sign in sign up
<<
Home , De facto, House of Lords, Money bill, Upper house

The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research

Volume 14 Article 5

2013

House of : Relevant or Relic? An Analysis of the Political Relevance of Upper Houses

Robert Connor St. College, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur

Part of the Legislation Commons How has open access to Fisher Digital Publications benefited ou?y

Recommended Citation Connor, Robert. ": Relevant or Relic? An Analysis of the Political Relevance of Legislature Upper Houses." The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research 14 (2013): 12-26. Web. [date of access]. .

This document is posted at https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol14/iss1/5 and is brought to you for free and open access by Fisher Digital Publications at St. John Fisher College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. House of Lords: Relevant or Relic? An Analysis of the Political Relevance of Legislature Upper Houses

Abstract This purpose of this paper is to explore the political relevance of parliamentary upper houses. The paper attempts to give both a definitive definition of political eler vance and to determine if upper chambers meet this definition. oT do this the example of the British House of Lords, a hallmark example of weak upper chambers, is used as a case study.

This article is available in The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research: https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/ vol14/iss1/5 Connor: House of Lords: Relevant or Relic?

House of Lords: Relevant or Relic? An Analysis of the Political Relevance of Legislature Upper Houses Robert Connor The House of Lords has been a although upper houses are not as powerful legislative institution in for as lower houses, they are nonetheless over seven-hundred years. However, in relevant in the political system. modern the view the There has been much debate on the Lords as a relic of a bygone aristocratic age relevance of upper houses of in where those of “high birth” ruled over the the modern age. While some argue that common people. For the past few decades, upper houses are relics of a bygone age, there has been a heated debate in the United others argue that in many upper houses, Kingdom over the future of the Lords. Past while being less powerful than lower reforms have included removing hereditary houses; still have a role to play in today’s peers, strictly limiting the Lords’ power, and political environment. In this section, the changing the method of choosing members current role of upper houses will be of the House. For this reason, it is fair to ask examined. An examination of one specific if the House of Lords is still politically example, the British Houses of Lords, the relevant in British politics today. However, hallmark of “weak” upper houses will then this question can, and should, extend to be done. encompass all parliamentary upper houses. In contemporary politics the upper This is because of the trend for bicameral house have become almost relics in many to concentrate power in the political systems. With the exception of the lower chamber, the people’s chamber, as , in all bicameral parliaments opposed to the , which is the holds the majority of the considered as the more prestigious but less political power. (In the United States the powerful house. This paper sets out to upper house, the , is superior to the accomplish three goals: the first is to lower house, the , compile an all-encompassing definition of in both and in actual legislative political relevance, something that the power.) (Fish and Kroenig, 2009) For the political scientist community has not purposes of this paper, the United States addressed before; second, to develop a Senate will be ignored as the exception to method of determining political relevance; the rule that upper houses are weaker than and third to examine whether or not lower houses in bicameral legislatures. What parliamentary upper houses are still has become an important issue for debate politically relevant using this method. To do among the political science community is if so this paper will examine the weakest of the the upper house is still a relevant body. weak upper houses the British House of Sir Ivor Jennings argues that upper Lords. The purpose of this is to show that if houses are really only politically relevant in even the House of Lords, the hallmark federal systems, such as the United States. example of the weak upper house is still Nevertheless, those in unitary systems they politically relevant, and then it can inferred can become redundant and unnecessary. that all the other upper houses in modern (Jennings 1958) De Minon agrees with this are also politically relevant. point, but goes further to argue that even in Once complete this paper will show that federal systems the usefulness of bicameral

12

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2013 1 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 14 [2013], Art. 5

