The New Generation Society

Verity Hill

Verity Hill is a 1st Year Philosophy undergraduate at the University of York and a member of the NGS. She argues for an appointed House of Lords and points out the flaws in the current approach to House of Lords reform.

The House of Lords is not fit for purpose. The House of Lords Act 1999 was intended to be a first step in a programme of reform, but despite much debate and several white papers little real progress has been made since then. The act left the House with six hundred and fourteen life peers, ninety-two hereditary peers and twenty-six Church of England bishops: a muddle and a compromise. All parties agree that there needs to be further reform the House, but what direction should this reform take?

Before formulating proposals for reform of the House, we must first consider its function; one cannot make something fit for purpose without knowing what its purpose is. The House has two major functions, firstly to make laws and secondly to act as a check on the House of Commons. The Lords’ role in law making is to debate and amend, not to propose, legislation. Any legislation that passes through the Lords must also pass through the Commons. The Lords’ role as a check on the Commons is the main reason that the most radical suggestion for Lords reform, abolition, should be discounted. A powerful executive dominates the House of Commons and therefore it is very easy for the party in power to pass laws. We already have the most prolific legislature in the world and removing from that legislature one of its only checks and balances can only be a bad thing. The best way for the House to fulfil these functions would be for it to be independent which would lead to a better check on the power of the Commons and to more useful legislative amendments.

The presence of Protestant Bishops in the House is a result of our history and their presence is no longer relevant or necessary: we are not an Anglican country. A 2005 populous poll showed that just 41% of people attended a place of worship more than once a year, and church going Catholics now outnumber church going Protestants in the UK. Members of religious establishments, of any faith, should not be prohibited from sitting in the House but they should go through the same procedure for selection as any other member. The nation’s religious sensibilities will be adequately represented by the members of the House who have religious faith, provided that the House is fairly representative of the population, because people’s religious views necessarily colour their political ones and inform their consciences.

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 created a Supreme Court, which shall come into existence in October 2009. The Law Lords who currently sit in the House of Lords will then sit in the Supreme Court and the House of Lords’ judicial function will be removed. This is a sensible reform because Law Lords must be seen to be impartial so even though they can vote and speak in the House at present they rarely do so. It will take little away from the House and perform the useful task of separating the judiciary from the legislature and executive.

Experts cannot vote in accordance with their knowledge and principles if they are subject to the whip; if they cannot vote in line with these things it rather defeats the object of having experts in the House. I would therefore like to see the whip removed entirely from the House of Lords. There should be no partisan voting in the House at all. This would not only allow the members to vote as their expertise dictates to them, but would also help counterbalance the strength of the whips in the House of Commons.

Currently the preferred option for reform of the selection of the Lords is an elected second chamber. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats favour a fully elected House of Lords, whilst The Conservatives favour a ‘substantially elected’ House. There are serious problems with this approach. Firstly it is entirely unnecessary for the House of Lords to be elected; the Commons already adequately fulfils the democratic needs of the country. The Commons is far and away the more powerful House; the vast majority of the executive is drawn from there and the PM always is, the Lords cannot vote on tax proposals and under the Salisbury Doctrine the Lords do not block legislation which the government promised in its manifesto at the last election. Secondly, if we are to have a Lords full of experts then the most important thing is that they are competent; it is an unfortunate truth that popularity is no measure of competence. Thirdly, an elected House would no doubt become a partisan one because elections require the party machine to support them. Fourthly, the UK lacks a written constitution, which means that an elected House of Lords would affect the balance of power in the Legislature. A partially elected House, the Conservatives favoured solution, has all the problems of a fully elected Lords and in addition to this has the strong possibility of creating two classes of Lords, those who are elected and those who are not.

I would propose that the House should be entirely appointed. If a good procedure for appointment were introduced then it should be more than possible for knowledgeable and independent people to be appointed to the House. Another advantage of appointments is that it does not require party machinery and would therefore help the Lords stay non-partisan.

This does leave us with the thorny problem of who should do the appointing. Firstly, the Independent Appointments Commission should remain to vet all nominations and finish the appointments procedure, ensuring that those who go on to become members of the House are suitably qualified. Parties should be not able to nominate people for the House as this would once again raise the spectre of a partisan House. So, who should be able to nominate? Anyone. For someone to be referred to the Appointments Commission they should get detailed recommendations from a small number of people and the support of a significant number of people. The exact numbers required are not important, the principle is. If anyone can nominate someone for the House it would help the House become more representative of the British people and prevent it becoming a partisan body, whilst the Appointments Commission would ensure that people were suitably qualified to sit.

In conclusion, if the House of Lords is going to maintain its independence and expertise, and thus best serve the interests of the New Generation, it should be appointed, not elected, and anyone should be able to recommend someone to the Appointments Commission.