The UK’s “Second House”

Its formal title is; “The Right Honourable Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.”

Referred to ceremonially as the “House of Peers;” colloquially it’s the “House of Lords.”

It is one of the two “Houses of Parliament,” but strangely it is only members of the other house, the “House of Commons,” that are considered to actually be “Members of Parliament.”

Nowadays, members of the House of Lords are appointed; except 92 hereditary peers, who are elected among themselves.

Those known as the “Lords Spiritual” are 26 Church of England Bishops.

Of those called the “Lords Temporal,” the majority are life peers who are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister, or on the advice of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

However, those 92 hereditary peers including four dukes are also Lords Temporal.

Membership was once an entitlement of all hereditary peers, other than those in the peerage of Ireland, but under the House of Lords Act 1999, the right to membership for hereditary peers, was restricted to 92

But what does the House of Lords actually do?

The House of Lords scrutinises bills that have been passed by the House of Commons; and regularly amends them, sending them back to the Commons for consideration of the amendment(s).

The Parliament Act 1911 effectively abolished the power of the House of Lords to reject legislation, or to amend in a way unacceptable to the House of Commons. Most bills could be delayed for no more than three parliamentary sessions or two calendar years.

It was not meant to be a permanent solution; more comprehensive reforms were planned. Neither party, however, pursued the matter with much enthusiasm; and the House of Lords remained primarily hereditary.

In 1949, the Parliament Act reduced the delaying power of the House of Lords further to two sessions or one year.

In 1958, the predominantly hereditary nature of the House of Lords was changed by the Life Peerages Act 1958, which authorised the creation of life baronies, with no numerical limits. The number of Life Peers then gradually increased, though not at a constant rate.

While it is unable to prevent Bills passing into law, except in certain limited circumstances, the House of Lords can delay Bills and force the Commons to reconsider their decisions.

The power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts.

Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override the Lords’ veto).

A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the “Salisbury Convention,” which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government’s election manifesto.

The House of Lords therefore, acts as a check on the House of Commons; that is independent from the electoral process.

Except for “Money Bills,” legislation can be introduced into either the House of Lords or the House of Commons.

Members of the Lords may also take on roles as government ministers. This was why Blair made Mandelson a peer; so he could have him in his government, despite people annoyingly, refusing, to elect Mandy

The size of the House of Lords has varied throughout its history.

From about 50 members in the early 1700s, it increased to a record size of 1,330 in October 1999, before Lords reform reduced it to 669 by March 2000; but no upper limit was set, and like Topsy, it has grown & grown.

In April 2011, a cross-party group of former leading politicians called on David Cameron to stop creating new peers. He had created 117 new peers since becoming prime minister in May 2010, a faster rate of elevation than any PM in British history.

In August 2014, despite there being a seating capacity of only around 400 on the benches in the Lords chamber, the House had 774 active members.

This made it the largest parliamentary chamber in any democracy.

In August 2015, following the creation of a further 45 peers, the total number of eligible members of the Lords increased to 826.

The House of Lords is the second largest legislature after the Chinese National People’s Congress and dwarfs Upper Houses in other bi-cameral administrations such as the United States (100 senators), France (348 senators), Australia (76 senators) and India (250 members).

The Lords is also larger than the Supreme People’s Assembly of North Korea (687 members).

As it stands, the House of Lords; apart from those 92 hereditary peers; is full of “Cronies;” either of the current government or previous regimes.

Most people agree that the House of Lords needs to be reformed, somehow.

As its main purpose is to “Give a second opinion,” how should this House be reformed?

The shame is that in the days that its members were selected purely by accident of birth; without any political allegiance or party “axe-to-grind;” it performed the “Second Opinion” role well.

It was clearly “undemocratic” but extremely effective.

However, in the class-conscious 20th century, an hereditary second house was so out-of-step it couldn’t be allowed to survive in that form.

In an ideal world, a purely appointed house of experts; people ennobled because of their expertise; would serve the “Second Opinion” purpose admirably.

But ours is not a perfect world; and the idea of “appointment” to public office appears undemocratic & smacks of elitism; besides, who would we trust to select them?

Certainly not the government

At present, as each administration takes office, their first objective, as far as this House is concerned, is to ensure their majority there.

As I’ve said; the House is currently populated chiefly by cronies; those that aren’t, are an assortment of “National Treasures;” worthy of ennoblement perhaps, but hardly fit for political purpose.

Seb Coe was a great athlete and Andrew Lloyd-Webber a world leader in creating musicals; but legitimate political voices?

The general consensus seems to be that we need an elected second house; and that presents a few problems or opportunities.

First, the name; many would say we wouldn’t be able to call the “House of Lords” any more.

But though the occupants wouldn’t be “Lords” anymore; why would that matter? I doubt anyone bothers what a “Commoner” is anymore, but that is still reflected in the name of the “other place.”

I think there’s something wonderfully, eccentrically British about keeping the name “House of Lords”; even when it contains no Lords…

Following reform; though anyone considered worthy could still be ennobled, it will just be an award; an upgraded knighthood; nothing more.

Then there’s that “Second Opinion” thing; with the democratic clout of being an elected institution should the new second house be so limited in power?

Perhaps they would have the power to amend or even veto/reject proposed legislation.

But giving them too much power could completely log-jam legislation…

Then there’s the question of how, and more importantly, how often, should they be elected?

Suggestions

I’d suggest that, as the House of Commons is now elected for a fixed 5-year term, the second house should serve 6-year terms; meaning that elections for both Houses would only coincide every 30 years; hopefully avoiding the second house becoming a rubber-stamping institution.

I’d also suggest this second-house should be elected using proportional representation with members selected from party lists. Voters would vote purely for the party of their choice; with parties gaining seats in exact (as near as possible) proportion to their percentage of each national vote. This would ensure that the House would hold a popular democratic mandate; and would be unlikely to replicate the party strengths of the Commons.

If the maximum number of seats was limited to 648, representing the UK population of 64.8 million;

Scotland, with a population of 5.3 million, would have 53 seats;

Wales, with a population of 3 million, would have 30 seats; Northern Ireland, with a population of 1.8 million, would have 18 seats; and England, with a population of 54.7 million, would have the remaining 547 seats.