Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

House of Lords, elected v. appointed
Section I. United Kingdom issues

The House of Lords began as a second chamber for hereditary peers which had the power to veto bills coming to it from the House of Commons. The Parliament Act of 1911 removed the power to veto and replaced it with the power to delay a bill. This established the ultimate sovereignty of the House of Commons. In 1958, life peers were created in addition to hereditary ones. These appointments are made by the government of the day to senior representatives of politics, business and other areas of society. There are also 26 Lords Spiritual who are bishops of the Church of England. The setting up of the Supreme Court in 2009 ended the position of Law Lords (which had existed when the House of Lords was the highest court in the land). The Blair government started the process of reforming the House of Lords by removing almost all of the hereditary peers and replacing them with life peers.Tony Blair’s government, however, was divided about how to finish these reforms. Should the House of Lords eventually be fully elected, fully appointed by an independent commission or a mixture of the two? This article looks at the arguments for a fully elected versus a fully appointed chamber.There is also a related debate about whether to abolish the second chamber completely.

Pros (elected)

[1] There is no place in the twenty-first century for any system other than a democratically elected chamber. This would bring Britain into line with other democratic nations and would also be consistent with other changes that Britain has recently made, such as elected mayors, elected police chiefs, etc. An appointed House is not that much better than a hereditary one, as it is still elitist and leads to cronyism.

[2] An elected House of Lords would also be more accountable as the members would be representing constituents. This gives a voice to the public, whereas an appointed peer only has to represent their own views. Why should their voice count more than anybody else’s? And why should the public have no mechanism to remove that peer if they disagree with the views espoused? If there is a link between the Lords and the public, then you have a more participative democracy.

[3] An elected chamber would be more representative and less elitist. Appointments of the great and mighty perpetuate social inequalities and lead to an ageing, white, male, privileged majority.

[4] An elected House could better perform its function as a constitutional check on the Commons and the government of the day. This is true for two reasons: first, it would have more of a mandate which would give it authority and more teeth with which to stand up to the lower house; and second, it would give it greater independence as the government would appoint the commission that appoints the Lords; this would give the government an influence over the body that is supposed to be a check on the Lords.

Cons (appointed)

[1] The second chamber has less power than the House of Commons as it can only scrutinise, suggest amendments and delay legislation. A democratic system is not therefore required and in fact could be problematic — why should they not have an equal voice if they have been elected too? Our system is based on the sovereignty of the House of Commons and this could undermine that. Democracy is better served through allowing the supremacy of an elected chamber that is scrutinised by an appointed one.

[2] The Lords provide invaluable expertise in the committee stages and debates on legislation. They are leaders in business, science and technology, the arts, religion, education and politics. They provide a wider range of views than another chamber full of career politicians would. They are also free to be more independent because the party whip is less strong and they can choose to be cross-benchers affiliated to no party. The security of tenure that comes with the lack of elections also means that experience and wisdom are kept and that the peers can be more principled and outspoken.

[3] A chamber that is more representative of the public may be achieved more effectively through appointment than through elections. An independent commission could have as part of its mandate to be inclusive of gender, race and economic background. It is very difficult to achieve social engineering through the electoral system as the make-up of the House of Commons shows.

[4] An elected chamber would not perform the effective check on the House of Commons we would wish it to. One of two things can happen: either the same party controls both houses, in which case the second chamber simply rubberstamps the first without the rigorous scrutiny we want; or different parties control the two chambers which can lead to the gridlock that we see in the USA when different parties hold the presidency and a majority in Congress. This would prevent the Commons from governing effectively with the mandate it has been given.

Possible motions

This House would elect the Second Chamber.

This House would support a fully appointed House of Lords.

Related topics

Democracy

Marxism

Judges, election of

Monarchy, abolition of