Why Has It Been Such A Problem To Reform The House Of Lords

Why has it been such a problem to reform the House of Lords? First of all, the House of Lords has grown from medieval origins, however, two distinct chambers formed during the reign of Edward III; one of course being the House of Lords and the other the House of Commons. Over the past century there has been much talk about reform within the Lords particularly with regards to the ‘fatal confusion’ between its content and function. This essay will examine why it has been such a problem to reform the House of Lords. Firstly we will separate the ideas of content and function by first looking at who sits in the House of Lords. There are several varieties of people in the House of Lords. A man or woman who is eligible to sit in the House of Lords is a person with a title who is usually considered to be vastly rich, which is sometime s the case. Firstly there are hereditary peers. These are people who are members of the aristocracy and thus are entitled to participate within the House of Lords. They have had their title passed down to them, however, under new legislation they are not allowed to pass down their title to their descendants. Indeed, in 1998 when the labour government came to power they began to remove the hereditary peers from the House of Lords, thus they barred them from sitting there. “The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, selfcontained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute…” Labour manifesto 1997. In 1998 there were originally 587 hereditary peers in the House of Lords, however, not all the hereditary peers were removed when the government reprieved 92 peers to stay. The simple process of death will eventually remove the current existing hereditary peers within the Lords. The other type of peer is that of a Life Peer. A Life Peer is a member of the UK who has been give a peerage by the government, however, their children may not inherit their title nor sit in the Lords. Any person from actors to ex-trade unionists be awarded a life peerage. This group now occupies the majority of the House of Lords with around 600 peers in it. The next group are the law lords. There are 14 of them which have recently moved from the House of Lords to the Supreme Court building. They are now called Supreme Court justices and no longer sit in the House of Lords. The final group are members the Church of England. For the last 400 years England has had a National Confession (a national church) and through this bishops of the church, 24 of them, have the right to sit in the House of Lords and have had this right since the 16th century. However, previous members of the church have chosen never to sit in the Lords, for example the present chief Rabbi, Mr. Jacobovitz. The Lords reform is a major problem within our constitution for the reason that there has been an argument going on since the turn of the 20th century. It has been 100th anniversary this year of the first major reform which the House of Lords underwent. In 1909 there was a great crisis when the House of Lords rejected the budget which David

Lloyd George’s government attempted to put through it. This budget was proposing to introduce income tax for the first time in the history of our government. When seeing this proposition the House of Lords rejected it at once, incidentally, this was the first time the Lords had ever rejected a budget. Consequently the government resigned and thus there was a general election which reduced the majority of the then Liberal government. The budget was then put forward a second time causing the government to resign and another general election to take place which the Liberals won with an even smaller majority. Upon this, the king was forced to agree on the creation of 400 new peers within the Lords. These peers were permitted to sit in the Lords for the reason that when in the Lords they would vote in favour of a reform to the powers of the House of Lords. Thus in the parliament act of 1911 the House of Lords was no longer allowed to reject money bills; any bill which the government claimed to be a money bill the Lords could not reject. As well as this, the powers of the Lords which enabled them to delay any piece of legislation were severely cut back. The Lords also have problems. For example, if a democratic system to elect Lords was introduced then the House of Lords would become a rival House a such to the commons. Next there is the issue of power. If the Lords were to have very little power then the question would be asked by many people what is the point of having them at all? On the other hand if they are to be given much power had are able to have a considerable say in legislation for example, then it the system will be called undemocratic as the members of the Lords have not been elected by the people. The end result is that it appears the House of Lords cannot win. Attempts to reform the Lords have to navigate between those two items, thus making it difficult to reform the Lords. Thus far attempts to reform the Lords have had very little progress with a variety of schemes having come to nothing. On one occasion around five years ago, the commons voted on seven separate proposals for the Lords reform with special regards to the balanced between those peers which are elected and those which are appointed. All of these proposals were rejected by the House of Commons. Perhaps the key point which makes reforming the House of Lords a problem is the fact that it is wholey undemocratic. None of the members are voted in therefore many people feel that the House of Lords should have very limited powers. This major point has held back proceedings to reform the Lords since 1909. Indeed, in 1998 when the Labour government had come to power they wanted to reform the Lords greatly. They even set up a Royal Commission under the command of Lord Wakeham in order to investigate what was to be done. However, in 2001 he stated very little of substance. He said that The Lords could either be all elected peers, or all the Lords could be appointed or a mixture of these two ideas. There are many who say that there is no role for the Lords as a second chamber. These days they have very little power within parliament and thus their powers of scrutiny are very limited. In New Zealand for example there is simply one chamber, however, the need for some kind of safeguard from the successive power of the elected chamber is clearer than ever. For example, the Welfare Reform Bill was put forward by parliament in early 1990’s, however, the House of Lords reacted in a significantly awkward way so much so that they were able to change the bill for the best when it was passed in 1999.

Therefore if the Lords strongly reject a bill then it may well be changed. As well as this the power that the Lords have to delay a bill is significant. In conclusion, the Lords face many problems on their way to a fair reform. There are different types of people within the Lords and this is always a problem, for example, hereditary peers. Through this there is always the issue of ‘should the Lords be democratic?’ The fact that some peers are not elected and those that are, are elected by the government; this causes great controversy. The Lords must also navigate between those two points of have little power and having too much power.