introductio1 jhkjhjj

7/27/2019 INTRODUCTIO1 jhkjhjj

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/introductio1-jhkjhjj 1/23

1

INTRODUCTION

The House of Lords, the Crown and the House of Commons are the three national governinginstitutions of the British constitution and provide the institutional pillars upon which the

constitution has evolved. Many authors contend that British political institutions are an organic

product of the values, beliefs and traditions that have shaped the constitution. Indeed, Britain‘s

political institutions have an ancient lineage stretching back 700 years, with a constitution that is

a product of historical evolution, rather than design, and, therefore, the House of Lords as a

national political institution; obviously, be examined in isolation from the Crown or the House of

Commons. The House of Lords, as the institution which, historically at least, represented the

economic elite of the nation and the civic power and prestige of the landed aristocracy. The

Crown and the Houses of Lords and Commons first emerge as the principle governing

institutions of the British constitution in the Thirteenth Century and, during that century, the

word Parliamentum was first used to describe the trinity of institutions governing the nation. The

House of Lords has maintained an unbroken and constant presence in the governing of the

nation, either as an assembly of the Crown, or as one of the two Chambers of Parliament, for

nearly a thousand years. The House of Lords longevity as a governing institution makes it an

important institution to study The House of Lords‘ long and illustrious history as one of the

Chambers of the English Parliament, and a Chamber of aristocratic peers which ranked only

beneath the Crown in prestige and social esteem. Until 2009, the British Parliament was unique

in having a central concentration of legislative and legal powers, with no distinction or

separation between constitutional and legislative law. The House of Lords judicial function as

the supreme court of appeal in the nation up until 2009, when the Supreme Court of the U.K was

created. Basic question arise:

How House of Lords evolved?

House of Lords represent social elite?



2

Overview of Literature

1. Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Human Rights (Ian Loveland, Oxford University

Press, 2009)

In his chapter on the House of Lords, Ian Loveland questioned the proposals put forward by the

2001 white paper and the Wakeham Commission. Referencing calls for the second chamber to

maintain a pronounced level of expertise and impartiality, he suggested that the key division

within the legislative process was now between party interest and national interest, a subject he

argued was not met by those proposals. Addressing the calls for a more democratic second

chamber, Loveland asked whether even the House of Commons could be said to truly represent

the wishes of the public.

2. The House of Lords — Into the Future? (Nicholas D. J. Baldwin, Journal of Legislative Studies,

June 2007)

In this article, Nicholas Baldwin compiled presentations made by three Peers at a seminar about

parliament. The first, by Lord Howe of Aberavon, is summarised below in the ―Legitimacy‖

section of this bibliography. The second and third, by Lord McNally and Lord Carter, provided a

broader view on reform proposals, as well as providing background to some of the steps in the

reform process.

3. House of Lords Reform: A Briefing Paper (Dr Alan Renwick, Political Studies Association, 4July 2011)

Dr Alan Renwick considered the legislative impact of the House of Lords since the formation of

the coalition government in May 2010, believing there to be two key developments. First, the

author referred to discussions about the applicability of the Salisbury convention under a

coalition government. And second, the author suggested that an influx of new members, many

former MPs, led to a more partisan cham ber which is less respectful of the government‘s wishes.

He used the proceedings on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill in

February 2011 as an example. The paper also explored recent attendance and voting statistics.



3

SCOPE OF STUDY

Objectives

1. To provides an exposition of the House of Lords.

2. To explores how it shaped, & was shaped by the time.

Research Methodology

This project is based on theoretical research .The author of the project has located material from

books, article, journals (secondary source of data).



4

Evolution of the species: House of Lords

In Britain nothing is arranged. It just grows and HoL is the child of this growth .The origins of

the HoL go back to the 14th century. At that time, it was composed of a group of powerful

advisers to the King. Many of these held titles such as Earl, Baron or Duke. HoL is result of

division of parliament, after Edward I called model parliament in 1295 all the different classes of

people summoned to attend met in one single assembly, but afterward they broke into three

groups Noble, Clergy and Commons ,and they simultaneously broke and associated until they

from two house HoC & HoL .

