House of Lords Continued
Name me the country in which more than 50 new members of parliament have just been appointed for life. Most of them have been nominated by a political party, without any vote. No secret is made of the fact that for several of the appointees, as has long been the custom in that country, this life membership of the legislature is a reward for their generous financial contributions to one or other party. And, unlike for prisoners, "life" means until they die. As a result, one in three members of the existing chamber is over 75 years old.
Turkmenistan? Zimbabwe? Transnistria? No, that country is Britain, one of the oldest parliamentary democracies in the world.
Today, most members of the House of Lords are appointed, and as the quotation shows, often they are appointed because they have been lifelong donors or supporters of various political parties. Furthermore, the heridatary peers in the House of Lords disproportionally support the conservative party over the labour party as a number. This informed the first stage of reforms which Tony Blair undertook in 1999, which reduced the number of hereditary peers from several hundred to 92. These reforms also allowed for the labor government to appoint a number of “life” peers which had a more favourable political disposition.
Defenders of the House of Lords suggest that it provides a bulwark against the populist tendencies of the house, and point to instances where the house of lords was able to restrain the legislature from passing certain laws that were clearly bad laws. The most often cited example was a recent effort to allow suspects that are accused of terrorism to be detained for 42 days. This was agreed to in the House of Commons, but rightly resisted by the House of Lords. However, it is clear that the House of Lords is becoming archaic and somewhat arcane. Plans are currently underway to reform it from the current status of an institution in which a majority of its members are appointed to one with a majority of elected members.
The House of Lords has its historical origins in the middle ages, when the king routinely had a council of leading noblemen and clergymen as his advisors. Their role became separate from the house of commons from very early in its existence, in that they were to provide counsel to the sovereign whereas the role of commons was to approve or disapprove as the case may be, the sovereigns advice.
The House of Lords, as of 1 February 2011:[1]
| Affiliation | Life peers | Hereditary peers | Lords spiritual | Total | |
| | 239 | 3 | - | 242 | |
| | 169 | 48 | - | 217 | |
| | 86 | 5 | - | 91 | |
| | 4 | 0 | - | 4 | |
| | 4 | 0 | - | 4 | |
| | 1 | 1 | - | 2 | |
| | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | |
| | 152 | 32 | - | 184 | |
| | - | - | 24 | 24 | |
| | Other | 16 | 1 | - | 17 |
| Total | 672 | 90 | 24 | 786 | |
As of this year, the House of Lords consist of 786 members, of which 242 are labor, 217 are conservative 184 are independent and the remainder consist of representatives of various smaller parties and spiritual lords from the church of England.
Balance of Power Between the House of Lords and the House of Commons
The relationship between the House of Lords and the House of Commons is determined by the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. Until 1911, both houses had equal power when it came to the passage of legislation, except for financial matters which were by convention the preserve of the House of Commons. However, in 1909, the House of Lords refused to pass the budget of the then prime minister. The House of Commons responded to this constitutional violation by initiating legislation which curtailed the power of the House of Lords to delay financial bills or bills on financial matters to one month only, after which they could receive the royal assent without the passage of the House of Lords. Also, under the law, all other matters could only be delayed for three parliamentary sessions or two years. The 1949 Parliamentary Act maintained the one month time period which the house of lords can delay money bills, but reduced the period in which the Lords could delay non-financial Bills from 2 years to one year spread out over 2 parliamentary sessions.
The case that best discusses the relationship between the two houses of Parliament is Jackson v Attorney-General - please you must all read this case. The Facts of the case are as follows: The UK Government had passed the Hunting Act 2004 which made it illegal to hunt wild animals with dogs except in limited circumstances. The Act was particularly directed against fox hunting but also covered other forms of hunting including hare coursing. The pledge to ban fox hunting was made as part of Labour’s 2001 General Election manifesto but faced opposition in the courts from the Countryside Alliance because the Bill was passed using the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 after the House of Lords refused to agree to the legislation. Jackson challenged the validity of the Hunting Act, arguing that the 1949 Act was invalid because it had been passed using the 1911 Act, something he claimed the 1911 Act was never intended to allow. If his claim was valid, all Acts passed under the 1949 Act (including the Hunting Act) would become invalid.[3]
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD
The central issue of law raised by this appeal is a question of interpretation of section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911. The issue can be identified quite shortly, although the parties' submissions ranged widely. The 1911 Act, section 2, prescribed circumstances where in future a Bill could become law without the consent of the House of Lords. In future, with stated exceptions, the approval of the House of Lords to a public Bill could be dispensed with if the Bill was passed by the Commons but rejected by the Lords in three successive sessions, two years having elapsed between the date of the second reading in the Commons in the first of those sessions and the date when the Bill passed the Commons in the third. In other words, the Lords could hold up legislation for three sessions spread over a minimum period of two years from the effective introduction of a Bill. The 1911 Act was enacted with the consent of both Houses.
47. In 1949 the Parliament Act of that year reduced from three to two the number of sessions in which a Bill had to pass the Commons and from two to one the number of years which had to elapse. But, unlike the 1911 Act, the 1949 Act was not passed by both Lords and Commons. Instead the 1949 Act was passed by the Commons alone and enacted in reliance on the procedure set in place by section 2 of the 1911 Act.
48. In these proceedings the claimants challenge the lawfulness of the use of the 1911 Act procedure for this purpose. The effect of the 1911 Act was to restrict the power of the House of Lords and, correspondingly, to increase in practice the power of the House of Commons. This enlarged power of the Commons, it is said, did not enable the Commons to enlarge its own power still more by further restricting the delaying power of the Lords. A power given in limited terms cannot be used to enlarge itself. The 1911 Act contained no provision enabling this to be done. Further restriction on the power of the Lords required their consent. Unilateral extension of the powers of the Commons was outside the scope of section 2 of the 1911 Act. Otherwise the limitations set in place by the 1911 Act would be legally meaningless. Such a unilateral extension was no more within the legal power of the Commons than an individual is able to elevate himself by tugging on his own bootstraps.
These arguments were rejected by the courts. The House of Lords in its ruling – particularly in the judgment of Lord Bingham, emphasized that the 1911 Act allowed Any kinds of Acts to be passed by the House of Commons using without the House of Lords using the proceedings outlined by the Act. The only restrictions had to do with Financial Regulations.
HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
On 14 July 2008 the government published its White Paper, An Elected Second Chamber, further reform of the House of Lords, Cm 7438. The proposals are based on the House of Commons’ vote in 2007 for a wholly elected second chamber and for an eighty per cent elected chamber (thereby ignoring the House of Lords vote for a fully appointed chamber).
The White Paper is the result of cross-party discussions designed to reach wide-ranging consensus on the issue of reform.
The major provisions include:
- a 100 or 80 per cent elected chamber
- the voting system for elections will be either first-past-the-post, alternative vote, single
- transferable vote or a list system
- the primacy of the House of Commons is to be maintained
- the powers of the House of Lords will remain substantially the same as at present
- members would normally serve a non-renewable term of 12 to 15 years
- the size of the chamber will be reduced, possibly to around 430
- new members will be elected in thirds coinciding with general elections
- existing members will continue until the new membership is achieved
- the link between a peerage and a seat in Parliament will finally be broken
- the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit will be removed
o if there is to be an appointed element, a statutory Appointments Commission will be established
o appointments would be made on the basis of an individual’s willingness to take part in the work of the chamber
- the name of the second chamber will change, possibly to the Senate.
No comments:
Post a Comment