1

POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF HOUSE OF LORDS – RAJ KRISHNA

INTRODUCTION:

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:

The aim of the researcher is to present a detailed study of House of Lords. It includes its history,
membership, powers and its present scenario. However particular emphasis has been laid on the
powers of House of Lords. House of Lords as we all know has many duties to do. It includes
legislative and judicial functions. The limitations on the powers have also been discussed.

Research Questions:

The three research questions are as follows:

1. What is the history of House of Lords?

2. How members of House of Lords appointed and removed?

3. What are the important powers of House of Lords?

Scope and Limitations:

Owing to the large number of topics that could be included in the project, the scope of this
research paper is exceedingly vast. However in the interest of brevity, this paper has been limited
to the topics which deal with the important powers of House of Lords. It is because House of
Lords exercise a vast amount of powers.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The researcher has used Doctrinal Method of research to complete the project.

Sources of Data:

The researcher has relied on the secondary sources of data which are as follows:

• Articles
 2

• Books

• Websites

• BBC shows

• Newspaper reports

Mode of Citation

The researcher has followed a uniform mode of citation in this project.

 3

INTRODUCTION

The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the House
of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster.

Unlike the elected House of Commons, most members of the House of Lords are appointed. The
membership of the House of Lords is made up of Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal. The Lords
Spiritual are 26 bishops in the established Church of England. Of the Lords Temporal, the
majority are life peers who are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister, or
on the advice of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. However, they also include
some hereditary peers. Membership was once an entitlement of all hereditary peers, other than
those in the peerage of Ireland, but under the House of Lords Act 1999, the right to membership
was restricted to 92 hereditary peers. Very few of these are female since most hereditary
peerages can only be inherited by men.

While the House of Commons has a defined 650-seat membership, the number of members in
the House of Lords is not fixed. There are currently 775 sitting Lords. The House of Lords is the
only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house1.

The House of Lords scrutinizes bills that have been approved by the House of Commons. It
regularly reviews and amends Bills from the Commons. While it is unable to prevent Bills
passing into law, except in certain limited circumstances, it can delay Bills and force the
Commons to reconsider their decisions. In this capacity, the Lords acts as a check on the House
of Commons that is independent from the electoral process2. Bills can be introduced into either
the House of Lords or the House of Commons. Members of the Lords may also take on roles as
government ministers. The House of Lords has its own support services, separate from the
Commons, including the House of Lords Library.

The Queen's Speech is delivered in the House of Lords during the State Opening of Parliament.
In addition to its role as the upper house, until the establishment of the Supreme Court in 2009,
the House of Lords, through the Law Lords, acted as the final court of appeal in the British

1
Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
2
Feldman, David (31 March 2011), The Constitutional Reform Process (Written Evidence submitted to the House
of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution), Cambridge, United Kingdom: Faculty of Law, University of
Cambridge, p. 21, retrieved 29 January 2012
 4

judicial system. The House also has a Church of England role, in that Church Measures must be
tabled within the House by the Lords Spiritual.

HISTORY OF HOUSE OF LORDS

Today's Parliament of the United Kingdom largely descends, in practice, from the Parliament of
England, though the Treaty of Union of 1706 and the Acts of Union that ratified the Treaty in
1707 created a new Parliament of Great Britain to replace the Parliament of England and the
Parliament of Scotland. This new parliament was, in effect, the continuation of the Parliament of
England with the addition of 45 MPs and 16 Peers to represent Scotland.

The Parliament of England developed from the Magnum Concilium, the "Great Council" that
advised the King during medieval times3. This royal council came to be composed of
ecclesiastics, noblemen, and representatives of the counties of England (afterwards,
representatives of the boroughs as well). The first English Parliament is often considered to be
the "Model Parliament" (held in 1295), which included archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls,
barons, and representatives of the shires and boroughs of it.

