House of Lords ~ Elected vs Current System - Politics

Check on Legislation (CURRENT)

1. Holding the government accountable for legislation and suggestions revisions or delaying the passing of it.

Non-controversial, typically just ensuring legal water tightness

2. Deliberative functions, members can discuss issues at length with several views represented.

   E.g. 2021 Assisted Dying Bill, 140+ members discussing potential outcomes, most of members had extensive experience on topic (Baroness Meacher - Chair of ‘Dignity in Dying’ campaign)

3. Select committees - focussed on certain themes (public services, defence, IR) and have all benefits of HOC SCs

Cash for Peerages (ELECTED)

Due to party funding system, exuberantly successful individuals who donate in great amounts to parties gain great deals of influence, especially when donating to the party which wins the election

E.g. Tony Blair’s 25 donor peers donated £25mil = £1mil per peerage

Donors often inactive in HOL and contribute little to its functions, only using it to gain further influence, and their party ties undermine the party-less composition of the chamber

However, despite the attempt for PMs to “stuff” the HOL with their supporters, the chamber remains without a party majority

Largely independent from political parties (CURRENT)

Allows HOL to exercise their role of being a legislative check

Thatcher - “The true opposition”

No party has a majority and considerable numbers are cross benchers

Even party-aligned members don’t have to take the whip, and can decide their ruling without fear of their career - and many peers have already been incredibly successful outside of politics

2019-2024 Govt: 1 defeat in HOC vs 500+ in HOL

2014 Children and families Act Labour govt initially opposed the amendment to include a ban on smoking in cars with children but later agreed following HOL defeat

BUT not always received, Rwanda Safety Bill’s rejection in HOL ignored by Govt

Removal of hereditary and spiritual peers (ELECTED)

Not appointed by elected official rather on their religious positions or familial standing

1999 HOL Act removed 90% of hereditary peers and the remaining ~90 are elected by their fellow hereditary peers. But current Labour govt have pledged to remove the rest of these peers entirely

Spiritual peers are only bishops from the CofE and don’t leave representation for the rest of the electorate such as other churches or religions.

Both peers don’t align with elected nature of democracy but also fail at representation, as only minimal numbers live on hereditary peer-owned land and most people are not Anglican Christian or Christian at all

No space in a modern democracy

Expertise (CURRENT)

Given by system of appointment for life peers - generally appointed on grounds of their impact on the nation or a community

Charity work; success in business, law, politics etc

Enhance the function of HOL, esp scrutiny and deliberation - accurately predict policy outcomes and more easily spot loopholes.

Most of these peers would generally not run for election and would not contribute their knowledge and expertise in an elected chamber - unelected, appointments system gives them a platform

Electoral Legitimacy (ELECTED)

HOL is without a doubt weaker than HOC, but has more power than given credit for, simply doesn’t have the authority to enact these powers.

E.g. Power to delay legislation for 1 year awarded in 1949 Parliament Act, hasn’t been used since Hunting Bill 2005.

However, this system could cause political gridlock - newly envigored HOL would be more likely to reject bills, with each bill requiring more and more time for deliberation and debate

As seen in US where it often takes multiple rounds of voting to pass a single bill