The reform of the House of Lords, the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, has been a topic of discussion in UK politics for more than a century. Multiple governments have attempted reform, beginning with the introduction of the Parliament Act 1911 by the incumbent Liberal Government, which stated:

...whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation^[1]

When the Labour Party came to power in the 1997 general election, it had in its manifesto the promise to reform the House of Lords:

The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute...^[2]

The Blair government subsequently passed the House of Lords Act 1999. On 7 November 2001 the government undertook a public consultation.^[3] This helped to create a public debate on the issue of Lords reform, with 1,101 consultation responses^[4] and numerous debates in Parliament and the media. However, no consensus on the future of the upper chamber emerged.

All three of the main parties promised to take action on Lords reform in the 2010 general election, and following it the Coalition Agreement included a promise to "establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation".^[5] Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg introduced the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 on 27 June 2012^[6] which built on proposals published on 17 May 2011.^[7] However, this Bill was abandoned by the Government on 6 August 2012 following opposition from within the Conservative Party. A successful attempt to pursue minor reform of the House was made on 14 May 2014 when the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 gained Royal Assent.

History of reform

Reform and reform attempts before 1997

The Parliament Act 1911 removed the ability of the House of Lords to veto money bills; with any other bills, the House of Commons was given powers to overrule the Lords' veto after three parliamentary sessions. In 1917 the Bryce Commission was set up to consider House of Lords reform proposals. The commission's recommendations were rejected by a vote in the House of Lords. The Parliament Act 1949, however, amended the 1911 act reducing the time the Lords could delay a bill from two sessions to one.

The Salisbury Convention is an unwritten constitutional convention that the Commons, as the elected chamber, has a mandate to pass anything in manifesto without Lords veto. This was necessary as the Conservative Party had an absolute majority in the House of Lords, and it was seen as inappropriate for them to use this to block the Labour government's policies following their landslide victory in 1945. The Life Peerages Act 1958 enabled the appointment of a new class of peers, who could sit and vote in the House of Lords, but the honour and rights would not be hereditary. These were intended to be merit-based, letting in 'the great and the good' from various backgrounds of expertise and experience and ending the exclusively hereditary (and male dominated) composition. Since 1965, almost all peerages appointed have been life peerages. However, the system has come under criticism in 'cash for honours' scandals in which those who donate significant sums to political parties may be able to gain membership of the House of Lords, undermining its credibility as a revising chamber. The Peerage Act 1963 allowed hereditary peers to disclaim their peerage, allowing them to vote and stand for elections to the House of Commons. It also permitted hereditary peers in the Peerage of Scotland and female hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords without the election of Scottish representative peers as had been the procedure in Scotland prior to the Act.

Parliament (No. 2) Bill 1968–69

In 1968, Harold Wilson's Labour Government published a white paper on reform of the House of Lords.^[8] Main proposals made in the white paper were:

• Life peers, created hereditary peers and 16 bishops would have been able to be voting members of the House, if they attended at least one third of the sittings and were under 72 years old at the start of a new parliament. Number of bishops would have been decreased from 26 to 16 through retirements.
• Hereditary peers by succession sitting at the time would have remained as non-voting members with all other rights of a member. Their heirs would have been excluded from future membership.
• Sitting government would have got a right to a majority of voting members of the House.
• The right of the House to delay a bill would have been reduced from one year to six months.

The Parliament (No. 2) Bill, which embodied proposals of the white paper, was introduced in December 1968. Prime Minister announced in April 1969 that the Government would not proceed with the bill.

Powers as of 1997 election

Originally, the two Houses of Parliament had equal legislative powers.^{[citation needed]} The agreement of both was necessary before a bill could be submitted to the Monarch for royal assent, which if granted made the bill an Act of Parliament. After the English Restoration, a constitutional convention arose that the House of Lords would defer to the House of Commons on measures to raise and spend money. The Parliament Act 1911 divided Bills into three classes.