The power of Parliament grew slowly, fluctuating as the strength of the monarchy grew or
declined. For example, during much of the reign of Edward II (1307–1327), the nobility was
supreme, the Crown weak, and the shire and borough representatives entirely powerless. In 1569,
the authority of Parliament was for the first time recognized not simply by custom or royal
charter, but by an authoritative statute, passed by Parliament itself.

Further developments occurred during the reign of Edward II's successor, Edward III. It was
during this King's reign that Parliament clearly separated into two distinct chambers: the House
of Commons (consisting of the shire and borough representatives) and the House of Lords
(consisting of the bishops and abbots and the peers). The authority of Parliament continued to

3
Loveland (2009) p. 158
 5

grow, and, during the early fifteenth century, both Houses exercised powers to an extent not seen
before. The Lords were far more powerful than the Commons because of the great influence of
the great landowners and the prelates of the realm.

The power of the nobility suffered a decline during the civil wars of the late fifteenth century,
known as the Wars of the Roses. Much of the nobility was killed on the battlefield or executed
for participation in the war, and many aristocratic estates were lost to the Crown. Moreover,
feudalism was dying, and the feudal armies controlled by the barons became obsolete. Henry VII
(1485–1509) clearly established the supremacy of the monarch, symbolized by the "Crown
Imperial". The domination of the Sovereign continued to grow during the reigns of the Tudor
monarchs in the 16th century. The Crown was at the height of its power during the reign of
Henry VIII (1509–1547).

The House of Lords remained more powerful than the House of Commons, but the Lower House
continued to grow in influence, reaching a zenith in relation to the House of Lords during the
middle 17th century. Conflicts between the King and the Parliament (for the most part, the
House of Commons) ultimately led to the English Civil War during the 1640s. In 1649, after the
defeat and execution of King Charles I, the Commonwealth of England was declared, but the
nation was effectively under the overall control of Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England4.

The House of Lords was reduced to a largely powerless body, with Cromwell and his supporters
in the Commons dominating the Government. On 19 March 1649, the House of Lords was
abolished by an Act of Parliament, which declared that "The Commons of England [find] by too
long experience that the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the people of England." The
House of Lords did not assemble again until the Convention Parliament met in 1660 and the
monarchy was restored. It returned to its former position as the more powerful chamber of
Parliament—a position it would occupy until the 19th century.

4
“An Act abolishing the House of Lords". 19 March 1649. Retrieved 24 May 2008.
6
 7

HOUSE OF LORDS IN 19TH CENTURY

The 19th century was marked by several changes to the House of Lords. The House, once a body
of only about 50 members, had been greatly enlarged by the liberality of George III and his
successors in creating peerages. The individual influence of a Lord of Parliament was thus
diminished.

Moreover, the power of the House as a whole experienced a decrease, whilst that of the House of
Commons grew. Particularly notable in the development of the Lower House's superiority was
the Reform Bill of 1832. The electoral system of the House of Commons was not, at the time,
democratic: property qualifications greatly restricted the size of the electorate, and the
boundaries of many constituencies had not been changed for centuries.

Entire cities such as Manchester were not represented by a single individual in the House of
Commons, but the 11 voters of Old Sarum retained their ancient right to elect two members of
parliament. A small borough was susceptible to bribery, and was often under the control of a
patron, whose nominee was guaranteed to win an election. Some aristocrats were patrons of
numerous "pocket boroughs", and therefore controlled a considerable part of the membership of
the House of Commons.

When the House of Commons passed a Reform Bill to correct some of these anomalies in 1831,
the House of Lords rejected the proposal. The popular cause of reform, however, was not
abandoned by the ministry, despite a second rejection of the bill in 1832. Prime Minister Earl
Grey advised the King to overwhelm opposition to the bill in the House of Lords by creating
about 80 new pro-Reform peers. William IV originally balked at the proposal, which effectively
threatened the opposition of the House of Lords, but at length relented.