legislatures is quickly disappearing. This is House of Lords is the main example of a due to the current trend of federalist states to “weak” upper house. In fact, many disregard become more centralized. Moreover, the house completely and argue that it has because of this centralization the upper no relevance in modern Britain. This was the houses are not as necessary. De Minon case as early 1929. In that year, Eugene points to as a prime example of a Parker Chase argued that the people would federal state with a centralized never consider the Lords legitimate while its and weak upper house. De Minon argues members are selected “by providence and that this uselessness of upper houses leaves not merit”. (Chase 1929, 572) This was them irrelevant (De Minon, 1975) especially true before the passage of the Life Money and Tsebelis address this Peerage Act of 1958. The Life Peerage Act issue of in federal and unitary addressed one of the most controversial systems. They argue that the primary elements of the House of Lords. Its members difference is that in federal system, there is a inherited their seats by creating a system balance of power between the two houses, where peers are appointed only for their life but in unitary systems, an upper house can and their children could not inherit their become redundant because it does not have . The new only allows these "Life a clear constituency. In addition, in unitary Peers" to sit in the House of Lords. The systems the primary role of the upper house Prime Minister appoints these peers, while is to provide a “learned” body who can act the monarch confirms the selection. More as the protectors of that state’s constitution. recently, Russell and Cornes argue that (Money and Tsebelis 1992) In other terms, because the House of Lords have no Money and Tsebelis argue that the upper component that is elected, either directly or houses in both systems are not “useless”, to indirectly, then the House is illegitimate. In use de Minon’s word, but that they are, on order to create legitimacy, they argue, the the surface at least, provided people of Britain must have some voice in responsibilities. (Money and Tsebelis 1992) who is allowed to sit in the House. (Russell Druckman, Martin, and Thies also and Cornes 2001, 89) Peter Dorey goes disagree with de Minon. They argue that further to argue that unless the entirety of even if the upper house is useless and weak the House of Lords is democratically elected that does not automatically transition into then the House is illegitimate. (Dorey 2006, irrelevance. They argue that even the 15) weakest upper houses still have some Others argue that the Lords are influence in their political systems. This is irrelevant because they have very little because one power that is consistent authority. What no one will argue is that the throughout upper houses is the power either House of Lords has no independent to legislation, or delay legislation. authority of the . Prior to Though many countries have put restrictions 2009, the House of Lords functioned as the on when their upper houses can do this, it highest court in the Britain, but that power nevertheless gives them political capital. was revoked when the of the Whether this influence translates into was formed. The powers it outright power is debatable but not, does have are meant to check the power of according to the authors, the influence itself. the House of Commons: the ability to delay (Druckman, Martin, and Thies 2005) any legislation (except for money bills) for a It is time to turn attention to the maximum of one year; the power to House of Lords in particular. Most view the introduce legislation; the ability to adopt

13 https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol14/iss1/5 2 Connor: House of Lords: Relevant or Relic?

amendments to legislation sent up from the politically irrelevant, but there are scholars House of Commons; and the power to adopt who argue that the Lords do retain some or defeat legislation from the Commons. relevancy. In terms of the makeup of the The Lords possess these powers, Lords, Alexandra Kelso agrees with Russell meaning that these are the Lords’ powers and Cornes Kelso that there must be a according to the written law. What is in democratic element to the selection of doubt is how these de jure powers translate Lords, but argues that the Life Peerage Act into de facto powers, meaning the powers does create an for the the Lords have in practice, (In practical Lords, since they are de facto chosen by the terms these powers are often different) or if democratically elected Prime Minister. This, they transition at all. Chase argues that even Kelso argues, does give the Lords though the Lords may have these powers on legitimacy. The major oversight Kelso, paper, the Commons can easily overturn the Russel, and Scaria make is that none of them will of the Lords. (Chase 1929, 573) address if the British people themselves Patterson and Mughan point out that, view the House as legitimate.(Kelso 2006, compared to other European bicameral 14) This is a crucial point because, not only parliaments, it is much easier in the British does an institution need legitimacy legally, system for the lower house to overrule the but it needs to appear to be legitimate as upper. (Patterson and Mughan 2001) This well. highlights the uneven balance of powers Russell and Sciara address the issue within the British . of how powerful the Lords are as a Another strong argument made in legislative body. They argue that the Lords defense of the Lords is that since the have gained more power by using defeats, or Commons appoints the Lords, the Commons striking down legislation sent up to them by control the decisions of the Lords. Dorey the Commons. The authors examined all of makes this assertion saying that it is the cases in which the Lords defeated a impossible to forget that the Prime Minister in chamber and the reactions of the and his government from the Commons now Commons. In all of these cases, the appoint the Lords, and that because the Commons worked with the Lords to reach Commons control membership to the Lords an agreement to get the legislation passed they are not to be considered autonomous. rather than overruling them. They divided (Dorey 2006, 20) Nevertheless, this these compromises into three categories: a argument is rather unconvincing; first, he win for the Commons, meaning they got fails to realize that once the Commons have most of what they wanted at the expense of appointed a , that Lord is there for life; the Lords; a draw, both Houses got this means that once the Lords are appointed something they wanted; and a win for the they can do what they like, within the Lords. The results showed that between confines of the Lords’ Constitutional 1996 and 2006 when the Lords won 40.1% responsibilities, without having to worry of the time. (Russell and Scalia 2008, 5) about retaliation from the Commons. In this What this mean in terms of the authority of sense, the Lords are comparable to Justices the House of Lords is that even though they on the United States Supreme Court. Once may not have the power to translate their appointed it is difficult to influence voting positions on issues into policy, they do have behavior. some power in the legislative process, if The previous arguments are the main they did not this number would be much arguments that deal with the Lords being lower.