In modern times, concern grew that the HoL was not representative of the population as a whole.

So in 1958 the government of the day invented a new kind of peer (peer is another name for

Member of the HoL.) These are known as Life Peers because they cannot pass on to their

children the title or right to sit in Parliament. At the same time it became possible to appoint

women to the House. In 1999 the govt took another major step in the evolution of the HoL. It

passed an Act abolishing the right of the 650 Hereditary Peers to sit in the HoL. There were

many protests at this with the result that a compromise allowed 92 of these Lords to stay on in

the House.

Some key dates in the evolution of the House are mentioned below12

:-

11th century

Origins of Parliament in the Witan; councils consulted by Saxon kings and attended by religious

leaders, magnates and the king‘s own ministers.

13th century

Attendance includes representatives of counties, cities and boroughs.

14th century

Two distinct Houses of Parliament emerged in the 14th century after representatives from the

towns and counties began to meet separately as the House of Commons. Archbishops, bishops

1http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/348064/House-of-Lords

2http://www.parliament.uk/lords



5

and sometimes abbots and priors – the ‗Lords Spiritual‘ – and noblemen – the ‗Lords Temporal‘

– formed the House of Lords.

15th century

By the 15th century attendance by the Lords Temporal at the House of Lords was on an almost

entirely hereditary basis. Also known as peers, the Lords Temporal saw themselves as

accountable to each other and were divided into five ranks: Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount and

Baron.

16th century

Until the suppression of the monasteries in 1539 the Lords Spiritual consisted of bishops, abbots

and priors. After 1539, only bishops attended and the Lords Temporal formed the majority for

the first time.

17th century

In 1642, during the Civil War, bishops were excluded from the House of Lords but returned by

the Clergy Act 1661. In 1649, after the Civil War, the monarchy and the House of Lords were

abolished. After the restoration of Charles II in 1660 the House was reinstated and later, in 1689,

the Bill of Rights established Parliament‘s authority over the King. The Commons pre-eminence

in financial matters was given an official basis in the passing of resolutions in 1671 and 1678

after attempts by the Lords to breach the convention. The Declaration of Rights established

Parliament‘s authority over the King. It was later embodied in an Act, initiated by the Commons

known as the 1689 Bill of Rights.

18th century

The Acts of Union with Scotland (1707) and Ireland (1800) created a single Parliament for Great

Britain and then for the United Kingdom. The Acts entitled Scottish and Irish Peers to elect

representatives from among their number to sit in the Lords.

19th century

The Bishopric of Manchester Act 1847 (and later Acts) limited the number of bishops entitled

to sit. Most of the Irish and all the Welsh bishops ceased to sit when their respective churches

were disestablished in 1869 and 1920. Retired bishops cannot sit or vote in the House.



6

The Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 created the judicial functions of the House of Lords and

enabled the sovereign to create Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (Law Lords) to continue to sit and

vote. They were, in effect, the first life peerages.

20th century

1909 The Lords rejected the Liberal Government‘s budget. The Liberals then introduced a bill to

end the power of the Lords to reject legislation approved by the Commons, which was passed

under the threat of the creation of a large number of Liberal peers.

1911 The Parliament Act 1911 provided that:

• Money bills approved by the Commons became law if not passed without amendment by the

Lords within one month.

• other public bills, except one to extend the life of a Pa rliament, became law without the consent

of the Lords if passed by the Commons in three successive sessions providing two years elapsed

between Second Reading and Final Passing in the Commons.

1922 Elections for Irish representative peers ceased.

1941 Commons Chamber destroyed by enemy action. The Lords give up their Chamber to the

Commons and use the Queen‘s Robing Room when they sit.

1949 The Parliament Act 1949 reduced the delaying power of the 1911 Act in respect of public

bills, other than money bills, to two sessions and one year respectively.

1958 The Life Peerages Act 1958 permitted the creation of peerages for life, with no limit on

numbers, to persons of either sex. Around the same time allowances for peers‘ out-of-pocket

expenses and the system of ‗leave of absence‘ for Members who did not wish or could not attend

the House for a long period were introduced.

