2. Learning Objectives
• To understand the reforms implemented
under Tony Blair
• To understand the reforms implemented
under Gordon Brown
• To understand the reforms proposed under
the Coalition
3. The House of Lords
• Probably the most debated aspect of
parliamentary reform is that of the House of
Lords, which remains a totally non-elected
second chamber.
• What changes have been introduced so far
and what are the main arguments surrounding
the second chamber becoming elected or
partially elected?
4. Reforms so far…
• The Labour Party has long called for reform of the
House of Lords. Labour MPs particularly have
resented their legitimate authority being
challenged by non-elected peers who are
accountable to no one.
• The Blair government moved to cut the number
of hereditary peers down to 92 as part of a
reform bill introduced in 1999, but many Labour
backbenchers expected much swifter and more
decisive measures and were disappointed by the
governments response.
5. Future plans for the House of Lords
• Stalling of Reforms
• Criticisms of the Lords Reforms
• Should the Lords be elected?
• Abolishing the second chamber
• The Coalition & the HofL
6. Options for Reform
• Why is reform still necessary?
• Reforms stalled after stage 1 – House of Lords
is still undemocratic and lacks authority
No Change
Remove the House of Lords
An All Elected Chamber
An All Appointed Chamber
Partly Appointed-Partly Elected Chamber
7. No Change
Those who advocate no change argue that the
House of Lords has proved to be effective as it is
(see list of recent action) - it would be unwise to
make reforms which may have unknown
consequences.
Those who argue against this point to the fact
that the HoL is unrepresentative and it is no
longer tolerable to have such an undemocratic
institution legislating in this modern age.
8. For Against
The current HoL compliments the HoC as it
has a different composition
It remains undemocratic and lacks
legitimacy and accountability
The expertise and experience in the HoL is
essential for scrutiny
There is less party influence - this is crucial for
scrutiny
The problem if it were elected at general
election time under same voting system =
likely to have same composition = no conflict
and would become a rubber stamping
institution HOWEVER if elected at a different
time with a different system = likely to be
stalemate because both houses have
democratic legitimacy
9. Remove the House of Lords
• It would be possible to remove the HoL
altogether and to have a Unicameral system
as they do in Denmark and in New Zealand.
• The House of Commons has already
demonstrated that they are not in favour of
a unicameral system (2007 votes = majority
of 253 in favour of retaining a second
chamber.
10. For Against
A second chamber is not needed in
a unitary system and anyway it can
only delay
UK has too big a population for a
unicameral system - New Zealand
has less than 10 million
A reformed House of Commons
could be given more time for
scrutiny
Scrutiny needs to be carried out by
a second chamber with less party
control/influence and it needs
more time
It works efficiently in countries like
Denmark and Sweden, New
Zealand and Israel
There is little support for theis
option
11. An All Elected Chamber
• Those that argue for a fully elected chamber
point to the fact that this would be democratic
and therefore more accountable. It would act
as a more effective check on the Executive
• Those who argue against it state that the new
HoL might simply mirror the HoC and therefore
it would serve no purpose - if a Govt. had a
majority in both houses it would have far too
much power.
12. For Against
Democratic legitimacy - it would be more
democratic -It is the only way to guarantee that the
HoL would be accountable to the people – this is the
only basis for legitimate rule.
Specialist Knowledge - Advantage of appointed 2nd
Chamber = people can be chosen because they are
specialists/have experience
Wider representation - 2 elected chambers would
widen the basis of representation (different voting
systems/terms/election dates/constituencies) =
strengthen democratic process
Gridlocked Govt - Two co-equal chambers = paralysis.
There would be rivalry between them and between
the Executive and Parliament.