14

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2013 3 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 14 [2013], Art. 5

Russell and Sciara also examine how meaning does a body have influence, in this much power the Commons have over the case influence on policy and legislation. Lords. They argue that the Lords are by no However, it is necessary for an institution, means a puppet of the Commons. They specifically a legislative institution, to have argue that this can clearly be seen in its more than influence in order to be relevant. regular use of defeats and delays. (Russell In order to be considered politically relevant and Sciara 2008, 3) Kelso agrees with this a legislative institution must possess, or point, but further argues that the tension must appear to possess legitimacy, authority, between the Labour Party and the Lords and autonomy in addition to influence on during the 1990s is another indication of the legislation is this order of importance. Lords’ autonomy. If the Commons Perhaps the most important factor of controlled the Lords, this tension would not political relevance is legitimacy, or by what, exist. (Kelso 2006, 10) Even to Chase if any, right the institution has claim to writing in the before the Peerage Act power. Legitimacy can come in many forms; of 1958, the fact that the freely elected the most common form today is in the form Commons did not have complete control of democratic legitimacy: the right to rule over the, then, hereditary Lords was his based on democratic elections. However, greatest criticism of the House. (Chase 1929, this right can be in other forms: legal 577) This is not to argue that these authors legitimacy codified in and statues; believe the Lords to be completely control of the military can lead to dictatorial autonomous, but to argue that they are not legitimacy; even divine right, or the idea of merely a rubberstamp for the Commons. “God’s chosen ruler” is a form of political The Lords have control over their decisions legitimacy. Legitimacy is vital for a political and that these decisions are not dictated by institution because if a populace does not the Commons. However, not everyone view that body as being legitimate it has no agrees that the Lords have at least some incentive to follow those institutions orders. autonomy from the Commons. This is why I include dictatorial legitimacy, Although academics in the past have or right by might, because even though they attempted to answer several question may not be traditionally legitimate a regarding the legitimacy, authority, ’s control over the military gives him autonomy, and level of influence in the a strong claim on power. (Hetherington, House of Lords, each has addressed these 1998) factors individually and not as a whole. The second most important factor of None has taken the next step and examines political relevance is authority. Now, many these four factors together and their would intuitively think this would be the relationships to one another in order to most important factor in political relevance, understand fully the true political relevance but remember that if a body is not viewed as of the Lords. Are they still relevant in the legitimate it does not have a claim on power. United Kingdom of today, or are they a relic This why Legitimacy must be established of a bygone age. The exact question this first. What authority means is what the paper addresses. institution can actually do; another term for The most important question to ask this might be de facto powers. (Reed, 2001) of any institution is “is it politically Does the body have the authority to levy relevant?” Webster dictionary defines taxes, to declare war, to regulate trade, to relevant as having significant and print money, to approve treaties, to submit a demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand; budget, even to declare a national holiday

15 https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol14/iss1/5 4 Connor: House of Lords: Relevant or Relic?