1. Money bills which, failing consent from the Lords within one month, could receive royal assent without it.
2. Other bills on which the House of Lords could exercise a suspensory veto.
3. On any bill extending the maximum term of the House of Commons beyond five years, the House of Lords retained equal legislative powers.

Together with the Parliament Act 1949, these two acts enable the Commons (in exceptional circumstance) to pass legislation without approval from the Lords but subject to certain time delays. In effect, they give the House of Lords the power to delay legislation but not to prevent it. Since 1911 there have been various attempts to reform the Lords, but none tackled the powers of the House except the Parliament Act 1949 which reduced the suspensory veto to two sessions and one year. By the time of the 1997 general election there was still no consensus on comprehensive reform of the upper chamber of Parliaments.

The Blair Labour government

In 1999, the Government completed a deal with the Lords to remove most of the hereditary Peers and passed the House of Lords Act 1999 leaving amongst the majority of appointed Peers a rump of 92 Hereditary Peers until the second phase of reform was complete. These 92 were elected from within those who had a right to be members of the House of Lords as a result of their hereditary status. This arrangement was stated to be purely temporary until the second stage of reform was completed.^[9] This led to some claims (perhaps not all serious) that the elected Hereditary Lords were the only democratic members of the House.^[10]

Royal Commission

In 1999 a Royal Commission was appointed, under Lord Wakeham, to examine proposals for Lords Reform and make recommendations. It published its report^[11] in 2000 with 132 recommendations of which the main were:

• It should have around 550 members of which 65, 87 or 195 should be elected.
• There should be an independent Appointments Commission responsible for all appointments.
• The new second chamber should have the capacity to offer counsel from a range of sources. It should be broadly representative of society in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the 21st century. It should work with the House of Commons to provide an effective check upon the Government. It should give the United Kingdom's constituent nations and regions, for the first time, a formally constituted voice in the Westminster Parliament.
• The Commons should be the principal political forum, should have the final say in respect of all major public policy issues, including those expressed in the form of proposed legislation. The second chamber should have sufficient power, and the associated authority, to require the Government and the House of Commons to reconsider proposed legislation and take account of any cogent objections to it.
• The House of Lords should contain a substantial proportion of people who are not professional politicians, who have continuing experience in a range of different walks of life and who can bring a broad range of expertise to bear on issues of public concern. Representation of the reformed second chamber should match that of the country as expressed in votes cast at the most recent general election but it should not be capable of being dominated by any one political party and continue to include people who can help it to maintain a philosophical, moral or spiritual perspective on public policy issues.
• Possession of a peerage should no longer be a necessary qualification for membership
• Provisions should be in place to permit ministers to be drawn from the Upper House
• The upper House should ensure that changes to the constitution are not made without full and open debate and that there is increased scrutiny of secondary legislation
• The commission could not recommend: a wholly or largely directly elected second chamber; indirect election from the devolved institutions (or local government electoral colleges) or from among British MEPs; random selection, or co-option.

In a debate in the House of Lords on 7 March 2000, Baroness Jay of Paddington expressed the government's broad acceptance of the commission's report:

The Government accept the principles underlying the main elements of the Royal Commission's proposals on the future role and structure of this House, and will act on them. That is, we agree that the Second Chamber should clearly be subordinate, largely nominated but with a minority elected element and with a particular responsibility to represent the regions. We agree there should be a statutory appointments commission ...^[12]

On 4 May 2000 the Prime Minister announced the membership of a non-statutory Appointments Commission.^[13] In the debate in the Commons on 19 June 2000 the Government announced the establishment of a Joint Committee of both houses to consider the Royal Commission's work.^[14] But in a written reply on 6 March 2001 the Government stated there was little prospect of a Joint Committee being established in the present Parliament due to a failure of cross-party discussions.^[15] On 26 April 2001 the Queen confirmed her intention to create 15 new non-party-political members of the House of Lords termed "People's Peers". In the May 2001 general election, all three main parties included statements on House of Lords reform in their manifestos.