Before the new peers were created, however, the Lords who opposed the bill admitted defeat,
and abstained from the vote, allowing the passage of the bill. The crisis damaged the political
influence of the House of Lords, but did not altogether end it. A vital reform was affected by the
House itself in 1868, when it changed its standing orders so as to prevent noble Lords from
 8

voting without taking the trouble to attend. Proxies were then abolished 5. Over the course of the
century the power of the Upper House experienced further erosion, and the Commons gradually
became the stronger House of Parliament.

5
McKechnie, The reform of the House of Lords
 9

HOUSE OF LORDS IN 20TH CENTURY

The status of the House of Lords returned to the forefront of debate after the election of a Liberal
Government in 1906. In 1909, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George, introduced
into the House of Commons the "People's Budget", which proposed a land tax targeting wealthy
landowners. The popular measure, however, was defeated in the heavily Conservative House of
Lords.

Having made the powers of the House of Lords a primary campaign issue, the Liberals were
narrowly re-elected in January 1910. Prime Minister H. H. Asquith then proposed that the
powers of the House of Lords be severely curtailed. After a further general election in December
1910, and with an undertaking by King George V to create sufficient new Liberal peers to
overcome Lords' opposition to the measure if necessary, the Asquith Government secured the
passage of a bill to curtail the powers of the House of Lords.

The Parliament Act 1911 effectively abolished the power of the House of Lords to reject
legislation, or to amend in a way unacceptable to the House of Commons: most bills could be
delayed for no more than three parliamentary sessions or two calendar years. It was not meant to
be a permanent solution; more comprehensive reforms were planned. Neither party, however,
pursued the matter with much enthusiasm, and the House of Lords remained primarily
hereditary. In 1949, the Parliament Act reduced the delaying power of the House of Lords further
to two sessions or one year.

In 1958, the predominantly hereditary nature of the House of Lords was changed by the Life
Peerages Act 1958, which authorised the creation of life baronies, with no numerical limits. The
number of Life Peers then gradually increased, though not at a constant rate.
 10

The Labour Party had for most of the twentieth century a commitment, based on the party's
historic opposition to class privilege, to abolish the House of Lords, or at least expel the
hereditary element. In 1968, the Labour Government of Harold Wilson attempted to reform the
House of Lords by introducing a system under which hereditary peers would be allowed to
remain in the House and take part in debate, but would be unable to vote. This plan, however,
was defeated in the House of Commons by a coalition of traditionalist Conservatives (such as
Enoch Powell), and Labour members who continued to advocate the outright abolition of the
Upper House (such as Michael Foot).

When Michael Foot attained the leadership of the Labour Party in 1980, abolition of the House
of Lords became a part of the party's agenda; under his successor, Neil Kinnock, however, a
reformed Upper House was proposed instead. In the meantime, the creation of hereditary
peerages (except for members of the Royal Family) has been arrested, with the exception of three
creations during the administration of the Conservative Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.

Whilst some hereditary peers were at best apathetic the Labour Party's clear commitments were
not lost on Baron Sudeley, who for decades was considered an expert on the House of Lords. In
December 1979 the Conservative Monday Club published his extensive paper entitled Lords
Reform – Why tamper with the House of Lords? and in July 1980 The Monarchist carried
another article by Lord Sudeley entitled Why Reform or Abolish the House of Lords? 6. In 1990
he authored a further booklet for the Monday Club entitled The Preservation of the House of
Lords.

6
The Monarchist, no. 57, p. 27 – 34
 11

QUALIFICATIONS FOR HOUSE MEMBERSHIP

Several different qualifications apply for membership of the House of Lords. No person may sit
in the House of Lords if under the age of 217. Furthermore, only citizens of the United Kingdom,
Commonwealth citizens, and citizens of Ireland may sit in the House of Lords. The nationality
restrictions were previously more stringent: under the Act of Settlement 1701, and prior to the
British Nationality Act 1948, only natural-born subjects were qualified.