are all important questions because they mentioned above, which may not be demonstrate how much power that completely autonomous but are still relevant institution has. I am making a distinction to that political system. This is because here between de jure and de facto powers, those bodies still have some influence over because this is more helpful to this the institutions that hold dominance over discussion. This is due to the realization that them, such as blocks on legislation, limited all legislative bodies will attempt to veto power, etc. This is the definitive maximize their authority to the fullest extent difference between a body that is merely allowable under the law. Even an subservient, meaning they may not be institutions ability to create this autonomous but still have influence and maximization is a reflection of their body that is a only a rubberstamp, a body authority. with neither autonomy nor influence. For The third factor for relevance is example, in many European systems, the autonomy, whether or not the legislative lower house of parliament carries body is governing, or is being governed. As dominance over the upper house, but in most with authority, autonomy builds upon the instances, the upper house retains some previous factors, and that the previous influence over legislation. factors, legitimacy and authority, are So far, it has been established that in necessary in order for a legislative body to order for a legislative institution to be be autonomous. The point is to examine considered politically relevant it must have whether the institution has control over itself legitimacy and at least some independent and its decisions, or is merely a rubber authority, and either be autonomous or have stamp. Nevertheless, an institution can be influence on policy, or both. Therefore, it is legitimate and have some authority while necessary to determine if the House of Lords not being autonomous. If that institution is a meet these qualifications. However, the puppet, or if its decisions are dictated to it more difficult task is how to quantify these by another branch of government, or even separate factors and determine if the House another house of the same legislature, then of Lords possess them. that body is not truly autonomous. The In order to determine if the House of parliament is usually dominated by the Lords are legitimate it is necessary to first lower house with the upper having few if examine how that body was created. Was it any means to assert what authority is has; codified in legislation, was it created by an this is an issue that many upper houses in individual, and was it established through parliamentary systems face. An example of the tenants of some ? This will this is would the institution be more determine which type of legitimacy the analogous to the United States , Lords are basing themself off. However, this which is independent of the other two is not enough. In order to determine branches of government, the and legitimacy it must be determined whether Judiciary, or to the Senate of the ancient the population believes that the House is Roman which was controlled by the legitimate. Perception is the key here, Executive branch. because if the House is not viewed as The last factor is influence. This is legitimate then it is not legitimate, no matter the concept of whether or not an institution how it was created or by what means it can change legislation in other parts of claims the power to legislate. In order to do government to receive its preferred policies. this polling data will be collected in regards This factor addresses those institutions to how the people of Great Britain view the

16

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2013 5 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 14 [2013], Art. 5

House of Lords. The way in which it will of Lords, the weakest of all upper houses, establish that the House of Lords has has some political relevance it will show independent authority is by examining what that the other upper houses should still be the House can and cannot do. These powers politically relevant. will then are examined and determine if As stated above in order to establish these powers give the Lords any real legitimacy two factors will be looked at: authority. Autonomy will be determined by what give the House legitimacy, and examining what checks the Commons have whether the public perceive the body to be on the Lords, and how the Lords are chosen. legitimate. The foundations of the House of These factors will show if the Lords are Lords lie in the Magna Carta of 1215, which autonomous or if the Commons is created a council of twenty noblemen who controlling them. Lastly, the House’s level had the authority to overrule the reigning of influence will be investigated by monarch if his decrees violated their rights. examining how effective the Lords are at From the period of the thirteenth century to getting their positions passed in legislation. the mid-nineteenth century, the House of To do this the rate at which the Commons Lords reigned as the premier House in the approves bills introduced in the Lords will Parliament. It was only after the English be viewed. This rate will show how and the subsequent Glorious influential the Lords views are in the House Revolution that the Commons began to gain of Commons. By the use of these more power in the Parliament. (Miller 1962) measurements, one can develop a valid However, the Commons would not become means to quantify the political relevance of the dominant chamber until the reforms of the House of Lords. the mid nineteenth century. In addition, Since this study will rely heavily on though there is no British Constitution, the qualitative data, with some quantitative data, body of laws and statutes that have been the reliability of the sources used will be taken to form the unwritten constitution paramount. All qualitative sources will have clearly provides for the House of Lords. been peer reviewed and all quantitative (Round 1915) What this is taken to mean is sources, including polls, will come from that the House of Lords can clearly claim to only the most trusted British organizations. be legitimate based on the principle of legal The reason one can examine the legitimacy, the definition of which plainly House of Lords in order to assess the mean legitimacy based on laws and statutes. relevance of upper houses in bicameral However, this only answers half the legislatures is methodological in nature. As question of whether the House of Lords is stated before the House of Lords is the legitimate or not. The more important hallmark example of the weak upper house, question is whether the House of Lords is it is perceived as outdated, irrelevant, and perceived as legitimate by the British unnecessary, which is common with most people. While it is clear that the House is other upper houses. Nonetheless, because of legally legitimate, this question is more the nature of its composition the reputation difficult to answer. To answer this recent of the House of Lords suffers from these polling data and how it relates to the Lords blemishes to a much greater degree than its will be examined. The following tables all elected counterparts. For this reason, the represent polls taken by Ipsos MORI, the House of Lords can be incredibly useful in world’s largest research company, showing assessing the relevancy of all upper houses. public opinion in the United Kingdom Because, if it can show that even the House regarding the House of Lords.