White paper and first consultation

On 7 November 2001, the government launched a white paper and consultation stating:

A credible and effective second chamber is vital to the health of Britain's democracy ... The Government is determined to proceed with this wider reform of the House of Lords. The Royal Commission offered an excellent way forward and the Government has a clear electoral mandate to undertake it. Our mission is to equip the British people with a Parliament and a constitution fit for the 21st century. A reformed second chamber has an indispensable role to play, and this White Paper prepares the way for its introduction.^[3]

In the white paper, although the government said it "strongly endorsed" the Royal Commission's views, it listed its own proposals:^[3]

• The remaining 92 hereditary peers were to be removed, the number of peers to be capped after 10 years at 600 and 120 members to be elected to represent the nations and the regions.
• It was to include a significant minority of independent members. Its political membership should be broadly representative of the main parties' relative voting strengths as reflected in the previous general election. Membership was to be separated from the peerage which would continue as an honour. There should be increased representation of women and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. No group in society should in future have privileged hereditary access to the House.
• The House of Lords would remain subject to the pre-eminence of the House of Commons in discharging its functions; its principal function should continue to be to consider and revise legislation, to scrutinise the executive, and to debate and report on public issues.
• The statutory Appointments Commission would manage the balance and size of the House, appoint the independent members, and to assure the integrity of those nominated by political parties.

First public consultation

The white paper invited comments from interested parties stating the government intended to introduce legislation "incorporating decisions on the issues raised in the consultation"^[3] and listed the following as the main points of consultation:

• The overall balance between elected, nominated and ex officio members, and the balance between political and independent members;
• Whether elections to the Lords should be linked to general elections, those for the European Parliament, or over time linked to those from devolved and regional bodies within the UK;
• The length of term for elected members;
• The term of appointment;
• What grounds should lead to statutory expulsion from the House;
• Whether there should be a change from an expenses-based system of remuneration.

The result was that an unprecedented^{[citation needed]} 1101 submissions were made to the consultation and both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties published their own proposals during the consultation in January 2002. In May 2002, the Government published a statistical analysis. The Government proposed to establish a Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform to try to take matters forward and achieve a consensus.^[16][17]

Votes of February 2003

On 11 December 2002, the Joint Committee published its first report, which set out "an inclusive range of seven options for the composition of a reformed House of Lords".^[18] In January 2003, the House of Lords and Commons debated the report. The debate in the Lords was dominated by contributors arguing for a fully appointed House, so much so that Lord Irvine stated:

Plainly, the dominant view of this House expressed over the past two days is in favour of an all-appointed House.^[19]

On 29 January 2003, then Prime Minister Tony Blair added his own support to a fully appointed House by arguing against the creation of a hybrid House.^[20] On 4 February 2003, the Commons and House of Lords voted on the seven options proposed by the joint committee and the Commons also voted on an amendment to abolish the upper house completely:

After this series of votes, where the Commons failed to back a single option and the Lords only a fully appointed House, Robin Cook, the leader of the Commons, said:

We should go home and sleep on this interesting position. That is the most sensible thing that anyone can say in the circumstances. As the right honourable Gentleman knows, the next stage in the process is for the Joint Committee to consider the votes in both Houses. Heaven help the members of the Committee, because they will need it.^[21]

With widely differing views in the Joint Committee, its report on 9 May 2003 effectively passed the initiative back to the Government. But nine members of the Joint Committee issued a statement coinciding with the publication which stated:

Since the House of Commons rejected the option of a fully appointed Second Chamber by a large majority on 4th February it would be absurd and unacceptable to introduce legislation which would have that effect. Simply evicting the hereditary peers, and placing the appointments process on a statutory basis, would result in that soundly rejected option. Those who argue that the Commons must remain predominant – including Ministers – should surely respect the outcome of that vote by MPs.^[22]

Creation of Department for Constitutional Affairs In June 2003, Tony Blair announced the creation of a new department to oversee constitutional change with Lord Falconer of Thoroton as its first Secretary of State. The department was tasked with:

• Establishment of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.
• Creation of a new Supreme Court to replace the existing system of Law Lords operating as a committee of the House of Lords.
• Reform of the Speakership of the House of Lords.
• New arrangements for the conduct of Scottish and Welsh business.

