The House of Lords carries out several legislative functions, since the establishment in the 14th Century and has been a vital part of the British constitution since. Their role consists of scrutinising and amendments of bills passed by the House of Commons (Russell, 2010). Whilst they are important, unlike the House of Commons the Lords are unelected, which impedes on democracy. In this essay I will discuss the how they are a blight on democracy as the Peers are unelected and the House of Lords does not have a clear representation of society and counterarguments, such as specialised knowledge and the non-partisan ties allowing them to make impartial decisions.
Firstly, the House of Lords’ role to scrutinise legislature is important to democracy …show more content…
With just 5% of the members from a minority background and only 20% being female (House of Lords Library, 2014), this in comparison to 51% population of female, making it unrepresentative and undemocratic (Office of National Statistics, 2011). The key argument to show the House of Lords is blight to the British democracy is the fact is isn’t elected. However, by introducing an elected system to make the House of Lords more democratic will not improve representation. There are several flaws; firstly, by electing a second chamber it would replicate our current legislative, which does under represent women and minorities. Secondly, with several elections to elect local MPs and councilors we can notice a rise in voter apathy. For example, in 1997 the general election has a 71.4% voter turnout compared to a low 59.4% in 2001 (Electoral Commission, 2016) this will show that the House of Lords still has no legitimacy if an electoral system was introduced. With this in mind, we can also question what electoral system would be introduced? If we use the system to elect MPs – First Past the Post (FPTP) – there are several issues with regards to disproportionality and systematic bias. However, Shell (2013, p. 35) suggests that legitimacy is not an issue as the peers have relevant expertise and experience dampening the issue with representation and legitimacy.
Furthermore, several constitutional reform implemented have reduced the illegitimate power the House of Lords have. Constitutional Reforms made in 2005 has reduced the power the House has as a legislative and judicial body (Norton, n.d.). Also, the 1999 House of Lords Act, which had phased out the hereditary peers and introduced the House of Lords Appointment Commission that has increased the number of minorities in the House of Lords (Norton,
Firstly, the House of Lords’ role to scrutinise legislature is important to democracy …show more content…
With just 5% of the members from a minority background and only 20% being female (House of Lords Library, 2014), this in comparison to 51% population of female, making it unrepresentative and undemocratic (Office of National Statistics, 2011). The key argument to show the House of Lords is blight to the British democracy is the fact is isn’t elected. However, by introducing an elected system to make the House of Lords more democratic will not improve representation. There are several flaws; firstly, by electing a second chamber it would replicate our current legislative, which does under represent women and minorities. Secondly, with several elections to elect local MPs and councilors we can notice a rise in voter apathy. For example, in 1997 the general election has a 71.4% voter turnout compared to a low 59.4% in 2001 (Electoral Commission, 2016) this will show that the House of Lords still has no legitimacy if an electoral system was introduced. With this in mind, we can also question what electoral system would be introduced? If we use the system to elect MPs – First Past the Post (FPTP) – there are several issues with regards to disproportionality and systematic bias. However, Shell (2013, p. 35) suggests that legitimacy is not an issue as the peers have relevant expertise and experience dampening the issue with representation and legitimacy.
Furthermore, several constitutional reform implemented have reduced the illegitimate power the House of Lords have. Constitutional Reforms made in 2005 has reduced the power the House has as a legislative and judicial body (Norton, n.d.). Also, the 1999 House of Lords Act, which had phased out the hereditary peers and introduced the House of Lords Appointment Commission that has increased the number of minorities in the House of Lords (Norton,