Better Legislation - non elected basis of current HoL
restricts its role as a revising chamber. If elected –
popular authority would enable it to exercise
greater powers of scrutiny
Complementary Chambers - 2 chambers = advantage
because can carry out different roles - only one of
these chambers needs to be popularly elected for this
to work
Checking the Commons - Only an elected body can
properly check another elected body
Dangers of Partisanship - Any elected chamber will be
dominated by the Party ‘hacks’ - an appointed 2nd
chamber would have reduced partisanship
Ending Executive Tyranny - Exec dominates HoC. If
HoL = elected (especially on basis of PR) it would be
more powerful/have greater authority = better
check
Less Decisive Govt. - an elected HoL with more
authority might impede decisive Govt.
13. For Against
Elimination of any corrupt practices/cronyism in
appointment of Lords
Descriptive Representation - Elected Peers might have
popular authority - but it would be hard to ensure
that they reflected society as a whole - this could be
done through appointed Peers
Move with the times - a fully elected chamber could
be changed at election time
Voter Apathy - Too many elections might lead to voter
fatigue/apathy
elected on a regional basis = If this were the case it
would enable the regions to have more
representation
Composition - if elected at same time as HoC and
using same voting method = likely to be the same
composition = will become a rubber stamp HOWEVER
if voted by different method at different time =
different composition = likely to be stalemate
Another way of seeking redress for citizens - if their
‘Lord’ was democratically elected
Primacy? - If both chambers are democratically
elected - which takes primacy?
More Responsive to public mood - therefore may
increase public support for the govt. and faith in our
system after recent scandals
14. An All Appointed Chamber
• Those who favour this option argue that it
would help to bring high quality members
into the legislative process and avoid giving
too much power to the second chamber (as
this would obstruct effective government)
• Those who argue against this option state
that it would merely preserve the
undemocratic nature of the HoL and would
also extend the patronage of party leaders
15. For Against
Opportunity to bring people into
political process who would not
otherwise want to stand for
election
Could put too much power into the
hands of those who appoint the
Lords - could lead to corruption
Membership could be controlled to
ensure that all major
groups/associations in society are
represented
It is undemocratic and holds back
progress towards a modern system
It can bring more independents
into the political process
it might lack legitimacy and public
support because the people have
no part in its composition
16. Partly Appointed-Partly Elected
Chamber
• Those who argue for this option claim that
it would combine the advantages of the
two systems
• Those who argue against it state that it
would only be a compromise - the system
would be only partially democratic and it
would reserve the power of patronage
17. For Against
Legitimacy and democratic
representation would be provided
without losing expertise
Still undemocratic and therefore
lacking in legitimacy and
accountability
It would ensure a good
gender/ethnic mix of Lords
It would retain the primacy of the
HoC
18. Q2 Parliament
White Paper on reform of the House of Lords
This White Paper sets out the government’s proposals for a reformed second chamber of the UK
Parliament. The proposals are based on the House of Commons votes for an 80% or 100%
elected second chamber and follow cross-party talks on how this could be achieved. The White
Paper makes proposals for reform in a number of areas:
Role and composition
The House of Lords plays a valuable role in holding the government to account and revising
legislation. The reforms would strengthen those roles and make the second chamber more
accountable. The House of Commons would continue to be the
primary chamber in the UK legislature.
Membership of the chamber
The proposed reforms would create a second chamber with directly elected members, which
would be smaller than the House of Commons. The remaining rights of hereditary peers to sit
and vote in the second chamber would be removed.
Powers of the new chamber
The government proposes no changes to the powers of a reformed second chamber.
The possible role of appointed members to ensure independence
If it is decided that there should be a 20% appointed element, the government proposes that its
key purpose would be to provide a significant independent element in the second chamber. A
statutory appointments commission would seek nominations and applications for membership.
The government is also proposing changes to the arrangements for eligibility, remuneration and
accountability.
Source: White Paper, An Elected Second Chamber, July 14, 2008.
19. EXAM FOCUS
Question 2: Parliament
a) With reference to the source, what changes
to the second chamber are proposed? (5)
b) With reference to the source, and your own
knowledge, explain the arguments for a fully
or partly elected second chamber. (10)
c) Make out a case against an elected second
chamber. (25)
(Total for Question 2 = 40 marks)
