectiveness of the House as a check on Parliament’s power would also be enhanced.
Until the 1999 reform the composition of the House of Lords has been traditionally dominated by Conservative Party supporters. The reform reduced the domination by the Conservative Party although it remains the largest Party in the House of Lords with 232 members of the House of Lords declared as Conservatives. This problem of Conservative dominance while diminishing due to reform will be totally eradicated if the House of Lords was elected. The problem having been that the Conservative shave a historic dominance in the House of Lords whereas if the House of Lords was elected, the public, directly or indirectly, would be deciding who will be representing them in the Upper House and no party will become dominant unless that is the wish of the public. Having examined the main problems which an elected House of Lords would solve the problems which it might then create are discussed.
As has been stated many government’s have battled with the idea of reforming the House of Lords and while it’s powers have been somewhat reduced and the majority of hereditary peers are now gone, the reform has been very sporadic. In fact, the reform has often only been in response to the House of Lords reacting against the government on important points of legislation. This reluctance to reform is due to the inherent difficulties associated with reforming this body. The largest problem facing the House of Lords as it stands today is the inconsistency between the UK as a democratic country and the House of Lords as an unelected, unaccountable second chamber with judicial, legislative, scrutinising and debating functions. However, when faced with replacing the now primarily, appointed House of Lords with an elected chamber a number of problems arise.
If the House of Lords is to be directly elected the immediate problem which surfaces is that this new legitimate and accountable body could challenge the House of Commons and alter irrevocably the balance of power. If the House of Commons were trying to pass legislation that the House of Lords did not agree with and both bodies were directly elected it is very difficult to see which body would take precedence. Bearing in mind that the House of Lords is the Upper Chamber which is supposed to have more experience and the age limits are likely to be higher. However, the Lower Chamber the House of Commons contains the Government of the day and is supposed to be the supreme governing body. The Upper House would have to have its powers clearly defined in order to prevent a constitutional crisis.
Following on from this problem of overlapping powers is the problem of party allegiance and the issue of political balance. While an elected house solves the problem of the historical Conservative Party influence in the House of Lords it creates two possible problems as a result of the political allegiance of the newly elected members. The first scenario is that the House of Lords may have a strong majority of members in favour of the Government of the day which may result in a second chamber which authorises legislation as a matter of course as opposed to scrutinising the work of the Government. Alternatively the opposite scenario may occur where the majority in the House of Lords may be against the Government of the day and the House of Lords may try and wield power in order to frustrate the Government. It is clear that while a directly elected House of Lords removes the most important problems relating to democracy of the Upper Chamber it does so at a price. The problems that it creates are equally as difficult to solve and by looking at in-direct elections of the House of Lords it can be seen that there is no easy fix for reforming the House of Lords.
An in-directly elected House of Lords would solve one of the most obvious problems posed by a directly elected House, the question of supremacy between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. While enjoying the democratic legitimacy gained through in-direct elections, the House would be less reflective of the will of the electorate, and because of this the House of Lords would not have the power to threaten the supremacy of Parliament. However, this solution was not recommended by the Wakeman Commission as there were other problems created by it.
An indirectly elected House of Lords would create a problem from its very being. With devolution in the UK it would be very difficult to come up with a workable system for electing members that would suit everyone. A number of questions would have to be answered:
- Would members of the devolved institutions have time to work in the Upper House?
- Would local government representatives have the required skills or time to work in the Upper House?
- How would England organise its in-directly elected representatives given that it has no devolved system at present?
These questions would all prove remarkably difficult to answer and are likely to in the long run pose more problems than they would solve.
Having an elected House of Lords; either directly or indirectly; does solve two important problems that have been in the British Constitution for a very long time. However, it also poses further problems which may outweigh the benefits of changing the system at the present time. As has been seen over the 20th Century successive government’s have tried and failed to fully reform the House of Lords. There is a fear factor here, as by making the House of Lords more legitimate the House of Commons is effectively opening itself up to questioning over its powers. It is for this reason that I believe that the House of Lords will not be elected now or in the future as it poses more problems than it actually solves.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barnett , Constitutional and Administrative Law, Cavendish, 4th Ed 2002
Bradley and Ewing, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Longman, 13th Ed 2002
Russell M, Reforming the House of Lords, Oxford University Press, 2000
Lord Wakeman, Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, , Royal Commission, Hansard, 2000
Labour Party Manifesto, Millbank Tower, 1997
Reform of the House of Lords, The Constitution Unit, 1997
The House of Lords – Completing the Reform, www.led.gov.uk/constitution/holref/holreform.htm
Public Law of UK and Scotland
Essay: Would replacing the House of Lords with an elected chamber create more problems than it would solve?
Karen Forbes
S0232546
Dr Jill Stavert
Monday 12-1pm
Labour Party Manifesto 1997, Millbank Tower.
Russell. M. Reforming the House of Lords, Oxford University Press, 2000
Bradley and Ewing, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 13th ED, Longman 2002
Barnett, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 4th Ed, Cavendish, 2002
The Constitution Unit, Reform of the House of Lords, 1997
Lord Wakeman, Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, Hansard, 2000