Additionally, some bankruptcy-related restrictions apply to members of the Upper House. A

person may not sit in the House of Lords if he or she is the subject of a Bankruptcy Restrictions
Order (applicable in England and Wales only), or if he or she is adjudged bankrupt (in Northern
Ireland), or if his or her estate is sequestered (in Scotland). A final restriction bars an individual
convicted of high treason from sitting in the House of Lords until completing his or her full term
of imprisonment. An exception applies, however, if the individual convicted of high treason
receives a full pardon. Note that an individual serving a prison sentence for an offence other than
high treason is not automatically disqualified.

Women were excluded from the House of Lords until the Life Peerages Act 1958,8 passed to
address the declining number of active members, made possible the creation of peerages for life.
Women were immediately eligible and four were among the first life peers appointed. However,
hereditary peeresses continued to be excluded until the passage of the Peerage Act 1963. Since
the passage of the House of Lords Act 19999, hereditary peeresses remain eligible for election to
the Upper House; there are two among the 90 hereditary peers who continue to sit.

7
"The Standing Orders of the House of Lords relating to Public Business". Parliament of the United Kingdom. 8
April 2010. Retrieved 19 August 2010.
8
UK Parliament. Life Peerages Act 1958 as amended (see also enacted form), from legislation.gov.uk.
9
UK Parliament House of Lords Act 1999 from legislation.gov.uk
 12

REMOVAL FROM HOUSE

Traditionally there was no mechanism by which members could resign or be removed from the
House of Lords (compare the situation as regards resignation from the House of Commons). The
Peerage Act 1963 permitted a person to disclaim their newly inherited peerage (within certain
time limits); this meant that such a person could effectively renounce their membership of the
Lords. This might be done in order to remain or become qualified to sit in the House of
Commons, as in the case of Tony Benn (formerly the second Viscount Stansgate), who had
campaigned for such a change.

In 2014, the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 made provision for members' resignation from the
offence. In June 2015, under the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015, the
House's Standing Orders may provide for the expulsion or suspension of a member upon a
resolution of the House. House removal for non-attendance, and automatic expulsion upon
conviction for a serious criminal offence.

Cash for Peerages

The Honors (Prevention of Abuses) Act 192510 made it illegal for a peerage, or other honor, to
be bought or sold. Nonetheless, there have been repeated allegations that life peerages (and thus
membership of the House of Lords) have been made available to major political donors in
exchange for donations. The most prominent case, the 2006 Cash for Honors scandal, saw a
police investigation, with no charges being brought. A 2015 study found that of 303 people
nominated for peerages in the period 2005–14, a total of 211 were former senior figures within
politics (including former MPs), or were non-political appointments. Of the remaining 92
political appointments from outside public life, 27 had made significant donations to political
parties. The authors concluded firstly that nominees from outside public life were much more
likely to have made large gifts than peers nominated after prior political or public service. They
also found that significant donors to parties were far more likely to be nominated for peerages
than other party members.

10
UK Parliament Prevention of Abuses Act 1925 from legislation.gov.uk
 13

POWER OF HOUSE OF LORDS

RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GOVERNMENT

The House of Lords does not control the term of the Prime Minister or of the Government 11.
Only the Lower House may force the Prime Minister to resign or call elections by passing a
motion of no-confidence or by withdrawing supply. Thus, the House of Lords' oversight of the
government is limited.

Most Cabinet ministers are from the House of Commons rather than the House of Lords. In
particular, all Prime Ministers since 1902 have been members of the Lower House. (Alec
Douglas-Home, who became Prime Minister in 1963 whilst still an Earl, disclaimed his peerage
and was elected to the Commons soon after his term began.) In recent history, it has been very
rare for major cabinet positions (except Lord Chancellor and Leader of the House of Lords) to
have been filled by peers.

Exceptions include Lord Carrington, who was the Foreign Secretary between 1979 and 1982,
Lord Young of Graffham (Minister without Portfolio, then Secretary of State for Employment
and then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from 1984 to 1989), Valerie Amos, who
served as Secretary of State for International Development and Lord Mandelson, who served as
First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of
the Board of Trade. George Robertson was briefly a peer whilst serving as Secretary of State for
Defence before resigning to take up the post of Secretary General of NATO. From 1999 to 2010
the Attorney General for England and Wales was a Member of the House of Lords; the most
recent was Baroness Scotland of Asthal.

