After a century of failed attempts at root and branch reform of the House of Lords, the new Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition is committed to major reforms for the Westminster Parliament's second chamber. However, although some measure of consensus appears to be emerging, there are still significant areas of disagreement. Which of the options for reforming Westminster's Upper House might prevail is still unclear, and disagreements over detail could yet frustrate this most longstanding issue in British constitutional reform.
The History of House of Lords Reform
Historically, the House of Lords genuinely the Upper Chamber of Parliament, with the House of Commons playing a lesser role. Over the centuries the powers of the Lords were steadily eroded, until in the 19th Century the House of Commons became indisputably the more powerful body. This was formally confirmed by the Parliament Act of 1911 which effectively removed the Lords' powers to reject legislation, and severely curtailed their delaying powers.
The then Liberal Government wished to go further, intending complete abolition of the House of Lords, but more pressing issues, and then World War I intervened.
Over the subsequent century, successive reforms have radically changed the composition of the Upper Chamber of Parliament, most notably by:
- The introduction of Life Peers, including the first women Peers by a Conservative government in 1958, and;
- The removal of the right of most hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House, leaving just 92 hereditary Peers, elected by their fellows, to vote alongside the Life Peers. This subsequently led to (not entirely) tongue in cheek claims that these hereditary Peers, by virtue of their election, could claim democratic legitimacy over the nominated Life Peers.
On these and many other occasions, attempts by governments of all Parties to carry out more root and branch reform of the composition, role and powers of the Second Chamber were frustrated by the lack of a general consensus across, or even within, Parties.
More about the history of House of Lords reform.
Areas of Consensus and Disagreement on Reforming the House of Lords
Although the Labour Party flirted with the abolition of the House of Lords in the 970s and 1980s, they abandoned this policy in 1992. Nevertheless, a significant minority of the electorate and of Members of Parliament, principally in the Labour Party, still favour abolition.
At the other end of the spectrum, there is also a fairly substantial minority who argue against any further change on the grounds that the present Upper House:
- Is sufficiently independent, with its large cross bench group, to function well in making government reconsider hasty or unpopular legislation.
- Contains the expertise to be effective in the detailed scrutiny of legislation.
- Being non-elected, is unable to legitimately challenge the supremacy of the House of Commons.
These extreme views apart, there is now broad cross party consensus that:
- There is a need for a Second Chamber.
- That Chamber should not be seen as a rival to the House of Commons.
- Its role and powers should remain broadly as they have evolved, being restricted essentially to scrutinising and amending legislation.
- The reformed House should partly or wholly elected, by a system different to that used for the House of Commons, almost certainly using a proportional representation system.
- No Party should have a built in majority in the reformed House.
The main areas of disagreement within Parliament centre upon:
- The ratio of elected to nominated members. A substantial minority of MPs still support a fully elected House and that is current policy of the Liberal democrats.
- The form of election for elected members.
- The mechanism for nominating any non-elected members.
- The tenure and payment of members.
Options for Reforming the House of Lords
In the light of these areas of agreement and disagreement, the four possible options and their likelihood of acceptance are:
- Abolition. This can at present be virtually discounted.
- No Change. This appears to be extremely unlikely, but the issue could yet again be shelved if no agreement on any other solution can be reached, or if "events" intervene.
- A Fully Elected Second Chamber. Possible but improbable.
- A Part Elected, Part Nominated Second Chamber. The most likely solution, but the devil is in the detail, and its is the detail that has often frustrated earlier attempts at reform.
The future of the House of Lords is therefore by no means certain, and each of these options has its advantages and disadvantages.
Information on Other Constitutional Reform Issues
A number of other constitutional reform issues face the Cameron Clegg coalition.
Tony Allen - In 2004 I began my "fourth career" as a freelance writer. In my first career, after training at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, I ...