17 https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol14/iss1/5 6 Connor: House of Lords: Relevant or Relic?

believe the House is a clear danger to British *See table 1 politics and must be reformed immediately, a mere seven percent. What is clear is that The data in table 1 shows that the overwhelming majority, 72%, believe between the years of 1999 and 2006 there that the House of Lords is in need of reform, was a marked increase in how the public but think that other issues are more viewed the legitimacy of the House of important at the moment. This implies that Lords. Among all of the British voters, the majority of the population does not see forty-three percent believe that the Lords are the Lords as a direct threat to their . If now more legitimate than they were in the the majority of people believed the House to 1990s. It worth noting that conservative be illegitimate, the number of people who voters did not have an increase at the same believe that reform of the Lords is a top level as the liberal voters. One explanation priority would be much higher. for this discrepancy is that during the time this poll was taken the liberals had a *See table 3 majority in the Lords. This rise in perception of legitimacy can be due to many factors, In table 3 it can be seen that the but is most likely due to the House of Lords British people as a whole, believe that when Reform bill of 2005, which created an it comes to how well each House carries out independent Supreme Court of the United its role, the House of Lords does a better job Kingdom, a power that was previously held than the House of Commons. This again by the Lords. It may seem counterintuitive reinforces the fact that the British people see to think that a loss of power would result in the Lords as legitimate. Although the poll a heightened sense of legitimacy, but this does not use the word legitimate, the fact specific power given to the Lords was that the majority of people believe that the extremely unpopular the people of Britain Lords are fulfilling their duties, and that they who preferred an independent judiciary. So are in fact doing a better job than the even though this law may have taken away Commons, show that they appear legitimate. power from the Lords, that power was As mentioned before, legitimacy is replaced by popularity. This poll provides the most important factor when it comes to the best evidence that the Britons view the political relevance. It has been shown that Lords as legitimate, but in order to be more the existence of the House of Lords is thorough two other pools will be considered. strongly rooted in British law, and, with these three tables, the people of Britain *See table 2 understand the House to be legitimate. With this accomplished it is now prudent to turn Although this exact question does our attention to the authority of the House of not address legitimacy as directly as the Lords. previous table, one can make several In order to determine if the Lords inferences regarding how the people of have any de facto authority this paper will Great Britain view the House of Lords. First, determine what legislative powers the body about one-sixth of the population believes possesses. According to the website of the that the House of Lords is in no need of United Kingdom Parliament, the House of reform, that the House is legitimate and Lords have only three real powers: the functioning adequately. While a clear power to introduce legislation, the power to minority, it is more common than those that delay legislation for up to one year, and the

18

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2013 7 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 14 [2013], Art. 5