The House of Lords remains a source for junior ministers and members of government. Like the
House of Commons, the Lords also has a Government Chief Whip as well as several Junior

11
"Parliament and government". Parliament of the United Kingdom. 21 April 2010. Retrieved 25 March 2013
 14

Whips. Where a government department is not represented by a minister in the Lords or one is
not available, government whips will act as spokesmen for them12.

LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS

The House of Lords debates legislation, and has power to amend or reject bills. However, the
power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the
Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the Royal Assent
without the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override the Lords' veto). The
House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of
Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month.

Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary
sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that
originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary
term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the
Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation
promised in the Government's election manifesto.

By a custom that prevailed even before the Parliament Acts, the House of Lords is further
restrained insofar as financial bills are concerned. The House of Lords may neither originate a
bill concerning taxation or Supply (supply of treasury or exchequer funds), nor amend a bill so as
to insert a taxation or Supply-related provision. (The House of Commons, however, often waives
its privileges and allows the Upper House to make amendments with financial implications.)
Moreover, the Upper House may not amend any Supply Bill. The House of Lords formerly

12
House of Lords (2013). Companion to the standing orders and guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords
(PDF) (23 ed.). London: The Stationery Office. Retrieved 25 March 2013.
 15

maintained the absolute power to reject a bill relating to revenue or Supply, but this power was
curtailed by the Parliament Acts, as aforementioned.
 16

JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS

Historically, the House of Lords held several judicial functions. Most notably, until 2009 the
House of Lords served as the court of last resort for most instances of UK law. Since 1 October
2009 this role is now held by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

The Lords' judicial functions originated from the ancient role of the Curia Regis as a body that
addressed the petitions of the King's subjects. The functions were exercised not by the whole
House, but by a committee of "Law Lords". The bulk of the House's judicial business was
conducted by the twelve Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, who were specifically appointed for this
purpose under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876.

The judicial functions could also be exercised by Lords of Appeal (other members of the House
who happened to have held high judicial office). No Lord of Appeal in Ordinary or Lord of
Appeal could sit judicially beyond the age of seventy-five. The judicial business of the Lords
was supervised by the Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and his or her deputy, the Second
Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.

The jurisdiction of the House of Lords extended, in civil and in criminal cases, to appeals from
the courts of England and Wales, and of Northern Ireland. From Scotland, appeals were possible
only in civil cases; Scotland's High Court of Justiciary is the highest court in criminal matters.
The House of Lords was not the United Kingdom's only court of last resort; in some cases, the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council performs such a function. The jurisdiction of the Privy
Council in the United Kingdom, however, is relatively restricted; it encompasses appeals from
ecclesiastical courts, disputes under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, and a
few other minor matters. Issues related to devolution were transferred from the Privy Council to
the Supreme Court in 2009.
 17

The twelve Law Lords did not all hear every case; rather, after World War II cases were heard by
panels known as Appellate Committees, each of which normally consisted of five members
(selected by the Senior Lord). An Appellate Committee hearing an important case could consist
of more than five members. Though Appellate Committees met in separate committee rooms,
judgement was given in the Lords Chamber itself. No further appeal lay from the House of
Lords, although the House of Lords could refer a "preliminary question" to the European Court
of Justice in cases involving an element of European Union law, and a case could be brought at
the European Court of Human Rights if the House of Lords did not provide a satisfactory remedy
in cases where the European Convention on Human Rights was relevant.

A distinct judicial function—one in which the whole House used to participate—is that of trying
impeachments. Impeachments were brought by the House of Commons, and tried in the House
of Lords; a conviction required only a majority of the Lords voting. Impeachments, however, are
to all intents and purposes obsolete; the last impeachment was that of Henry Dundas, 1st
Viscount Melville in 1806.