When in 2003 Lord Falconer of Thoroton signalled the government's preference for an all appointed House of Lords, three members of the Liberal Democrats issued a statement:

We, together with other members of the committee, issued a statement at the same time stating our belief that the committee could not continue to act in the absence of an indication of the government's preferred route to achieve its manifesto commitment to a more representative and democratic House of Lords.

Ministers responded, saying:

We cannot accept the removal of the remaining hereditary peers on its own, but only as part of much wider measures of reform to create a democratic and accountable second chamber. ... We therefore see no role which the joint committee can usefully play in achieving the reformed House of Lords which we seek.^[23]

Second public consultation

In September 2003, the Department for Constitutional Affairs issued Constitutional Reform: Next Steps for the House of Lords, which gave as its main proposals:

• A fully appointed House of Lords
• Removal of the remaining 92 hereditary peers
• Establishment of a statutory independent Appointments Commission accountable to Parliament which would determine numbers and timings of appointments, select independent members of the House to oversee party nominations

The paper also started a second consultation, on the Appointments Commission for the House of Lords requesting submissions on how the Appointments Commission itself would be appointed, even though no other alternatives to an appointed Commission had been considered. Reaction to the paper was hostile: for example, Lord Goodhart, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Constitutional Affairs, said "the overwhelming reaction I have is a feeling of contempt and betrayal".^[24] On 18 March 2004 (before the statistical analysis had been published), the BBC reported^[25] that the government would not proceed with legislation to enact the proposals in the consultation. Although this suggested a lack of support for their proposals from the consultation, when the statistical analysis was published on 22 April 2004 the report stated that on the main issue (2a):

87 percent of respondents dealing with issue 2 (a) were in favour of a Commission composed of representatives of the three main political parties and the cross-benchers and a number of independently appointed members.^[26]

With such an apparently high level of support, it is unclear why the government chose not to proceed. The only insight available is unofficial reports putting the actual level of support at closer to third.

Moreover, as the government published most of the responses to both consultations, it is possible to see that many of these responses were highly critical of both the Government's proposal and the consultation process; some even went on to complain that the UK government breached its own code of conduct for consultations by failing to mention many of the new ideas arising from both consultations.

In the 2005 general election, all three parties included statements on reform of the House of Lords in their manifestos with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats promising "substantially"/"predominantly" elected Chambers. In December 2005, the Constitution Unit, part of the University College of London's School of Public Policy, released research findings showing "surprising levels of support from MPs and the public for the Lords to vote down government proposals":

Despite the unelected basis of the Lords these results make clear that it enjoys support from MPs and the general public to block policies that are perceived as unpopular. Far from clashing with the Commons it may even inflict government defeats with the silent approval of Labour MPs. Whilst government may wish to tame the powers of the Lords, these results suggest that voters are really quite happy with things as they are.^[27]

Supreme Court

On 24 March 2005, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 received Royal Assent. It provides for replacement of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords with a Supreme Court. It came into force on 1 October 2009, when the new court started work. Most of the Law Lords became its first justices, but retained their peerages. A peerage is no longer required to sit in the UK's court of last resort.

