On the House of Lords
A defence concerning the legitimacy and value of the other chamber.
12/08/24
Embedded Files
THE HOUSE OF LORDS, IMAGE: WILLIAM MORRISON WYLLIE
Fused entirely with our British Constitution, the House of Lords serves as a political body which represents our culture, history and identity.
Seen as the Upper Chamber, also known as the ‘Domus Superior’, has roots dating back to the Anglo-Saxon period, where the closest thing that related to the Lords was the Witenagemot, also known as the Witan, which was essentially the king’s closest advisors ranging from Earls to the Clergy, it is no surprise that in the modern age the Lords are subject to widespread criticism. Anachronistic, undemocratic and riddled with cronyism are examples of the thoughts associated with the House of Lords by those who urge for its abolition.
The notion that the House of Lords is undemocratic comes from its antithetical nature in comparison to the House of Commons, which is elected every 5 years. In contrast, Peers in the Lords are appointed for life rather than purely elected by the general populace. Many take issue with this, wanting an elected second chamber. Take the United States Senate which since the formation of Congress had been unelected. Yet the passing and ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913 showed many felt that an elected second chamber was needed, one which would give greater legitimacy to its existence and one which is more prone to be accountable to the general public, a common opinion attributed by those who want a democratic House of Lords. Moreover, the reason it is considered anachronistic is for again its nature, but also for its composition. Having a King’s Speech every year, following almost ancient traditions and having members of the clergy still involved, entirely differentiating from the semi-circular, efficient, utterly lacklustre, style that is in upper chambers like the Chamber of Deputies in Italy. As a result of its undemocratic nature, being appointed, and its attachment to tradition with links to the old elite Witan, it is therefore clear why many people feel that the House of Lords is riddled with cronyism and corruption. Take Lord Lebedev, a Russian businessman who comes from a family with close ties to Putin and the Russian oligarchy, being the owner of the British newspapers The Evening Standard and The Independent. Lord Alexander Lebedev was appointed as Life Peer in the 2020 Special Honours by Boris Johnson, who was largely backed by Lebedev and his papers, even visiting him after the 2019 general election victory. Ever since his peerage Lebedev has only attended the Lords three times. A clear example of cronyism.
However, despite the need for reform, criticism towards the overall existence of the ‘Domus Superior’ which desires its abolition is based on pure big-picture thinking rather than emotional consideration which is rational in itself. When realising the nature, proportions and beauty of the British Constitution with its pragmatic and adaptable function, it is unwillingly noticeable that the House of Lords is a feature which is not only needed but necessary. The House of Lords likewise has adapted to modern standards, ranging from extended powers given to the Commons after the English Civil War, the peerage process exchanged to the hands of the Prime Minister and to the removal of 92 out of 750 hereditary peers. The pragmatic yet Conservative element of our constitution therefore sublimates most entirely into the workings, and quite well, of our political system. Today the Lords do a thorough job in scrutinising and forming pieces of legislation, becoming the more efficient chamber of our bicameral system. With that, the fusion of powers embedded within the constitution can be found at the heart of the Lords as well as the Commons.
