k,jjjjjjjj;The Reform of the House of Lords

Baroness Jay delivered this speech in 2000. She was a Labour party politician and her
father was a former Prime Minister. Labour won a landslide victory after decades of
conservative rulers. One of the big planks (composant) in the Labour party manifesto was
reform of the country’s political system.
The House of Lords was the obvious place to start. The House of Lords is the upper
chamber of the British parliament. What differentiates the French and American Senates
to the British House of Lords? -> The Lords (knights) are appointed by the Queen.
The House of Lords is seen as really antiquated and out of times. There had been several
attempts to reform this house in the past but they all failed.

The 1997 Labour Party manifesto (programme) proposed the reform in two stages:
- The first stage was a bill who ended the rights of hereditary peers to seat and vote in
the House of Lords. In the end, out of 751 only 92 peers were kept. In preparation of
the 2nd stage, the government prepared a report and its publication led to debate.
The text under study is an extract of the speech of Baroness Jay during that debate.
In that text, she sums up the main principles of the report and she gives clear indications as
to the government’s response.

The House of Lords is composed of two distinct groups: the first group is the Lord Spiritual
(26), they seat by virtue of their ecclesiastical duty (bishops). The other group is the Lords
Temporal (100+). They fall into two groups:
- The hereditary peers (92)
- The life peers -> exist only since 1958. It is a title that cannot be passed onto their
heirs. The point is to inject new blood into the upper house by bringing in people who
had held high public office. (Ex-prime ministers, ex-ministers, ex-party leaders…) But
you can also become a life peer if you have had a distinguished life (prominent
business people, sales maid man…), or if you had been an outstanding public figure.
(artists, intellectuals, high-profile lawyers... )

The Parliament has never known any lasting historical breaks, as it has always been made
onto ? -> Contrary to most countries in Europe. (French Revolution…)
The Parliament system evolves gradually with its time.

The idea of the evolutionary change is a characteristic feature of the British constitution.

It refers to the gradual way in which the Parliament system has evolved over time. It has
never known any lasting historical break. It always has been built on a mixture of customs
(habitudes) and precedents (précédents). The gradual nature of the British political system is
illustrated by the Great Reform Act of 1832, which is mentioned by Baroness Jay, l.13 “the
Great Reform Act 1832 was such an occasion, but even that, looking back, was modest in its
effects compared to the universal adult suffrage now enjoyed”. The Great Reform Act gave
the franchise, (droit de vote) to some members of the middle classes. And it led with time to
universal adult suffrage. At the time, it only gave the vote to 7% of the adult population. But
little by little, the franchise was extended over the following decades, and today, all British
adults can vote. The Great Reform Act mentioned by Baroness Jay is a good example of
that step-by-step approach.

1832 -> Great Reforma. Until then, only landowners were allowed to vote. After this reforma,
some people from the middle class were allowed to vote.

Why does Baroness Jay make much of that part? She says that the changes proposed by
the Report are in this tradition, they are evolutionary. There is nothing revolutionary about
that. It proposes to introduce a new element into the House of Lords: peers which would vote
the concerns of people from particular parts of the country. (Regional Peers)

The wakeham report proposes to retain and to improve two key existing features of the
house:
namely, the Nomination System through the creation of a statutory appointments
commission.
The Non-Political component of the House.

She defends the creation of this statutory appointments commission. Most people appointed
to the House of Lords are people with a great intellect and are role models.

Running a political campaign costs a lot of money -> Assembly halls, printing….

Idea of corruption -> What would be the temptation of a Prime Minister? Ask the Queen to
appoint someone who has a lot of money.. A lot of scandals about that in the history of the
country. The most famous being the Cash-For-Honours Scandal.

This is why she supports the creation of the statutory appointments commission -> The idea
being that an independent commission makes sure, cease to it that all the people who are
appointed peers are there for the right reasons.

Continuing Explicitly Non-Political Element. -> Important to have these elements to free the
members of the political parties from their ideas.
Political parties in general help to structure the politics, but they have a problem which is that
they impose a kind of uniformity. If you’re a member of Parliament, and you belong to a
political party, you are under a moral and political duty to back your government. You are
chosen to express the views of that party.
These non-political elements have to toe the line of these parties.

The 21th century has seen power being highly concentrated into the hands of the PM, which
is problematic because MPs have to follow the ideological line set up by their leader. Why is
it problematic? Because it muffles ??. You have to give your backing to your leader, or else
you won’t be appointed for the next election. So they have to shut up in the interest of their
own political career and can’t say anything.
Also a point that proves why a non-political element in the House is a good thing. Because it
supposedly brings some political independence to the House of Lords.

Crossbenchers -> Those politically neutral people. They sit across the two major political
parties of the House.
The Appointments Commission was appointed in May 2000. The Role of the PM in ??? on
recommendations to the Queen was partially transferred to it.

Until the 19th century, the HoL had a lot of power. But, the House of Commons became
gradually representative of the population as a whole. And it acquired a lot of legitimacy,
which the HoL lack.
The role of the upper house was reduced at the beginning of the 20th century. Its right to
amend or to delay bills was reduced to two years, and in 1949 it was reduced to one year.
The HoL has almost no power to block a bill right now. It can only delay the passage of a bill
by a year.
Why don’t they have no legitimacy? Because the members are not elected. It is simply
unthinkable for non-elected people to block a bill voted by elected people.

Therefore, what is their point? What is the official mission, task of the HoL?
The Lords review the bills, and scrutinize legislation. 3 features to fulfill that fonction:
- Cannot reject the principals, measures agreed by the elected members. They focus
on the details rather than the principal elements. They review the phrasing of the bills
to avoid them to be ambiguous or self-contradictory.
- The membership of the HoL includes people from all walks of life. (science,
education, law, art…) - Bread of experience outside politics. Fosters independent
judgment.
- They have more time to discuss bills, because the House of Commons has a lot of
subjects to discuss. (foreign policy, financial bills…) In the HoC there is a guillotine
that limits the time of debates. The HoL has a bit more time. It functions as a revising
chamber, to revise their coherence. The HoL can suggest amendments in order to
improve a bill, most of which are accepted by the HoC.

Another interesting aspect of the HoL is the committees. These allow the house to examine
some specific questions and to draw on the expertise of their ?. Baroness Jay selected to
committees: The ? Human Rights committee: With the wave of terrorist attacks, gvnmt
across the world passed a lot of surveillance laws. A lot of complaints that this gets into
people's private affairs.
The Wakeham report proposes the establishment of a ???? human rights committee with
?????

All efforts are made to make sure that the HoL isn’t entirely pointless. But a lot of people are
still unsatisfied with the nature and the role of the HoL because it costs a lot of money and
these few powers aren’t enough to convince people that it is worth the cost.

Baroness Jay evokes the possibility of an increase in the number of elected members. Some
have even gone as far as to suggest that for democracy’s sake, all of the members of the
House of Lords should be elected. Some, on the other hand, have suggested that the Lords
should be scrapped altogether and that the UK should have a unicameral legislature. Why
are those two options spurned both by the Wakeham report and by the Government?
If the members were elected they would have the same legitimacy as the members of the
HoC. It would feel justified in challenging the authority of the commons.

‘The need remains for a second chamber to act as one of the checks and balances within
the ?’ the goal being to act as a break on the increasing concentration of powers in the HoC
and in the government itself.