Parliament under Reform

Reform of the House of Lords is an issue which has been on the political agenda for many years. Since 1997 the United Kingdom government has been engaged in reforming the House of Lords. The history of reform before 1997 includes amongst others the Parliament Act 1911, the Parliament Act 1949, the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the Peerage Act 1963.

The Labour Government of 1997 was committed to extensive reform of the Lords and in 1999 introduced the House of Lords Bill, which proposed excluding all hereditary Peers from the House as the “first stage” of plans to alter the composition and powers of the Lords. This was debated in the Commons and passed by a majority of 340 to 132 in March 1999, but experienced stronger opposition in the Lords.

Eventually, a compromise was reached – known as the “Weatherill amendment” after the former Commons Speaker, Lord Weatherill, who proposed it – whereby 92 hereditary Peers were allowed to remain in the Lords on a temporary basis until “second stage” proposals were agreed. The House of Lords Act thus reduced membership of the Lords from 1,330 to 669 Members, the majority of whom were life Peers.

In January 2000 Lord Wakeham’s Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords recommended a partially-elected House. The Government responded with a White Paper containing various proposals involving an elected element, but both Houses of Parliament failed to agree on a way forward when these were debated in February 2003.

Following the publication of another White Paper in February 2007, both Chambers again debated a similar series of motions in March 2007. This time, the Commons backed an all-elected Upper House, while the Lords voted for an all-appointed Chamber. In July 2008, the White Paper ‘An Elected Second Chamber: Further reform of the House of Lords’ was published.

The Government believes that there are certain principles that should underpin a reformed House of Lords, whatever its composition:

• Primacy of the House of Commons

• Complementarity of the House of Lords

• A More Legitimate House of Lords

• No Overall Majority for Any Party

• A Non Party-Political Element

• A More Representative House of Lords

• Continuity of Membership

• Separate from Peerage Membership

The question of how individuals obtain a seat in the House of Lords is the most hotly debated point in all discussions on Lords reform. Detailed proposals for Lords reform were published on 17 May 2011. These include a 300-member hybrid house, of which 80% are elected. A further 20% would be appointed, and reserve space would be included for some Church of England bishops. Under the proposals, members would also serve single non-renewable terms of 15 years. Former MPs would be allowed to stand for election to the Upper House, but members of the Upper House would not be immediately allowed to become MPs.

Nevertheless the overwhelming majority of peers believe it would be unconstitutional for the government to create an elected chamber in the face of their objections. 80% of those entitled to sit in the Lords oppose a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber; 74% believe that it would be unconstitutional to use the Parliament Act; and 81% believe the Lords works well as it is. The Parliament Act is used infrequently to permit the Commons to enact measures without the consent of the upper house. Party leaders in both chambers selected 26 peers and MPs to sit on a committee to draw up a final proposal. The government intends to have a bill ready for the Queen’s Speech in the nearest future.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14