Elect The Lords
Campaign for a democratic second chamber
|
|
Elect The Lords Campaign for a democratic second chamber |
| Elect The Lords | <info@electthelords.org.uk> |
House of Lords Reform - Frequently Asked QuestionsWhy do we need a second chamber? What powers does the House of Lords have? Doesn't appointment guarantee a representative and expert chamber? Wouldn't an elected second chamber lead to gridlock? Wouldn't an elected second chamber challenge the primacy of the House of Commons? Wouldn't including elected members in the second chamber create a "two tier" House? How do other countries select the members of their second chambers? Does the public want an elected second chamber? Aren't MPs divided on the issue of Lords reform? Where do the political parties stand on House of Lords reform? What method of election do you propose? Do you propose to change the second chamber's powers if predominently elected? Who are you?The Elect the Lords campaign is calling for a predominently elected second chamber to replace the existing House of Lords at the earliest opportunity. It was set up and is administered by the New Politics Network and Charter88, and is supported by a growing number of organisations, politicians and individuals. What do you stand for?Our campaign statement is as follows: 
Why do we need a second chamber?We believe that the second chamber has a crucial role to play in British democracy as a deliberative body, complementing rather than duplicating the work of the House of Commons. In general "unicameralism" - having a single House of Parliament or legislative chamber - is rare, particularly in a democracy the size of the UK. Comparable European countries, Germany, France, Italy, as well as the USA and Australia are all bicameral (two legislative chambers). It is only smaller relatively homogenous states such as Sweden that have only one chamber. Without a second chamber there is always the danger that a unicameral parliament could become an elective dictatorship. In Britain the Executive is particularly powerful and can dominate the House of Commons to a greater extent than in other comparable democracies. A second chamber constituted differently from the Commons and with democratic legitimacy can act as a check on the Lower House. What powers does the House of Lords have?The powers of the House of Lords are laid out in the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. Currently the House of Lords has the power to:
There is also a convention that the House of Lords will not oppose any Bill mentioned in the governing party's election manifesto. This is so a governing party can get key Bills through parliament even if they do not have a majority in the House of Lords. Very few advocates of Lords reform favour giving a new second chamber any powers in excess of those allowed under the Parliament Act 1949, and many favour further restrictions on powers to bring them more closely in line with those the Lords have exercised in practice. Doesn't appointment guarantee a representative and expert chamber?It has been argued that appointing members to the second chamber is the best way of ensuring an expert chamber. On the basis of the current House of Lords appointment is not an effective way of creating a chamber of high expertise. Of sitting life peers,
It is also suggested that this is the best way of increasing the representation of women and ethnic minorities in the legislature. The composition of the current House of Lords disproves this theory. Of the 714 members of the House of Lords, only
Wouldn't an elected second chamber lead to gridlock?It is frequently argued that if both chambers were elected and therefore had democratic legitimacy, this would lead to gridlock. However this would only be the case if both chambers had equal powers as is the case with the US Senate. We believe that the second chamber should remain the subordinate chamber but that appointing members is not the way to achieve this. A combination of the right roles, functions, powers and composition would not only remove the risk of gridlock, but also produce a healthier relationship between the two Houses and between Parliament and the Executive. Wouldn't an elected second chamber challenge the primacy of the House of Commons?One of the main criticisms of an elected second chamber is that it would challenge the primacy of the House of Commons and create legislative gridlock. We believe that the House of Commons should remain the pre-eminent chamber of Parliament. A second chamber could provide the additional capacity and deliberation required by an overburdened House of Commons. It should bring a different perspective to the scrutiny and development of legislation. We do not agree that direct elections to the second chamber would threaten the primacy of the House of Commons. The House of Commons would have to legislate to reform the House of Lords and would therefore have the final say in terms of precisely what powers the second chamber should have. The supremacy of the House of Commons is determined by its powers and functions and not its method of selection. There are also specific measures which can be introduced such as Government Ministers only being selected from the House of Commons which would further guarantee the supremacy of the House of Commons. Local authorities are also democratic institutions that often have more recent mandates than the House of Commons, but councils have very rarely attempted to use this to challenge the authority of parliament. Their powers are regulated by law and they do not have the power, much as some may wish, to prevent the decisions of parliament from applying in their localities - even if they could claim a local popular mandate for such a course of action. Wouldn't including elected members in the second chamber create a "two tier" House?It has been argued that including elected members in the second chamber would create a hybrid house - that there would be competition and difference in status between members selected by different methods. The current House of Lords is a Hybrid House. Some members are life peers while others are elected on the basis of being an hereditary peer. There is no reason to suggest that members with different mandates can't work together as they do at present. How do other countries select the members of their second chambers?Election is now the most common means of selecting upper house members - a total of 27 of the world's 66 second chambers use direct election by the people as the primary means of selecting their members.
More information on international comparisons. Does the public want an elected second chamber?Yes. Polling evidence suggests that the public want an elected second chamber, and support is growing. The first State of the Nation poll by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust in 1991 found that 40% of the public supported replacing the House of Lords with an elected second chamber compared with 29% who were opposed. In 2004, they found that 77% of the public supported a majority or wholly elected second chamber, compared with 12% who supported a majority appointed House of Lords. Aren't MPs divided on the issue of Lords reform?On 4 February 2003, the House of Commons voted on a number of different options for reforming the House of Lords: 100% appointed, 100% elected, 80% elected and 20% appointed, 60% elected and 40% appointed and total abolition. Bizarrely, the Commons voted to reject all the proposals, but the results do indicate that there is a clear consensus for a predominantly elected second chamber:
Where do the political parties stand on House of Lords reform?
What method of election do you propose?The report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform recommended that the second chamber should be elected by a different system to that used for the commons. Opinion polls have shown that there is public support for a more proportional electoral system for the second chamber. A Charter88/YouGov poll conducted before the vote in 2003 found that 65% supported the use of PR in electing members to the second chamber. We believe that the second chamber can only be legitimate when the people have given their consent though elections but we do not have a common position on the method of election that should be used. Do you propose to change the second chamber's powers if predominently elected?There is a big and interesting debate to be had on the powers of a second chamber. The Elect the Lords campaign does not have a specific position on powers. Fundamentally however, if it lacks real muscle, there is little point in having a dual-chamber parliament and we will encounter many of the same disadvantages that states with single-chamber parliaments face. This is an issue that can only be resolved after the principle for a predominently elected second chamber has been won. A democratic second chamber will have more legitimacy than an unelected one and we cannot afford to be distracted. Printed and hosted by Prater Raines Ltd, 82b Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BX.The views expressed are those of the organisation, not of the service provider. |