Similarly, the House of Lords was once the court that tried peers charged with high treason or
felony. The House would be presided over not by the Lord Chancellor, but by the Lord High
Steward, an official especially appointed for the occasion of the trial. If Parliament was not in
session, then peers could be tried in a separate court, known as the Lord High Steward's Court.
Only peers, their wives, and their widows (unless remarried) were entitled to trials in the House
of Lords or the Lord High Steward's Court; the Lords Spiritual were tried in Ecclesiastical
Courts. In 1948, the right of peers to be tried in such special courts was abolished; now, they are
tried in the regular courts. The last such trial in the House was of Edward Southwell Russell,
26th Baron de Clifford in 1935. An illustrative dramatisation circa 1928 of a trial of a peer (the
fictional Duke of Denver) on a charge of murder (a felony) is portrayed in the 1972 BBC
Television adaption of Dorothy L. Sayers' Lord Peter Wimsey mystery Clouds of Witness.
 18

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 resulted in the creation of a separate Supreme Court of the
United Kingdom, to which the judicial function of the House of Lords, and some of the judicial
functions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, were transferred. In addition, the office
of Lord Chancellor was reformed by the act, removing his ability to act as both a government
minister and a judge. This was motivated in part by concerns about the historical admixture of
legislative, judicial, and executive power. The new Supreme Court is located at Middlesex
Guildhall.
 19

RECENT REFORMS IN HOUSE OF LORDS

Many reformative measures have been taken in the House of Lords since the beginning of 21 st
century.

1997–2010

The Labour Party included in its 1997 general election Manifesto a commitment to remove the
hereditary peerage from the House of Lords13.Their subsequent election victory in 1997 under
Tony Blair finally heralded the demise of the traditional House of Lords. The Labour
Government introduced legislation to expel all hereditary peers from the Upper House as a first
step in Lords reform. As a part of a compromise, however, it agreed to permit 92 hereditary peers
to remain until the reforms were complete. Thus all but 92 hereditary peers were expelled under
the House of Lords Act 1999 (see below for its provisions), making the House of Lords
predominantly an appointed house.

Since 1999 however, no further reform has taken place. The Wakeham Commission proposed
introducing a 20% elected element to the Lords, but this plan was widely criticized14. A Joint
Committee was established in 2001 to resolve the issue, but it reached no conclusion and instead
gave Parliament seven options to choose from (fully appointed, 20% elected, 40% elected, 50%
elected, 60% elected, 80%, and fully elected). In a confusing series of votes in February 2003, all
of these options were defeated although the 80% elected option fell by just three votes in the
Commons. Socialist MPs favoring outright abolition voted against all the options.

In 2005 a cross-party group of senior MPs (Kenneth Clarke, Paul Tyler, Tony Wright, Sir
George Young and Robin Cook) published a report proposing that 70% of members of the House
of Lords should be elected – each member for a single long term – by the single transferable vote
system. Most of the remainder were to be appointed by a Commission to ensure a mix of "skills,
knowledge and experience". This proposal was also not implemented. A cross-party campaign
initiative called "Elect the Lords" was set up to make the case for a predominantly elected
Second Chamber in the run up to the 2005 general election.

13
"Labour's 1997 pledges: The constitution". BBC. 6 May 2002. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
14
"Lords report fails to satisfy". BBC. 20 January 2000. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
 20

At the 2005 election, the Labour Party proposed further reform of the Lords, but without specific
details. The Conservative Party, which had, prior to 1997, opposed any tampering with the
House of Lords[citation needed], favored an 80% elected Second Chamber, while the Liberal
Democrats called for a fully elected Senate. During 2006, a cross-party committee discussed
Lords reform, with the aim of reaching a consensus: its findings were published in early 200715.

On 7 March 2007, members of the House of Commons voted ten times on a variety of alternative
compositions for the upper chamber. Outright abolition, a wholly appointed house, a 20% elected
house, a 40% elected house, a 50% elected house and a 60% elected house were all defeated in
turn. Finally the vote for an 80% elected chamber was won by 305 votes to 267, and the vote for
a wholly elected chamber was won by an even greater margin: 337 to 224. Significantly this last
vote represented an overall majority of MPs16.