2006 discussions

In March 2006, the House of Lords reform was again under discussion. This new interest resulted from the Cash for Peerages affair together with recent attempts by the Lords to block, water down, or add safeguards to (according to viewpoint) recent controversial legislation such as the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Hunting Act 2004, Terrorism Act 2006, the Identity Cards Act 2006, and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Following the failure of the previous public consultations, to endorse the Government's proposals for reform, in April 2006, Baroness Amos announced the government would now "consult privately" with the other main political parties on the membership of the House.^[28]

In the Cabinet reshuffle on 5 May 2006, governmental responsibility for this topic was transferred from Lord Facloner of Thoroton, both Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor), to the Leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw.

Jack Straw now faced an enormous challenge. Although seen as very modest reforms, the removal of most Hereditary Peers and rebalancing of the political make up of the House (Labour Peers now formed the largest political party) were making the House increasingly confident of its own legitimacy. Paradoxically, far from making the Lords more submissive, more and more the House of Lords was willing to be assertive in its actions and confront the government.^[29]

On 22 January 2007 the Power Inquiry^[30] launched a campaign for greater citizen involvement and provided statistics showing that 68% of the public felt a jury of the general public should decide "the future of the House of Lords", 17% thought elected politicians should decide and 9% appointed civil servants.

2007 white paper

On 8 February 2007, the Government published a new white paper^[31] following discussions of a cross-party working group convened by Jack Straw, Leader of the House of Commons. The consensus position adopted by the paper called for a House composed of elected members and members appointed by a new Statutory Appointments Commission. The new commission would select non-party-political appointees; party-political appointees would be nominated by party leaders in the House of Commons and vetted by the commission.

Any elected element would be elected under a regional list system. All elections and appointments would take place on a five-year cycle, with one third of the House admitted at each intake to a fixed fifteen-year term; this term would be non-renewable, to ensure members' independence. A further measure would prohibit former members of the reformed House from seeking election to the House of Commons before a minimum amount of time had elapsed after the expiry of their term in the reformed House – the Government suggested five years. The aim of this measure was to prevent aspiring politicians from using the reformed House as a base to launch a Parliamentary career. The Government proposed that elections and appointments should be held on the same day as elections for Britain's Members of the European Parliament – which also take place on a fixed five-year cycle.

Whilst the white paper made recommendations for a half-elected, half-appointed House, it proposed a free vote of MPs among seven options as to composition (see below). The white paper also recommended that at least 20% of members be non-party-political appointees: for example, under the white paper's proposal of a 50–50 split between elected and appointed members, the remaining 30% appointed members would be party political; under the 80%–20% elected/appointed option, there would be no party-political appointees. The 20% non-party-political element would include a reduced number of Church of England bishops, whose appointment would not go through the Statutory Appointments Commission. The total size of the House was proposed to be 540 members – with 180 introduced at each intake.

The paper provided for a gradual transition, with no life peers forced to retire before death, but with the possibility of a redundancy package should they choose to do so. The remaining hereditary peers would be removed, but the white paper left open whether they would be removed at one stroke or allowed a gradual removal by "natural wastage". The link between the peerage and membership of the House would be broken: peerages could still potentially be awarded as an honour, but would neither entail nor follow automatically from a seat in the House. The question of a possible new name for the reformed House was left open.

The white paper also proposed avoiding the risk of all options being rejected, as had occurred in the 2003 debate, by using the alternative vote system (also known as instant-runoff voting).^[32] Using the alternative vote for legislative proposals would have been a new precedent for the UK Parliament. Resistance by Members on all sides of the House of Commons caused Leader of the House of Commons Jack Straw to drop this proposal on 19 February. The free vote was therefore held under traditional Parliamentary procedures.