power to amend or defeat legislation domestic policies, but as has already seen it originating in the is in these areas that the Lords are at their Commons.(www.parliament .uk, 2012) most powerful anyway. Nonetheless do these de jure powers The last main power of the Lords is translate into de facto power? First, it is the power to amend or defeat legislation necessary to examine the power to introduce passed up from the Commons. The Lords legislation. The Lords can independently frequently take advantage of these powers. draft legislation and introduce it into the (Russell and Cornes 2001) Rather than Parliament. In fact, In 2012, of the one introducing their own bills to address topics hundred and twenty bills put before the outside of their ordinary , parliament, thirty-six originated in the mainly minor domestic issues, they amend House of Lords, which calculates to about bills from the Commons to reflect their thirty percent of the bills. policies. However, if the Commons do not (www.parliament.uk, 2012) It is worth accept the Lords’ amendments, the Lords do mentioning however, that the Lords most have the ability to defeat the bill by not commonly introduce bills related to minor passing the bill. This does not stop the bill domestic matters. The Lords almost never from being passed, as the Commons can introduce bills associated with social, overrule the Lords; but it does complicate political, or foreign issues; these matters are matters for the Commons. In recent years, left to the Commons. Therefore, even the Lords have been using this power of though the Lords do have the power to defeats to greater and greater effect. Table 4 introduce legislation on any topic, in shows how in 2003 the Lords used defeats to practice they limit themselves to a relatively get their policies through the Commons. small sphere of influence. The next primary power of the Lords *See table 4 is the power to delay legislation. The Lords are authorized to delay legislation sent up What is meant by a win for the Lords from the Commons for up to one year, but is that the policies of the Lords are this ability is not as powerful as it may expressed to a greater degree than those of seem. First of all the Lords cannot delay so the Commons. The fact that the results called money bills, bills designed to raise showing the Lords wining over forty percent money through taxes or spend public of the time is surprising, especially given the money. (www.parliament.uk , 2012) The weak perception of the Lords, one would definition is loose and can encompass many expect this number to be much lower. The different types of legislation. The only reason for this result is that the process for individual who decides what is a overruling the Lords is usually slower and is the of the House of Commons, more arduous than compromising with them and this decision is final, once a Speaker has (this is to be discussed further in the section designated a bill, as a money bill there is no on autonomy). It is clear that the Lords’ use means to appeal this decision. In addition, of amendments and defeats have given them since the Speaker has a habit of labeling any some degree of political power, even though major piece of legislation money bill the they de facto have a limitation on their Lords are de facto locked out of the major power to introduce legislation and their legislation, and cannot employ their primary delaying power is so strictly controlled. means of checking the Commons. This While clearly not the major power holder, relegates the use of delays to mainly minor, they nonetheless are not powerless

19 https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol14/iss1/5 8 Connor: House of Lords: Relevant or Relic?

bystanders in the politics of the United must examine the system in which the Lords Kingdom. are chosen. Shifting focus now, whether or not Many different groups can put the Lords are autonomous from the forward candidates to sit in the House of Commons, or whether they are puppets of Lords. Some of these groups include the the lower house must be addressed. This will Prime Minister, the House of Lords do by examining the checks placed on the Nominating and individuals Commons by the Lords. Then how the Lords political parties. Also, although frowned are selected, all in an effort to determine if upon, candidates can even nominate the Lords can claim autonomy, will be themselves. Candidates are then reviewed by investigated. Note that discussing the checks the House of Lords Appointments the Lords have on the Commons will not be Commission. Established in 2000, the House discussed here; these checks were discussed of Lords Appointments Commission is a in the section on authority of the Lords. nonpartisan group that vets candidates for The system of checks placed on the the Lords and either accepts or denies the Lords by the Commons is specifically request. Then the list of approved candidates designed so that the democratically elected are handed over to for Royal house can overrule the appointed upper Assent, which the Crown provides in a house. If a bill is defeated by the Lords, the rather rubberstamp like manner. Before the Commons reserve the right to reintroduce Commission was created in 2000, the Lords that bill in the following session of were nominated only by the Prime Minister. Parliament. When the bill is reintroduced, This gave the Commons direct control over the Commons do not need the Lords to the composition of the Lords. Now the approve the bill before it can be passed into process is more neutral. One more factor law. What this essentially does is to allow that is important to note once a Lord is the Commons to bypass the Lords on the nominated, approved, and created, unless second go around, if the first failed. that Lord behaves improperly or commits a Nonetheless, the Commons must wait up to crime, he is a Lord for life. This means that a year in some instances in order to take even if a Lord is not voting in the way the advantage of this mechanism. This also group that nominated them wanted to, there explains why the Commons are willing to is nothing that group can do. Therefore, if a negotiate and compromise with the Lords as conservative Prime Minister nominated a often as they do. (See section on authority) Lord to vote conservatively in the House, The impact this has on the level of and that Lord starts to vote with the liberals, autonomy the Lords possess is that the there is no mechanism for the Prime checks placed on the Lords are no stricter Minister to remove that Lord. How this than those placed on the Commons. relates to autonomy is that even though the Additionally, although there is a mechanism Commons may have some influence on for the Commons to bypass the Lords this selecting the Lords, they have no way to mechanism is slow and more often than not, control them afterward. This coupled with the Commons chose to negotiate rather than the lack of highly restrictive checks for the take advantage of it. This indicates that the Lords by the Commons illustrate that the Lords are not puppets controlled by the Lords are not puppets of the lower house but Lords, but are an autonomous house. are independent and free to express their However, in order to say confidently that the own policies in their legislation, even when Lords are independent of the Commons, one

20

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2013 9 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 14 [2013], Art. 5

that policy contradicts those of the the lower house. Nonetheless, what does all Commons. of this mean? Our definition of political The last factor concerns political relevance was that an institution must be relevance, influence on legislation. Influence legitimate, possess independent authority, will be measured by the rate at which and either is autonomous in the policies it legislation introduced by the Lords become expresses, or has some influence on policies law. In the British system bills are put forth by the dominant house in order to introduced in one House of Parliament, be considered politically relevant. When approved, sent to the other House for looked at by this definition it has been approval and then sent to the Crown, shown that the House of Lords are monarch, for approval. This approval is politically relevant because it meets all the known as and is the last stage requirements of the definition. It is of a bill before it becomes law. The chart legitimate, has some power, and is below shows how often bills from the Lords autonomous. In addition because the House have become law since 2007. of Lords is considered by many to be the weakest and least politically relevant of all *See table 5 upper houses, one can further hypothesize that parliamentary upper houses in general As can be seen from table 5 no bill are politically relevant. Again, this is not to originating from the Lords has been passed say that they are as relevant, or more into law since 2008. Now, while this may relevant, than lower houses, which are by far appear to indicate that the Lords have little more powerful and influential. What is influence on policy, it must be remembered meant is that they are not as weak and that overall the Lords do not introduce many powerless as their reputations would lead bills to begin with, as already discussed, one to believe, they are not relics of an older they tend to amend bills from the Commons idea of governance but are still relevant in to reflect their policies rather introduce their the modern political system. own legislation. However, aside from that, the fact that very few bills introduced by the Lords eventually become law does indicate that while they may have some influence using delays and defeats (see section on authority for more details) they have nowhere near the amount of influence the Commons possess. What this research has shown is that the House of Lords meets the requirements put forward and should be considered politically relevant. It is legitimate, and is seen as legitimate by the public. The Lords have some level of authority. The upper house is autonomous of the lower house. Additionally, although they have some influence on legislation from the Commons it is not sufficient to say with certainty that the House can influence bills put forward by

21 https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol14/iss1/5 10 Connor: House of Lords: Relevant or Relic?

Table 1: Question: Public attitudes to change in Lords legitimacy since 1999 Voters Far More More No Less Far Less Total Legitimate Legitimate Change Legitimate Legitimate more Legitimate Labour 19% 32% 36% 10% 4% 51%

Conservative 9% 19% 26% 20% 26% 28%

Liberal 19% 30% 28% 11% 11% 49% Democrats All voters 16% 27% 31% 13% 13% 43%

Source: Data taken from Russel and Scaria, 2006. Data was collected by Ipsos MORI poll for , May 2005. 1,007 valid respondents, with results adjusted to be representative of the population as a whole.

Table 2: Question: As you may have heard, there has recently been debate about reforming the House of Lords. Which of these statements is closest to your view? I support reforming the House of Lords, and the 7% government should make it an immediate priority I support reforming the House of Lords, but there 72% are more important things that the government should be concentrating on at the moment I don’t support reforming the House of Lords 16% Don’t know 4% Source: Taken from Ipsos MORI interviewed a representative sample of 1,006 adults aged 18+ across Great Britain. Interviews were conducted by telephone 14-16 July 2012. Data are weighted to match the profile of the population.

22

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2013 11 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 14 [2013], Art. 5

Table 3: Question: To what extent do you agree or disagree that …?

Neither Strongly Tend to Tend to Strongly Don't agree nor agree agree disagree disagree know disagree % % % % % % the House of Commons generally 7 39 22 15 4 12 carries out its policy role well the House of Lords generally carries out 8 41 24 9 3 15 its policy role well Source: Taken from Ipsos MORI.com. Results are based on 1,490 adults aged 18+ in the UK. Interviewed face-to-face in home from 23-28 November 2006.

Table 4: Question Outcome by Significance of Government Defeats in 2003 Policy significance Gov’t win Lords win Total % Lords win Minor policy 27 12 39 30.8% Medium-significance 60 45 105 42.9% Policy Significant policy 77 53 130 40.8%

Total 164 110 274 40.1%

Source: Data taken from Russell and Sciara 2008. Based out of 274 cases from the 2003 session of Parliament.

23 https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol14/iss1/5 12 Connor: House of Lords: Relevant or Relic?

Table 5: Question: How many bills originating in the House of Lords becomes Law? Session of Total number of Number of HL Number of Bills Number of HL Parliament Bills Bills Given Royal Bills Given Assent Royal Assent 2007-2008 161 23 42 6

2008-2009 164 20 35 0

2009-2010 113 25 36 0

2010-2012 390 36 54 0

Source: Data taken from parliament.uk and compiled from among 828 bills since 2007. Note that HL designates bills originating in the House of Lords.

24

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2013 13 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 14 [2013], Art. 5

References Westminster. Parliamentary Affairs 59. 4, 563-581. Kroenig, M., & Fish, M. S. (2009). The House of Lords Survey . (2007, December Handbook of National Legislatures: 13). Retrieved from Ipsos A Global Survey. New : MORI.com: http://www.ipsos- Cambridge University Press. mori.com/researchpublications/resea Lodge, J., & Herman, V. (1978). rcharchive/250/House-of-Lords- Institutional Reform in the European Survey.aspx Community: The Case for Bills in previous sessions . (2012, November Bicameralism. Canadian Journal of 18). Retrieved from Parliament.uk: Political Science Vol. 11,No. 3, 575- http://www.parliament.uk/business/b 599. ills-and-legislation/current- Miller, H. (1967). Attendance in the House bills/previous-bills/ of Lords during the Reign of Henry www.parliament.uk. (2012, VIII. The Historical Journal, Vol. November 11). Retrieved from The 10, No. 3, 325-351. Parliament Acts : Miñón, M. d. (1975). The Passing of http://www.parliament.uk/about/how Bicameralism. The American /laws/parliamentacts/ Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. Chase, E. P. (1929). House of Lords Reform 23, No. 2, 236-254. since 1911. Political Science Money, J., & Tsebelis, G. (1992). Cicero's Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 4, 569-590. Puzzle:Upper House Power in Dorey, P. (2006). 1949, 1969, 1999: The Comparative Perspective. Labour Party and House of Lords International Political Science Reform. Parliamentary Affairs, 1-22. Review Vol.13, No. 1, 25-43. Druckman, J., Martin, L., & Thies, M. Patterson, S., & Mughan , A. (2001). (2005). Influence without Fundamentals of Institutional Confidence: Upper Chambers and Design: The Functions and Powers Government Formation. Legislative of Parliamentary Second Chambers. Studies Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 4, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 529-548. 39-60. Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The Political Reed, D. L. (2001). The Relevance of Relevance of Political Trust. The Politically Relevant Dyads. The American Political Science Review, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. Vol. 92, No. 4, 791-808. 45, No. 1, 126-144. Horwill, H. W. (1908). The Problem of the Round, J. H. (1915). The House of Lords House of Lords. Political Science and the . The Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 1, 95-111. English Historical Review, Vol. 30, Karie, H. S. (1967). The Political Relevance No. 119 , 385-397. of Behavioral and Existential Russel, R., & Cornes, M. (January 2001). Psychology. The American Political The Royal Commission on Reform Science Review, Vol. 61, No. 2, 334- of the House of Lords: A House for 342. the Future? The Modern Law Review Kelso, A. (2006). Reforming the House of Vol. 64, No. 1, 82-99. Lords: Navigating Representation, Russell, M., & Sciara, M. (2006). and Legitimacy at Legitimacy and Bicameral Strength:

25 https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol14/iss1/5 14 Connor: House of Lords: Relevant or Relic?

A Case Study of the House of Lords. Skinner, G. (2012, July 19). Ipsos 1-19. MORI.com. Retrieved from Ipsos Russell, M., & Sciara, M. (2008). The MORI House of Lords reform poll: Policy Impact of Defeats in the http://www.ipsos- House of Lords. BJPIR: 2008 VOL mori.com/Assets/Docs/july2012_hou 10, 571–589. seoflords_topline.pdf

26

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2013 15