Furthermore, examination of the names of MPs voting at each division 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 showed a clear preference for a fully elected upper house among those
who voted for the only other option that passed. But this was nevertheless only an indicative vote
and many political and legislative hurdles remained to be overcome for supporters of an elected
second chamber. The House of Lords, soon after, rejected this proposal and voted for an entirely
appointed House of Lords.

In July 2008 Jack Straw, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, introduced a
white paper to the House of Commons proposing to replace the House of Lords with an 80–
100% elected chamber, with one third being elected at each general election, for a term of

15
"The House of April 2010.Lords: Reform Cm 7027" (PDF).
16
Assinder, Nick (14 March 2007). "Where now for Lords reform?". BBC. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
 21

approximately 12–15 years17. The white paper states that as the peerage would be totally
separated from membership of the upper house, the name "House of Lords" would no longer be
appropriate: It goes on to explain that there is cross-party consensus for the new chamber to be
titled the "Senate of the United Kingdom", however to ensure the debate remains on the role of
the upper house rather than its title, the white paper is neutral on the title of the new house.

On 30 November 2009, a Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords was agreed by
them; certain amendments were agreed by them on 30 March 2010 and on 12 June 2014.The
scandal over expenses in the Commons was at its highest pitch only six months before, and the
Labourite leadership under Janet Royall determined that something sympathetic should be done.

In Meg Russell’s article; "Is the House of Lords already reformed?" she states three essential
features of a legitimate House of Lords18. The first is that it must have adequate powers over
legislation to make the government think twice before making a decision. The House of Lords,
she argues, currently has enough power to make it relevant. During Tony Blair’s first year he
was defeated thirty-eight times in the Lords. Secondly, as to the composition of the Lords, Meg
Russell suggests that the composition must be distinct from the Commons, otherwise it would
render the Lords useless. The third feature is the perceived legitimacy of the Lords. She writes;
"In general legitimacy comes with election."

If the Lords have a distinct and elected composition, this would probably come about through
fixed term proportional representation. If this happens then the perceived legitimacy of the Lords
could arguably outweigh the legitimacy of the Commons. This would especially be the case if
the House of Lords had been elected more recently than the House of Commons as it could be
said to reflect the will of the people better than the Commons.

17
"Straw unveils elected Lords plan". BBC. 14 July 2008. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
18
Reformed Russell, Meg (July 2003). "Is the House of Lords Already?". The Political Quarterly 74 (3): 311‒318.
doi:10.1111/1467-923X.00540. ISSN 0032-3179. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
 22

In this scenario there may well come a time when the Lords twice reject a Bill from the
Commons and it is forced through. This would in turn trigger questions about the amount of
power the Lords should have and there would be pressure for it to increase. This hypothetical
process is known as the "circumnavigation of power theory". It implies that it would never be in
any government's interest to legitimise the Lords as they would be forfeiting their own power.

2010–present

The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreed, following the 2010 general election, to
clearly outline 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. As an
interim measure, appointment of new peers will reflect shares of the vote secured by the political
parties in the last general election.

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

The details of the proposal were:

The upper chamber shall continue to be known as the House of Lords for legislative purposes.
 23

The reformed House of Lords should have 300 members of which 240 are "Elected Members"
and 60 appointed "Independent Members". Up to 12 Church of England bishops may sit in the
house as ex-officio "Lords Spiritual".

Elected Members will serve a single, nonrenewable term of 15 years.

Elections to the reformed Lords should take place at the same time as elections to the House of
Commons.

Elected Members should be elected using the Single Transferable Vote system of proportional
representation.

Twenty Independent Members (a third) shall take their seats within the reformed house at the
same time as elected members do so and for the same 15-year term.

Independent Members will be appointed by the Queen after being suggested by the Prime
Minister acting on advice of an Appointments Commission.

There will no longer be a link between the peerage system and membership of the upper house.

The current powers of the House of Lords would not change and the House of Commons shall
retain its status as the primary House of Parliament.

The proposals were considered by a Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform made up of
both MPs and Peers, which issued its final report on 23 April 2012, making the following
suggestions:

The reformed House of Lords should have 450 members.

Party groupings, including the Crossbenchers, should choose which of their members are
retained in the transition period, with the percentage of members allotted to each group based on
their share of the peers with high attendance during a given period.

Up to 12 Lords Spiritual should be retained in a reformed House of Lords.

 24

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg introduced the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 on 27 June
201219 which built on proposals published on 17 May 201120. However, this Bill was abandoned
by the Government on 6 August 2012 following opposition from within the Conservative Party.

House of Lords Reform Act 2014

A private members bill to introduce some reforms was introduced by Dan Byles in 201321.The
House of Lords Reform Act 2014 received the Royal Assent in 201422. Under the new law:

All peers can retire or resign from the chamber (prior to this only hereditary peers could disclaim
their peerages).

Peers can be disqualified for non-attendance.

Peers can be removed for receiving prison sentences of a year or more.

House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015

The House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 authorized the House to expel or
suspend members.

19
Summary Agenda 27 June 2012 UK Parliament website
20
"Proposals for a reformed House of Lords published". Deputy Prime Minister. 17 May 2011.
21
"Dan Byles: House of Lords Reform Private Members Bill". PoliticsHome (Press release). 4 June 2013. Retrieved
23 November 2014.
22
"House of Lords Reform Act 2014". Parliament of the UK. 14 May 2014. Retrieved 23 November 2014.
 25

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

House of Lords is one of the oldest houses of Parliament. As we all know that it was only after
the establishment of House of Lords that bicameral legislation came into existence. The House
of Lords debates legislation, and has power to amend or reject bills. In this way House of Lords
helps the House of Commons in discharging their duties in an effective manner. In the 16th and
17th century A.D. House of Lords had more powers than House of Commons. But, later it lost
most of its powers. But, today it has a healthy relationship with the House of Commons.
Historically, the House of Lords held several judicial functions. Most notably, until 2009 the
House of Lords served as the court of last resort for most instances of UK law. Since 1 October
2009 this role is now held by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. They have also
appointed officials to discharge the duties of the house in a proper manner.

However the only problem which lies in House of Lords is its strength. The House of Lords has
strength more than the House of Commons. Therefore the only thing they need to do is to
reduce its strength. If they do so then there will be no overcrowding. Hence the House will work
in a more proper manner. Presently certain reforms have been done. But, more stricter reforms
will better the condition more.
 26

BIBLIOGRAPHY
The researcher consulted following sources to complete the project:

1. www.parliament.uk/lords
2. www.bbc.co.uk
3. www.legislation.gov.uk
4. The Guardian newspaper, UK.
5. The Times, UK.
6. Adonis, Andrew (1993). Parliament Today (2nd ed.). p. 194.
7. Guide to the House of Lords". BBC Democracy Live. 31 May 2011
8. Reidy, Aisling; Russell, Meg (June 1999), Second Chambers as Constitutional Guardians
and Protectors of Human Rights, London: The Constitution Unit, School of Public Policy,
University College London, p. 2
9. Carmichael, Paul; Dickson, Brice (1999). The House of Lords: Its Parliamentary and
Judicial Roles. Hart Publishing. pp. 40–41. ISBN 978-1-84113-020-0.
10. "Explanatory Notes to The House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Act
2001". London, United Kingdom: Office of Public Sector Information. 21 May 2001.
Retrieved 5 September 2009.
11. "Biography of the Chief Rabbi". London, United Kingdom: Office of the Chief Rabbi.
Archived from the original on 1 October 2009.
12. Wasson, Ellis (31 August 2009). A History of Modern Britain: 1714 to the Present. John
Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781405139359.