Zusammenfassung der Ressource
(14) Reforming the
House of Lords
- The House of Lords
NEEDS reform
- Majority of peers sat in the
HoL on the basis of heredity
- Exhibited a strong & consistent
bias towards the Conservative party
- What reform has
already taken place?
- House of Lords
Act 1999
- compromise was made to enable this to pass,
whereby a percentage of hereditary peers would
be allowed to remain until ‘Stage Two’ –
REDUCED FROM 777 TO 92.
- Appointment of more Labour life peers put
an end to Conservative dominance.
- Why hasn’t further
reform taken place?
- Stage Two proved difficult
- Declining interest in Labour to
press for further reform
- New assertiveness of partially reformed Lords
made some ministers anxious about a partially
or wholly elected second-chamber.
- Disagreement about the nature
of the chamber has continued
- What progress has
been made?
- 2007 vote demonstrated that
there was a general
consensus for bicameralism
- Support for its abolition leading to
a one-chamber parliament has
been discarded
- Debate continues:
- Composition of the
second-chamber (appointed,
elected or a combination of two)
- Powers – restriction due to non-elected status
– if elected, it could demand/expect wider
power (if not equality with the first chamber)
- Arguments for an
elected chamber
- Benefits of democracy – legitimate
basis for exercising political power is
success in free and fair elections
- Benefits of full bicameralism – a more
powerful chamber with popular authority
is a way to prevent ‘elective dictatorship’
- For Elected
- Check and Balances
- Checking the Commons - elected chamber can properly check another
elected chamber. The Commons alone has popular authority, the second
chamber will defer to the first. Bicameralism requires two equal chambers
- Better legislation - currently a "revising chamber" to
clean up bills. Popular authority would encourage
greater power of legislative oversight and scrutiny
- Ending executive tyranny - exeutive dominates Parliament through
majority in Commons so the only way of checking government is
though democratic or more powerful second chamber
- Increasing Democracy
- Democratic legitimacy - policy-making
institutions must be based on popular consent,
determined through competitive elections
- Wider representaion - Strengthens democratic
process through possible different election dates,
terms, different eelction systems or constituencies
- Arguments for an
appointed chamber
- An appointed chamber could have
greater expertise & specialist
knowledge than the first chamber
- Partial bicameralism has benefits in that it makes
clashes between the two chambers less likely & does not
lead to confusion about the location of popular authority.
- For Appointed
- Power issues
- Gridlock government - two-equal chambers could lead to government paralysis, caused by
institutionalised rivalary between both chambers, and the executive and parliament. This is more
likely to occur if chambers are elected at different times, or with different electoral systems.
- Complementary chambers - Two chambers means two different roles
and fuction are served. As a revising chamber, the HoL compliments
the HoC. Only one chamber needs to express popular authority
- Use of Knoledge
- Specialisted Knoledge - peers selected on their expperience,
expertise and specialisted knowledge. Election politicans
may only be very good at public speaking and campaigning
- Damgers of partisanship - Any elected chamber will be dominsted
by party "hacks" like the HoC, who rely on party to get electe.
Appointments have reduced partisanship, allowing peers to think for
themselves
- Greater representation
- Descriptive repersentative - elected peers may have popular authority,
but difficult to ensure they resemble larger society as the Commons
does. Structured appointments take account of group representation