1963 The Peerage Act 1963 allowed hereditary peeresses to be Members of the House,

hereditary peerages to be disclaimed for life and for all Scottish peers to sit.

1968 The Labour Government introduced the Parliament (No.2) Bill, which would have created

a two-tier House of created Members who could speak and vote and others who could speak but

not vote. The bill was so held up in the House of Commons by both Labour and Conservative

MPs that it had to be abandoned.



7

1999 The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of most hereditary peers to sit and vote in

the House. An amendment to the bill, tabled by former Commons Speaker and, at the time,

Convenor of the Crossbenchers Lord Weatherill, was accepted by the Government: it enabled 92

hereditary peers to remain until the House was fully reformed.

21st century

2005 The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 provided for the separation of the House‘s judicial

function from Parliament and ended the Lord Chancellor‘s role as head of the judiciary, a

member of the executive and as Speaker of the House of Lords.

2006 The House held its first election for a Lord Speaker and Baroness Hayman was elected on 4

July 2006. The role was previously one of the Lord Chancellor‘s responsibilities.

2009 The House‘s judicial function ended and was transferred to the new UK Supreme Court.

The current Law Lords became the first justices of the Supreme Court.



8

House of Lords

Members of the HoL3

The House of Lords Act 1999 ended the right of most hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the

House and led to significant changes in its membership. Ongoing discussions explore further

possible reforms, but currently the House of Lords is made up of three groups:

Life Peers: The majority (about 700) of Members are appointed for their lifetime by the

Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Elected hereditary Members: A smaller group of hereditary Peers (92) are also Members.

Archbishops and bishops: 26 Church of England archbishops and bishops sit in the House

of Lords.

Diverse membership of the House of Lords

Members of the House of Lords come from many walks of life, and bring experience and

knowledge from a wide range of occupations. Many remain active in their fields and have

successful careers in business, culture, science, sports, academia, health, politics and public

service. They bring this wealth of knowledge and experience to the role of examining matters of

public interest that affect all UK citizens. Members also represent the House of Lords and UK

Parliament at home and abroad. Through a range of formal and informal outreach activities,

Members explain the work of the House of Lords and encourage people to actively engage with

Parliament which is at the heart of our democracy. Currently, there are about 800 Members of

the House of Lords. There is no upper limit on the total number of Members, and numbers in

each party group fluctuate4

There are three main categories of membership.

Life peers

3http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/348064/House-of-Lords

4 up-to-date figures can be found on the House of Lords website



9

The Life Peerages Act 1958 reformed the composition of the House of Lords to introduce

women and people from different backgrounds and occupations. The majority (about 680) of

Members (peers) are appointed for their lifetime (titles are not passed on to their family) by the

Queen, on the advice of the Prime Minister. Any British, Irish and Commonwealth citizen who is

a UK resident and taxpayer over the age of 21 is eligible to be nominated or can apply to become

a Member, via the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission.

Archbishops and bishops

A limited number of 26 Church of England archbishops and bishops sit in the House.

When they retire as bishops their membership of the House ceases and is passed on to the next

most senior bishop. The Anglican archbishops of Canterbury and York, the bishops of Durham,

London and Winchester and the 21 senior diocesan bishops of the Church of England have seats

in the House.

Elected hereditary Members

The House of Lords Act 1999 ended the right of most hereditary peers to sit and vote in the

House; 92 remain until the next stage of reform. They are: 15 officeholders elected by the House;

75 party and Crossbench Members (elected by their own party or group); and two who hold royal

appointments.

Becoming a Member of the House of Lords

Members of the House of Lords are generally appointed not elected and they do not receive a

salary. Most of the Lords are made up of people appointed by the Queen following

recommendations from the Prime Minister, and the leaders of the other main parties also

recommend people to represent their own parties.

In 2000 the government set up the House of Lords Appointment Commission, which suggests

individuals who are not in a political party and also checks all other nominations. Anyone can be

nominated (as long as they are over 21), which is why they earned themselves the nickname

‗people‘s peers‘

Qualities required for a People‘s Peer:

A good record of achievements and experience.

The ability to make an effective contribution.



10

Good Character, such as honesty and independence.

Not a member of any political party

Any British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen who is a UK resident aged over 21 is eligible

to be nominated or can apply. Life Peers are appointed based on their knowledge and

experience.

Many are experienced politicians, but others have expertise in areas such as business, the

arts, education and sport.

Roles:

Making laws: All Bills have to be considered by both Houses of Parliament before they

can become law.

In-depth consideration of public policy: Members use their individual experience to

debate public policy in the House and in Select Committees.

Holding Government to account: Members scrutinize the work of the Government during

Question Time and debates, where Government Ministers must respond.

The House of Lords plays an important role in making laws by very carefully reading through

and checking Bills and suggesting changes, many of which are accepted by the House of

Commons. It also keeps an eye on the work of the government and makes sure that everything is

done properly and in the best interests of the country. Members of the House of Lords can also

propose new laws for consideration by both Houses.



11

House of Lords Appointments Commission5

The House of Lords Appointments Commission is an independent, advisory non-departmental

public body, established by the Prime Minister in 2000. The Commission has two main

functions, to:

• recommend individuals for appointment as non-party-political life peers

• vet nominations for life peers, including those nominated by the UK political parties, to ensure

the highest standards of propriety.

The Commission has seven members, including the chair. Three members were appointed to

represent the main political parties. The other three members and the chair are non-political and

independent of government.The House of Lords Appointments Commission is an independent body. It is not part of the

House of Lords.

Dissolution Honours

Peerages may be given to some MPs from all parties when they leave the House of Commons at

the end of a Parliament.

Resignation Honours

When a prime minister resigns, he or she may recommend peerages and other honours for

politicians, their political advisers and others who have supported them.

Political lists

Members can be appointed, on a party basis, to ‗top up‘ each of the three main party groups‘

strengths and on the expectation that they will attend regularly and perhaps take on frontbench

work as spokespersons or business managers (‗whips‘).

One-off announcements

One-off announcements can cover peerages for someone appointed as a minister who is not a

Member of the House.

Archbishops and bishops

5http://www.lordsappointments.gov.uk/



12

A limited number of 26 Church of England archbishops and bishops sit in the House. When they

retire as bishops their membership of the House ceases and is passed on to the next most senior

bishop. The archbishops of Canterbury and York are usually given life peerages on retirement.

Speakers

Former Speakers of the House of Commons have traditionally been awarded a peerage at the

request of the House of Commons the House.

Party and group organisation

Most Members belong to the main political parties. Many Members do not support any political

party –

These independent Members are known as ‗Crossbenchers‘. Their independence is a distinctive

feature of the House of Lords and their participation allows voices that might not otherwise be

heard in the political process to contribute to discussion of draft laws and government policy.

Members sit in the chamber according to the party or group they belong to. The government and

the main opposition party or parties each have a leader, business managers (‗whips‘) who

organise the work of the House and spokespersons who sit on the frontbench. The Crossbenchers

have a convenor but, because they have no party affiliation, no whip system.



13

Lord Chancellor

Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, or Lord Chancellor, is a senior and important functionary

in the government of the United Kingdom. He is the second highest ranking of the Great Officers

of State, Prior to the Union there were separate Lord Chancellors of England (including Wales)

and Scotland. The Lord Chancellor is a member of the Cabinet and, by law, is responsible for the

efficient functioning and independence of the courts. Formerly he was also the presiding officer

of the House of Lords, and the head of the judiciary in England and Wales, but the Constitutional

Reform Act 2005 transferred these roles to the Lord Speaker and the LCJ respectively. One of

the Lord Chancellor's responsibilities is to act as the custodian of the Great Seal.

History

The office of LC of England may trace its origins to the Carolingian monarchy, in which a

Chancellor acted as the keeper of the royal seal. In England, the office dates at least as far back

as the Norman Conquest, and possibly earlier. Formerly, the Lord Chancellor was almost always

a churchman, as during the middle Ages the clergy were amongst the few literate men of the

realm. The LC performed multiple functions — he was the Keeper of the Great Seal, the chief

royal chaplain, and adviser in both spiritual and temporal matters. Thus, the position emerged as

one of the most important ones in govt.

The office

Formerly, when the office was held by ecclesiastics, a "Keeper of the Great Seal" acted in the

Lord Chancellor's absence. Keepers were also appointed when the office of Lord Chancellor fell

vacant, and discharged the duties of the office until an appropriate replacement could be found.

When Elizabeth I became Queen, Parliament passed an Act providing that a Lord Keeper of the

Great Seal would be entitled to "like place, pre-eminence, jurisdiction, execution of laws, and all

other customs, commodities, and advantages" as a LC. Office in relation to HoL:

Legislative Function6

Judicial Function7

Executive Function

6Constitutional Reform Act 2005

7Ibid



14

House of Lords Reforms: Chronology

1. Parliament Act 1911

Background Powers: Though the Commons had declared that the Lords should not interfere

with financial (supply) legislation, they could still in theory reject it outright and the Lords still

had power to amend or reject ordinary legislation.

Composition: Although the Commons had become more representative through extensions of the

franchise, the Lords remained an unrepresentative body. Critics also noted the large proportion

of conservative-minded Peers.

Issues: In the later 19th century Peers increasingly used their power, particularly against

measures proposed by Liberal governments. Most significant was the rejection of the Irish HomeRule Bill in 1893. The Liberal Government elected with a large majority in 1906 suffered several

defeats in the Lords on its flagship measures, such as on the Education Bill. In 1909 the Lords

rejected the Government‗s Finance Bill.

Proposal: The Commons had already approved a resolution that the Commons shall prevail

against the Lords in 1907. The Government proposed a Bill to cut the powers of the Lords with

regard to primary legislation. The power to reject would be replaced by a delaying power of up

to two years. The Government threatened to create enough Liberal Peers to pass the Bill if the

Lords rejected it. The Bill was finally passed following opposition from the Conservative Party

and from a large number of Peers in the House of Lords.

Outcome: Parliament Act 1911.

The Act‗s preamble describes it is an interim measure until the Second Chamber [could be]

constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis.

2. Bryce Commission 1918

Background Reform Delayed: The First World War prevented any further reform to the House

of Lords. Following the conclusion of the war, David Lloyd George established a commission

chaired by Viscount Bryce.

Proposal: The Commission failed to agree on composition. The majority favoured 246 Members

chosen by the House of Commons from geographical regions and a number of Members (about



15

one quarter of the whole House) chosen by a Joint Committee. Initially these would be holders of

hereditary peerages. The reformed House would not be able to amend or reject Money Bills and

the Parliament Act would not apply to further measures to reform the powers of the Lords.

Outcome: No action was taken.

In 1922 Lloyd George‗s Government introduced resolutions based on the Bryce report. These

were debated for four days. The Government later fell so no further action could be taken. The

Baldwin Government made similar proposals when the Conservatives returned to power at the

end of 1924 but these were neither debated nor voted on in the Commons. The Labour Party, by

then the main opposition party, preferred abolition.

3. Parliament Act 1949

Background Backbench Bills: A number of Private Members‗Bills were proposed throughout

the 1930s that sought to reform the Lords. The most prominent scheme was proposed by the

Marquess of Salisbury whose reforms were based on the lines of the 1922 resolutions. In spite of

receiving a second reading in 1934, no further progress was made.

Manifesto: The Labour Party had stated that in Government they would not tolerate obstruction

of their programme in the Lords. Nationalisation: Following the 1945 election win, the Labour

Government expressed concern about getting its nationalisation programme through the Lords in

time for a general election in 1949 – 50, particularly the Iron and Steel Bill.

Proposal: A Bill to amend the Parliament Act to reduce the Lords delaying power from two

years to one year. No scheme for wider reform was proposed. Introduced in the 1947 – 48 session

the Bill went through the Commons but was adjourned in the Lords pending an inter-party

conference on reform. Nine principles were agreed, including that no party should have overall

control in a reformed House, creation of life peerages, allowing women to be Members and the

introduction of allowances. The Conference collapsed over disagreement on powers. On

reintroduction, the Bill was then rejected at second reading twice in the Lords, having gone

through the Commons. It received Royal Assent in 1949 under the terms of the Parliament Act

1911.

Outcome: Parliament Act 1949.

4. Life Peerages Act 1958



16

Background Old Solution: The creation of life peerages had historical pedigree. Previous

Private Members‗ Bills had proposed similar provisions for life peerages, including a Bill

introduced by Earl Russell in 1869, Lord Newton‗s scheme in 1907 and a number of proposals

through the 1930s.

Proposal In 1957, the Macmillan Government introduced a Bill to enable the creation of

peerages bestowed on men/women for life. The Earl of Home told the Lords that the measure

was strictly and severely practical and underlined that an injection of new Members was

needed. He explained that the House is perilously near a breakdown in its machinery.

Outcome Life Peerages Act 1958

5. Peerage Act 1963

Background Women who had inherited peerages were unable to take their seats in the Lords, a

situation seen as anomalous following the introduction of women as life Peers.

Peerages could not be relinquished once inherited, a problem highlighted by Tony Benn who

campaigned against the perceived unfairness that he could not remain as an MP on inheriting his

father‗s peerage.

Proposal: A Bill was introduced to enable individuals to relinquish inherited titles and to allow

female hereditary Peers to take their seats in the Lords.

Outcome: Peerage Act 1963.

6. Parliament (No 2) Bill (1968)

Background Manifesto: In 1966 the Labour Party reasserted its promise to safeguard measures

approved in the House of Commons from frustration by delay or defeat in the House of Lords.

Inter-Party Conference: The Queen‗s Speech on 31 October 1967 stated that the Government

would be willing to enter into inter-party consultations. The Inter-Party Conference on House of

Lords reform was set up at the beginning of the 1967 – 68 session and met for the first time on 8

November 1967. Following rejection by the Lords of the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations

Sanctions) Order 1968, the Conference was halted.



17

White Paper: On 1 November 1968 the Government published a white paper on House of Lords

Reform8. It proposed a two-writ‗system of voting and non-voting Peers and reduced powers.

Primary legislation would be subject to shorter delay. The rejection in the Lords of Statutory

Instruments could be overridden in the Commons. The white paper was debated in both Houses

and was approved by a majority of 195 in the Lords and 111 in the House of Commons.

Proposal: The Parliament (No 2) Bill containing these proposals was introduced to the House of

Commons on 19 December 1968.

Outcome: Bill dropped.

In April 1969, Harold Wilson told the Commons the Bill was to be dropped in order to ensure

that the necessary Parliamentary time is available for priority Government legislation. Over 80

hours had been spent on the Bill in Committee. Only the Preamble and 5 out of 20 clauses in the

Bill had been discussed. A number of Private Members‗Bills followed at the end of the 1960s

and throughout the 1970s. These included Robert Sheldon‗s proposal in 1969 to reduce the

Lords‗powers and Dennis Skinner‗s Bill in 1976 to abolish it. Others proposed ending

Membership by virtue of inheritance. At the end of the 1970s several articles and reports

considered Lords reform. A Labour Party NEC statement proposed abolition as the most

straightforward and practical course. A Liberal Party Working Group report advocated an elected

House constitutional settlement within a federal system of government. A Conservative

Committee, chaired by Lord Home, settled in favour of a House composed by a mixture of

election and appointment and suggested that the powers of the House of Lords to delay

legislation could be restored to a two-year period.

7. House of Lords Act 1999

Background: Backbench Bills: In the 1990s a number of Private Members‗Bills were proposed

to provide for elections to the Lords, including those by Graham Allen and Peter Hain.

Labour Policy: In 1994 Tony Blair made a speech in which he stated his Party‗s reform agenda.

As a minimum first step the hereditary right to a seat would be abolished by a short Bill, passed

under the Parliament Acts procedure if necessary, so that only Peers of first creation would be

entitled to attend and participate in House of Lords proceedings.

8http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88n

2004&res_dat=xri:hcpp&rft_dat=xri:hcpp:fulltext:1968-057511



18

Proposal: The Labour manifesto in 1997 contained confirmation of its intention to remove

hereditary Peers as a first stage. It added that a committee of both Houses of Parliament would be

appointed to undertake a wide-ranging review of possible further change. They would then bring

forward proposals for reform. The House of Lords Bill was introduced to the House of Commons

in January 1999 and, following a compromise amendment (Weatherill amendment‗) made in the

Lords to allow 92 hereditary Peers to remain, the Bill passed.

Outcome: House of Lords Act 1999.

The Act removed the right of all but 92 hereditary Peers to sit in the House of Lords.

8. Wakeham Commission (2000)

Background Royal Commission: The same month as the House of Lords Bill was introduced,

the Government published a white paper, Modernising Parliament: Reforming the House of

Lords9. The statement announced the setting up of an appointments commission to recommend

non-party-political life Peers and the establishment of a Royal Commission.

Proposal: The Royal Commission‗s report made 132 recommendations. It proposed that a

reformed House of Lords would have around 550 Members, with 65, 87 or 195 elected

Members. It recommended the creation of a statutory appointments commission to be

responsible for all appointments to the Second Chamber. It did not propose any radical change in

the balance of power between the two Houses of Parliament.

Outcome: Joint Committee.

During the Commons debate in June 2000, the Government said that a Joint Committee of both

Houses would in due course be established to consider the implications of the Royal

Commission‗s work.

9. Labour’s White Paper: Completing the Reform (2001)

Background: Queen's Speech in the 2001 – 02 Sessions: The Government announced that it

would introduce legislation, following consultation, to implement the second phase of House

of Lords reform.

9http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-

2004&res_dat=xri:hcpp&rft_dat=xri:hcpp:fulltext:1998-100536



19

Proposal: In November 2001 the Government published its white paper, The House of Lords:

Completing the Reform,10

seeking responses by 31 January 2002, with a view to introducing

legislation thereafter. The paper stated the Government‗s view that at least 20 percent of the

House should be non-party-political appointments.

Outcome: Debate.

Two days of debate on constitutional reform were held in the House of Lords and one day in the

House of Commons, with the white paper‗s proposals attracting little support. In January 2002,

both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats published their proposals for reform. The

Conservative Party proposed the creation of a 300 member assembly, to be called the Senate,

with 240 Members elected by a first-past-the-post system for 15-year terms. The Liberal

Democrats envisaged a Second Chamber of no more than 300 Members with a minimum of 80

percent of Members elected by proportional representation.

10. Joint Committee on Lords Reform (2002 – 03)

Background: In May 2002 the Government proposed a Joint Committee to achieve consensus

on reform.

Proposal: The Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform published its report, House of Lords

Reform: First Report 11

. It contained seven options for reform, including wholly elected, wholly

appointed and five different combinations of elected/appointed.

Outcome: Votes in both Houses.

The House of Commons rejected all seven options for reform presented by the Joint Committee,

while the House of Lords voted by three to one for a fully appointed House and rejected all other

options. The option which MPs defeated by the fewest number was for an 80 percent elected

chamber. In May 2003, the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform published its second

report, House of Lords Reform: Second Report 12

. The Joint Committee‗s report was seen as

passing the initiative back to the Government following the outcome of the votes in February.

The Government responded in July reiterating its policy on reform.

10http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/holref/holrefor

m.htm11

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt200203/jtselect/jtholref/17/17.pdf 12

HL Paper 97 of session 2002 – 03



20

11. Government Consultation: Next Steps (2003)

Background: In January 2003, Tony Blair argued against the creation of a hybrid House and

expressed his support for the House of Lords as a revising Chamber, not a rival Chamber. He

favoured an appointed House.

Proposal: In September the Government published a consultation paper, Constitutional Reform:

next steps for the House of Lord 13 s . It proposed removing the remaining hereditary Peers and

new provisions for appointments to the House.

Outcome: Dropped.

The proposals were opposed in both Houses. In Nov.2003, the Queen‗s Speech said that

legislation would be brought forward to reform the House of Lords, removing hereditary Peers

and establishing a statutory appointments commission. In March 2004, Lord Falconer of

Thoroton told the BBC that plans to introduce a Bill to reform the House of Lords had been

dropped.