Votes of March 2007

In March 2007 the Houses of Commons and Lords debated the proposals in the 2007 white paper and voted on a similar series of motions to those voted on in 2003. Unexpectedly, the House of Commons voted by a large majority for an all-elected Upper House.^[33] One week later, the House of Lords retorted by voting for an all-appointed House by a larger majority.^[34]

After the Commons vote, it was speculated by political commentators that some MPs supporting a fully appointed House had voted tactically for a fully elected House as the option likely to be least acceptable to the House of Lords.^[35] This called into question the significance of the larger majority achieved for 100% elected than that achieved for 80% elected. However, examination of the names of MPs voting at each division in the Commons shows that, of the 305 who voted for the 80% elected option, 211 went on to vote for the 100% elected option. Given that this vote took place after the vote on 80% – whose result was already known when the vote on 100% took place – this shows a clear preference in the Commons for a fully elected Upper House over the only other option that passed, since any MP who favoured 80% over 100% would have voted against the latter motion, having already secured their preferred outcome (76 MPs – including Jack Straw, his shadow Theresa May and Opposition Leader David Cameron – did exactly that). Had all the votes been held in the contrary order, those 211 would have voted against the 80% motion, which would consequently have fallen.^{[citation needed]}

There was strong opinion about the votes. Lord McNally, the Liberal Democrat leader in the Lords said the Lords' decision

flies in the face of public opinion and of the commitment made by all three major parties at the last general election. ... A veto on constitutional reform by the House of Lords is not acceptable. It is now up to the House of Commons to assert its primacy. The Liberal Democrats' 100-year-old commitment to an elected House of Lords remains intact.^[34]

Prior to the debate Lord Lipsey, former Economics Editor of the Sunday Times, estimated the cost of the plans in the white paper at £1.092 billion over a 15-year term.^[36] The government dismissed this as "back-of-an-envelope calculations"^[37] and Jack Straw told the House of Commons that

May I say that Lord Lipsey's estimate is absolute utter balderdash and nonsense? It cannot be the case that a partly elected other place would cost £1 billion when the total cost of this place, according to the most extravagant analysis, is £300 million.^[38]

("Other place" is Commons jargon for the House of Lords.) In response Lord Lipsey accused Jack Straw of misleading the House of Commons:

He said that the figure was £300 million; in fact, for the latest year it is £468.8 million. For that, see the Written Answer from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, ... that is only the minor error. The major error is that he compared my costing for a full 15-year period with the annual cost of the House of Commons.^[39]

On 15 March Lord Steel published a proposed bill approved by a large meeting of peers and MPs of all parties who had been working on these proposals for some time with proposals for four reforms:^[40]

1. End the by-elections for hereditary peers and turn the remaining ones into de facto life peers and finally end hereditary entry into our Upper House.
2. Create a Statutory Appointments Commission to replace Prime Ministerial patronage for new peers.
3. Authorise the government to proceed with a retirement package which should reduce the average age and decrease the present House of 740 by possibly 200.
4. Enable peerages to be removed from those guilty of serious offences on the same basis as the Commons.

The Brown Labour government

On 19 July 2007 Jack Straw stated that the powers of the chamber, the method of election, financial packages and the number of members would yet again be discussed by a cross-party working group. The opposition's response was to suggest that "the real message in your statement today that Lords reform is on ice until after the next election".^[41]

On 14 May 2008 Gordon Brown announced that the government intended to publish a new white paper on lords reform.^[42] This was issued by the Secretary of State for Justice Jack Straw in July 2008, containing proposals to create a wholly elected second chamber.^[43] The proposals did not move forward to become legislation. While a renewed white paper was pointed to in 2009, none was published before the general election in 2010.^[44] The Labour Party's manifesto at that election proposed a referendum on an elected House of Lords by October 2011.^[45]

The Conservative–Liberal Democrat Coalition government

The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement agreed following the 2010 general election clearly outlined a provision for a wholly or mainly elected second chamber, elected by a proportional representation system. These proposals sparked a debate on 29 June 2010.^[46] As an interim measure, it was agreed that the appointment of new peers will reflect shares of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.^[47]

May 2011 proposals and draft bill

Detailed proposals for Lords reform including a draft House of Lords Reform Bill were published on 17 May 2011.^[7] 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.

Many of the details of the proposal were incorporated into the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 introduced to the Commons in June 2012. Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Reform_of_the_House_of_Lords
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.