In the United Kingdom, we have a fusion of powers, where the three branches of government aren’t separate but fused together. In the United States, there is a separation of powers, each having checks and balances on one another, being the President (executive), Congress (legislative) and Supreme Court (judicial). As a result, their political system is far more prone to deadlock, destined to find hyperpartisanship which stifles the efficiency of their country, adding to the rigidness of their political nature. Whereas in the UK, a member of the House of Commons can be in the executive cabinet, the Prime Minister himself Keir Starmer is an MP for Holborn & St Pancras in the same way Tom Tugendhat is an MP for Tonbridge and Malling, allowing more communication and scrutiny between the two executive and legislative branches. In the case of the House of Lords, experts being appointed to an executive cabinet position is a phenomenal example of the fusion of powers in all its glory. This can be seen with David Cameron in 2023 who was appointed as a peer by the former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to become a ‘Big Beast’ within the cabinet. Using his past experience as Prime Minister from 2010-2016, the PM at the time appointed Cameron as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at a time of great international crisis with the Israel-Palestine affair and the Ukrainian war, feeling he had a much larger grasp on situations abroad than what was available amongst him. The appointment also helped balance his party as he was seen as weak before letting Suella Braverman, who is of the right of the party, resign as Home Secretary and Cameron embodied modern-day One-nation-conservatism, which was towards the centre or left of the Conservative party. Hence, not only is it a pragmatic and sensible approach to allow peers to hold a position in the cabinet, but it is further rational to bring back the Law Lords that once was, instead of the modern-day UK Supreme Court. The Law Lords proved that this notion of the ‘Rule of Law’ had actual jurisdiction and impact within British values, actually applying to pieces of legislation. Of course contrasts with the Safety of Rwanda Bill, which overridden a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ from the HRA, manoeuvring the Supreme Court’s decision. With this fusion of the powers between the legislative and judicial, of course, the problem of judicial independence being under threat is of concern, yet with great expertise and the impact of independent committees like the JAC the judicial branch within the legislative, and executive due to the cabinet position of Lord Chancellor. Communication, cooperation, efficiency, pragmatism and influence can flourish and grow our country.
The House of Lords is the basis of convention and tradition, a must need in our political system for it allows adjustment and change to arise, without abandoning its existence, being what functions they have in place which works. An example of tradition would be the House of Lords’ connection to His Majesty King Charles III for not only does it operate well as it connects the Head of State to our political system which has been distanced, but it allows a driven legitimacy forged by history, culture and identity for the Monarch, emphasising the Royal Family’s existence and the Lords, seen with the annual King’s Speech. And with the needed custom of the King present in the Lords, the Lords Spiritual rightfully finds its place within the Lords. Bishops who function on giving guidance are placed in a Chamber made to give guidance, which makes sense, deriving their legitimacy from the Church of England, the Church which our nation and government represent, not formally due to the separation of church and state, but through custom and convention, hence the Lords Spiritual play an informative role rather than legislative.
STATE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT, IMAGE: KRISTY WIGGLESWORTH/AFP
Edmund Burke remarked that “Custom reconciles us to everything” and the House of Lords is the basis of custom in our British culture. Adapting from its roots as the King’s Council to talk shop which legislates and scrutinies better than the partisan Commons which challenges the government and demonstrates a democratic Britain, the House of Lords is open to change and reform, but not dramatic identity-eroding progression. As a result, the argument that its abolition and grand reform is a priority due to its unelected nature is merely an excuse derived from modern standard thought, almost a fetishisation of liberal thoughts, an irrational basic answer to a complicated history. There is a real problem, like with rights, where society holds democracy to an untouchable pedestal, seething anything which dismays this manifest destiny. Any argument against an extension of democracy, like referendums, is subject to one-way thought, where the arguer against is treated as an immoral Mugabe. It is almost as if democratising everything is common sense when in reality it slows efficiency. What’s next? Make the civil service elected? NHS staff after this? What would be the new electoral system? If more proportional would that not create a gridlocked legislative branch based on who has more legitimacy? The issue doesn’t lie with the undemocratic nature of the House of Lords but with the previous examples of cronyism. A reform which makes appointments of Peers based be based on expertise and experience. Lord Philip Norton, the Lord Norton of Louth, is known as “the United Kingdom’s greatest living expert on Parliament” and is a Professor of Government at Hull University. He is one of many yet few examples of the sort of expertise needed yet currently not fully present in the House of Lords. Another would be Lord John Krebs who specialises in zoology and behavioural ecology, Baroness Meacher who is a former social worker and Baroness Grey-Thompson who specialises in sports as a former wheelchair racer, promoting disability rights. All experts in their specific field, have a real, encouragable and listenable input to legislation which affects their field of knowledge.
Hence, love the British Constitution for what it has offered. Adapting to the present in a sensible manner. The House of Lords holds such a detrimental, paramount, necessary factor to our constitution in how our fusion of powers can be enabled for the greater good. It allows the Commons to debate and discuss the top issues of the day, doing the background work for legislation which is of the utmost importance but may not be in public demand. It hasn’t failed us in the past to the point of abolition, so why now?
Google Sites
Report abuse