Why change we'll only end up with the same system under a different name (Should the House of Lords be abolished?)

Member Name: Mick-Gray

Product:	Should the House of Lords be abolished?
Date:	08/05/01 (75 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: None

Disadvantages: see opinion

Most people seem to agree that it is most important that we retain a second chamber in this country as part of our legislative system. The issue that is in contention is the composition of the house and how its members should be appointed.

Before I go into the issues above let us consider why we need a second house, the House of Lords apart from being part of the legislature is also the highest court in the land when it comes to appeals. The court of appeal consists of twelve Law Lords drawn from the most eminent of our judiciary, they are totally independent from the government and are paid such salaries as would enable them to be virtually incorruptible. They also sit in the House of Lords and vote on legislation presented to them. This court of appeal could of course be divorced from the Lord’s altogether and sit purely as a high court of appeal and so are not necessary to the make up of a second chamber. The second chamber is a necessity to keep a check on the government of the day and for that reason alone they can justify their existence.

Consider the present situation in government where one party has a vast majority in the house and looks like continuing this majority, or even increasing it for a further term of office. Without a second chamber to debate, amend or send back to the commons a bill they have pushed through with their large majority, there would be no constraints on the government of the day. Laws could be made and legislature passed through quickly without too much thought behind it. Changes could be made to our way of life on the whim of a political party, even if it was not in their original manifesto. Bills could be steamrollered through parliament, without proper debate to enable any pitfalls to be brought to the notice of the public before they became law. This could happen whatever party is in power; remember both Labour and the Conservatives have in the past had extremely large majorities. So I hope that we can a
ll agree that a second house is essential in a democratic society.

The house of Lords prior to the reforms of this present government was made up of Hereditary peers and Life peers known as Lords temporal, Law Lords who are twelve senior judges appointed to sit in the court of appeal and who also sit as Lords temporal, and Lords spiritual who are a group of the most senior Bishops of the Church of England.
Hereditary peers are as you will know the nobility of the country and can pass on their title and peerage to their heirs. Life peers are appointed by the government of the day and hold that appointment for life. Law lords hold their position until they retire, when another is appointed in his place and the Lords spiritual hold the position until they are 70 when another Bishop is appointed by the Church of England.

On the face of it this make up would seem to be totally undemocratic, as not one of the peers are elected by the people but hold their seat by the accident of birth or by political or religious appointment. But would a democratically elected second chamber work and be effective? Although to a true democrat it would seem the obvious choice, I do not think it could work. If the second chamber was elected by the people as is the house of commons, the make up would reflect the party political feelings of the electorate of the day. It would therefore probably mirror the House of Commons in its make up and would offer no constraint on the government but be purely a rubber stamp for any bills put to it. This would totally negate the reason that it is there and therefore render it unnecessary and useless.

So what are the present proposals for reform? Well there is a committee looking into it but from all that I have heard a totally elected house does not seem to be under consideration. At the moment all but 92 of the hereditary peers no longer sit in the house and it is now made up of these 92 plus the life peers and the Law Lor
ds and Bishops. It would seem that the plan is to eventually lose the hereditary peers altogether and introduce a new type of peer, a nominated peer. These are too be drawn from people who are nominated or who nominate themselves and are considered to be non-party political and to have skills of value to the country. Those selected by the committee will be nominated to the prime minister and he will select them as he sees fit to increase the numbers of the house.

My first worry about this is the selection committee, this is made up of five Lords one from each of the three main parties and two who are independent (Although as we all have political beliefs I do not see how any one can be truly independent). So we are now to have a situation where some of the Lords are to be political appointees some to be appointed by the church some appointed to be Law Lords and some to be selected by a committee of five. Has anything really changed? We still have a house made up of non-elected people.

Another worry I have is the criteria for the selection of a nominee. These can be citizens of Ireland or the commonwealth or from Britain, The criteria is that they live in the U.K. and are over 21 not that they are British citizens. So we can now have people voting on our legislation who although they may live here are not citizens of this country. The commonwealth I could perhaps understand but where does Ireland come in to it. They are as far as I know now an independent country and should have no say in our affairs.

The next worry I have is the disappointment expressed by the committee on the percentage make up of the nominees. These are people who in the first wave had to nominate themselves, so there were no prejudices involved. The committee expressed their disappointment at the percentage of women, disabled and ethnic minorities who put them selves forward and of the large percentage who put themselves forward from the London area as opposed to the r
est of the U.K. They also expressed their hope that this imbalance could be redressed in the future. Why should the make up of the nominees be of any consideration at all? If those eventually selected are all women or all from an ethnic minority or disabled or none of these why should it matter, as long as the best people are selected what or whoever they are and whatever part of the country they come from. This has the feel to me of positive discrimination to enable the committee to look good rather than select the best people for the job no matter what their background.

So where does this leave us? Back to square one it would seem with a second chamber full of unelected people. So why have we changed at all, if we cannot come up with a better system why change a system that has worked for hundreds of years.

The first complaint of the abolitionists is that the hereditary peers are out of touch with the people, but will this new house be any better. Peers do not receive a salary for sitting in the house this means they have to have free time or be of independent means. This holds true even to the new nominated peers. This is the reason less people nominated themselves from outside London, where would they find the time to attend and if they did they would have to be away from their home and families. If they are not paid a salary how could they afford to be away from their work to sit in the house? The only way is if they were wealthy and had plenty of spare time to devote to politics, sounds very much like a hereditary peer to me, what is the difference. They are still going to be out of touch with the ordinary people of this country.

The house as it was before reform could not reject legislation they could only return it to the House of Commons with suggested amendments. This would then be debated perhaps amended again and sent back to the Lords. The House of Commons can present a bill for Royal assent after one year and in a new session
even if it has not had the assent of the Lords. So they cannot hold back essential legislation indefinatly. They do not vote on financial or Taxation matters this is the sole prerogative of the commons and there is an accepted convention that government bills from their manifesto commitment will not be voted down on a second reading in the Lords. So at worst they enable a subject to be debated amended and are perhaps a thorn in the side of the government. But if the government is determined and think that a bill is important enough they can always get it through in the end after due consideration.

So if the change to the House of Lords is not going to give us a better system than the old why do we have to lose hundreds of years of tradition after all that’s what draws in the tourists. They don’t come here for our amazing weather and beaches or our cheap hotels and restaurants or our marvellous service. They come to see our history and traditions and the more we do away with them the less reason they will have for coming. I would be the first to embrace a better system of politics if they worked but don’t lets lose our traditions and change things just for the sake of it.

Mick Gray

Summary: