The government’s reform of the Lords heralds the end of constitutionally-enshrined aristocratic government in Britain.

What is the House of Lords?

The House of Lords is one part of the ancient triumvirate in the British constitution, which also includes the monarchy and the Commons. Representing the interests of the aristocracy, the lords historically combined with the “commoners” to challenge and check the power of kings.

These days, the Lords is the second legislative chamber in parliament, responsible for amending and scrutinising the activities of the government-dominated Commons. Other democratic countries have a similar institution, often known as an upper chamber or senate.

Why did the Labour Party reform the Lords?

The House of Lords is widely condemned as undemocratic: “one of the most curious of the curious anomalies in British public life, defying all logic of democratic and secular politics”, in the words of political scientist John Kingdom.

The presence of an unelected upper chamber mocks the principle of a representative democracy, in which all people are equally entitled to participate in politics. The law lords could both make and judge the law: this runs counter to the democratic ideal of a ‘separation of powers’, which holds that the judiciary (courts), legislature (parliament) and executive (government) should remain independent of each other, checking and balancing each other’s power.

Self-interest also plays a part in Labour’s decision to reform the Lords. Dismantling the chamber enhances Labour’s reformist credentials. More importantly, abolishing the hereditary peers removes a key source of Conservative opposition to the government. Predominantly Tory, the hereditary peers have fuelled a number of revolts against Labour’s legislation, including major opposition to Labour’s welfare plans last autumn.

What can be done with the Lords?

There are two main options. The first is to create an upper chamber which is subservient to the government, sustaining the British tradition of a dominant executive. A House of Lords wholly nominated by the prime minister would be the most extreme example of this. Opponents argue that this would perpetuate the undemocratic imbalance of power in British politics, which makes government an “elective dictatorship”.

The second option is to create a second chamber similar to those in other western democracies: a directly elected, independent body, designed to check and scrutinise the power of the government, with no overlapping of judicial or legislative functions. Tony Blair is among those who believe this would undermine the Commons and introduce gridlock into politics, threatening the speed and efficiency with which the government can act.

What is the royal commission?

The government has said reform will not stop here. But it has not decided what further changes to make to the Lords, which, by other countries’ standards, is still absurdly undemocratic.

A royal commission, chaired by Conservative peer Lord Wakeham, was established in 1999 to consider and make recommendations on the role and functions of a second chamber. It was supposed to report by the end of 1999, but disagreements among the academics and politicians who make up the body delayed its publication.

Cynics observe that royal commissions are often used as tools of procrastination by governments wanting to be seen to be making reformist noises but unwilling to take legislative action. The highly respected Jenkins commission on electoral reform reported in November 1998, but the government has subsequently placed electoral reform at the bottom of its priorities. It is highly unlikely that Jenkins’ recommendations will ever be adopted.

Task VI. a) Read the text  and answer the questions following it:

⇐ Предыдущая26272829303132333435Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: