Per the Guardian and the BBC, the Lords have agreed to a bill already passed by the Commons which eliminates the right of hereditary peers to sit in Parliament, following up on the 1999 legislation which greatly reduced the number of nobles entitled to do so. The Tories dropped their previous objection to the bill after it was decided that a number of their members will be given life peerages.
As an American, I’d be curious to know what our British Dopers think about this. It certainly seems like a step towards making the House of Lords more democratic, though AIUI their role in government these days is more ceremonial than anything else since they can’t effectively halt legislation once the Commons has passed it.
The United Kingdom still has a House of Lords… why?
I mean, bicameralism, I get it… but it’s hard in the 21st Century to support the idea that being the descendant of a randy king and a comely barmaid uniquely qualifies you to make law.
AIUI, the majority of the membership (excluding the bishops of the Church of England) are life peerages, appointed by the King on the advice of the PM.
I would be interested to find out what sorts of people get life peerages these days. From almost 1/3 of the way around the world, I have no perspective on this except what I have read in fiction books, which were mostly out of date.
It does seem sort of a sterile exercise, anyway, if the Lords are effectively impotent (politically).
So kinda like the way we select members of the US Supreme Court? Do the appointees have to be from the aristocracy or does the king make them lords just by appointing them?
Life peers are statutory appointments under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958. This act provides that the Monarch can by Letters Patent (a legal document) “confer on any person a peerage for life”. This entitles them to “receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords” where, until they die or resign (or leave through other means, such as non-attendance or expulsion), they can sit and vote. Long-standing custom is that the Prime Minister advises the King on peerage appointments, although this is not specified in the act.
Direct ministerial: the government can nominate someone to allow them to become a government minister (for example, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was created a life peer so he could serve as Foreign Secretary)
Someone more familiar with British politics than I can probably provide more clarification, but AIUI the Lords have a limited veto; they can amend bills passed by the Commons, and can send them back to the Commons for reconsideration, but if they do so three times and the Commons passes it three times, then it proceeeds to the King for Royal Assent (which has not been refused since the 18th century) regardless. Their role is more fine-tuning legislation that it’s already decided should become law than it is to accept or reject it.
Most members of HoL now are political donors or long serving politicians or political advisors.
Overall, the change is probably due. But the hereditary (and therefore, non/less partisan) Lords have done, overall, a good job scrutinising legislation IMHO.
Yes, long overdue, but a wholly appointed body isn’t the best idea. Government and Opposition parties make their own nominations, with whatever back-room negotiations as to numbers, so as to bolster their capacity to get business through and/or to reward - well, loyal party hacks, generous donors, and who knows quite why. But there are also (usually “cross-party”) genuine honorees who have achieved a great deal in academe, the professions, arts and business.
It’s a ramshackle concept, and has led to “grade inflation” all round (is it 800+ members now?). On the other hand, a directly elected body would likely want to start expanding its powers, with a risk of legislative gridlock. There once was a suggestion of allocating seats in the Upper House proportionate to the parties’ share of the votes for the Commons, but you’d still have a wholly nominated body beholden to party leaderships (as life peers currently aren’t - once they’re in, they’re in for, well, life).
I’d go for mixed indirect election: no new powers for the body, a fixed total number allocated proportionally to parties as above but the individual members elected by their party’s life peers. Likewise a guaranteed number of cross-bench peers. Plus, I’d add a number of local government representatives, elected in regional constituencies by the elected local councillors, from those who are or have recently been local councillors.
This is the weird thing about the HoL: the hereditary peers who sit in it because they’re the descendants of kings and barmaids have tended to take their roles seriously and curb the excesses of the Government in a generally reasonable and non-partisan way. Conversely, those who have received life peerages for “Services to party coffers” tend to rubber stamp anything their own party supports and oppose the rest.
The HoL is problematic for all sorts of reasons but I don’t see this move as improving things.
Complete reform of the House of Lords is still long overdue - getting rid of hereditary peers is just the tip of the iceberg (FYI most hereditary peers lost their seats back during the Blair years, a few were allowed to ‘apply’ to stay based on some sort of active input).
As it’s currently a room full of political appointments of varying quality - some are brilliant experts in their fields, some are basically unqualified party donors - the whole system needs reviewing. I’m not saying it has to be fully elected like the US Senate as I do like the idea of a house that is there to temper the excesses of some elected politicians, but I would like to see a more impartial body that selects candidates - perhaps who then get put to a national vote.
To the OP, the Lords is not ceremonial. They are very active in scrutinising legislation and making recommendations – a good backstop to the House of Commons. Whilst they can’t totally block the House of Commons, they are a check and balance on them. But how people get their seat, and how long they keep it, needs a proper overhaul.
Good comment. “A house of sober second thought,” as we call our Senate in Canada, which is modelled after the British House of Lords, only without hereditary peerages. If the Commons come up with something ridiculous, it will be sent back with “Seriously? Give this a little more thought.”
I’m hesitant to say anything further, as there may be nuances to the British House of Lords that I am unaware of. But the Lords (and the Canadian Senate) do act as a check-and-balance on what the Commons wants to do.
Former politicians and civil servants, subject experts (eg scientists, lawyers), political party donors to name a few. The Lords isn’t impotent, it has a strong influence on how laws are shaped. It just can’t block the laws that the House of Commons is determined to pass. Also, in order to be appointed by the Government as a minister, you need to be either a sitting MP or a Peer. Sunak made Cameron (ex PM) a peer in order to bring him back as Foreign Secretary a few years ago. A peer could become PM, and it has happened in the past.
I always got the impression that, at least since WW2, the royalty was England’s hobby, and most people went along with it as long as it was a sweet little old lady with a purse. The way crowds would gather, it was like they were the Beatles, but with no talent or charisma. But nobody wants to cut this current crop any slack. I could be wrong.