12. Labour’s White Paper: The House of Lords (2007)

Background Manifestos: The Labour Party, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats all

included statements on House of Lords reform in their 2005 General Election manifestos.

Queen‗s Speech: In the Queen‗s Speech for the 2005– 06 session, the Government announced

that it would bring forward proposals to continue the reform of the House of Lords.

Conventions: In November 2006, the Joint Committee on Conventions published its report,

Conventions of the UK Parliament 14

. It concluded that conventions by their nature could not be

codified and are flexible and unenforceable. It noted that its conclusions only applied to the

present circumstances of the House and would need to be revisited were the composition of the

House to change. In its reply, the Government accepted the Joint Committee‗s conclusions.

Proposal: In February 2007 the Government published its white paper, The House of Lords:

Reform. It proposed a hybrid House with at least 20 percent non-party-political appointments;

direct elections through a partially open list system; the primacy of the Commons; and reduced

in size to 540 Members.

Outcome: Votes.

13http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dca.gov.uk/consult/holref/holref03.pdf

14HL Paper 265 of session 2005 – 06



21

MPs supported the principle of a bicameral legislature and two options — an 80 percent elected

House and a 100 percent elected House. They also supported a motion stating that the remaining

retained places for Peers whose membership is based on the hereditary principle should be

removed. Peers voted in favour of a fully appointed House and rejected all other options.

13. Labour’s Green Paper: An Elected Second Chamber (2008)

Background: Green Paper: In July 2007, the Government‗s The Governance of Britain15

stated

that it was committed to enacting the will of the House of Commons as expressed in the recent

votes, and that cross-party discussions would continue to such ends.

Proposal: The green paper contained a number of options on composition, electoral systems and

statements of general principles.

Outcome: The House of Commons Public Administration Committee reported16 on the green

paper in January 2009. It concentrated on the mechanisms by which individuals are appointed to

the House of Lords. The Committee also recommended amending the powers of the House of

Lords Appointments Commission. In July 2009, the CRG Bill was introduced to the House of

Commons. The Bill proposed the ending of by-elections to replace hereditary Peers who had

died and to disqualify Members of the House of Lords found guilty of a serious crime or who

were subject to a bankruptcy order. The Bill also provided measures for the House of Lords to

suspend or expel Members and to allow Peers to resign from the House of Lords and disclaim a

peerage. In February 2010, Jack Straw stated his intention to publish key parts of a draft Bill

for reform of the House of Lords in the next few weeks. Following the announcement of the

General Election, in April 2010 the Government agreed to drop a number of provisions from the

CRG Bill in order for it to pass, including all the provisions that would apply to the House of

Lords apart from those relating to the tax status of Members.

15http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm71/7170/7170.pdf

16http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubadm/137/137.pdf



22

CONCULSION

Despite limitations, the House of Lords plays a significant role in Parliament. Its most useful

functions are the revision of bills that the House of Commons has not formulated in sufficient

detail. House of Lords evolved with British parliament ,however it represent social elite but HoL

also serves a valuable function by providing a national forum of debate free from the constraints

of party discipline.



23

BIBLIOGRAPHY/WEBLIOGRAPHY/REFERNCES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carroll, Alex 2007. Constitutional and Administrative Law 4th ed.. Pearson Longman.

Loveland, Ian (2009). Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Human Rights 5th ed..

Oxford University

WEBLIOGRAPHY

www. parliament. uk/ business/ lords/

www. lordspublications. parliament. uk/

www. parliament. uk/ business/ publications/ parliamentary-archives/

www. histparl. ac. uk

REFERNCES

Loveland Ian Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Human Rights, 2009 Oxford

University Press,

Bhagwan Vishnu & Bhushan Vidya 2002. ―World Constitution”. 7th

edition. New Delhi.

Sterling Publishers Pvt Ltd

House of Lords Act 1999

Constitutional Reform Act 2005

House of Lords Reform: Are We Nearly There Yet?(Meg Russell, Political Quarterly14

July 2008

introductio1 jhkjhjj

Documents