1. Reforming the House of Lords

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 It remains undemocratic and lacks
has a different composition 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 UK has too big a population for a
a unitary system and anyway it can unicameral system - New Zealand
only delay has less than 10 million
Scrutiny needs to be carried out by
A reformed House of Commons
a second chamber with less party
could be given more time for
control/influence and it needs
scrutiny
more time
It works efficiently in countries like
There is little support for theis
Denmark and Sweden, New
option
Zealand and Israel

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 Specialist Knowledge - Advantage of appointed 2nd
HoL would be accountable to the people – this is the Chamber = people can be chosen because they are
only basis for legitimate rule. specialists/have experience
Wider representation - 2 elected chambers would
Gridlocked Govt - Two co-equal chambers = paralysis.
widen the basis of representation (different voting
There would be rivalry between them and between
systems/terms/election dates/constituencies) =
the Executive and Parliament.
strengthen democratic process
Better Legislation - non elected basis of current HoL Complementary Chambers - 2 chambers = advantage
restricts its role as a revising chamber. If elected – because can carry out different roles - only one of
popular authority would enable it to exercise these chambers needs to be popularly elected for this
greater powers of scrutiny to work
Dangers of Partisanship - Any elected chamber will be
Checking the Commons - Only an elected body can
dominated by the Party ‘hacks’ - an appointed 2nd
properly check another elected body
chamber would have reduced partisanship
Ending Executive Tyranny - Exec dominates HoC. If
HoL = elected (especially on basis of PR) it would be Less Decisive Govt. - an elected HoL with more
more powerful/have greater authority = better authority might impede decisive Govt.
check

13. For Against
Descriptive Representation - Elected Peers might have
Elimination of any corrupt practices/cronyism in popular authority - but it would be hard to ensure
appointment of Lords that they reflected society as a whole - this could be
done through appointed Peers
Move with the times - a fully elected chamber could Voter Apathy - Too many elections might lead to voter
be changed at election time fatigue/apathy
Composition - if elected at same time as HoC and
elected on a regional basis = If this were the case it using same voting method = likely to be the same
would enable the regions to have more composition = will become a rubber stamp HOWEVER
representation if voted by different method at different time =
different composition = likely to be stalemate
Another way of seeking redress for citizens - if their Primacy? - If both chambers are democratically
‘Lord’ was democratically elected 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
Could put too much power into the
political process who would not
hands of those who appoint the
otherwise want to stand for
Lords - could lead to corruption
election
Membership could be controlled to
ensure that all major It is undemocratic and holds back
groups/associations in society are progress towards a modern system
represented
it might lack legitimacy and public
It can bring more independents
support because the people have
into the political process
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 Still undemocratic and therefore
representation would be provided lacking in legitimacy and
without losing expertise accountability
It would ensure a good
gender/ethnic mix of Lords
It would retain the primacy of the
HoC

18. 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)

19. 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.
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)

20. Homework
• Remember you owe an exam question for
Thursday (28th – same day as History Dress up
Day, I’m going as Oliver Cromwell btw)