‹ All questionsPaper 2 · 2024 · 30 marks
Using the source, evaluate the view that there should be an elected House of Lords.
Parliament
Source
Source 1 presents contrasting perspectives on whether the House of Lords should be elected.
The case against an elected House of Lords
The House of Lords plays a key role in our constitutional system.
The Lords performs an essential role as a revising chamber, providing detailed scrutiny of legislation and government activity. Increasingly, the Lords has become a key check on government, challenging legislation that has passed easily through the Commons. The Lords can do this because of its unelected nature. The key features of an appointed House are greater independence, the absence of a government majority, its expertise and the greater amount of time members can dedicate to legislative scrutiny.
Reforms to change the membership of the House of Lords from appointed to elected may upset the existing constitutional balance. Firstly, an elected Lords may have the same issues as the Commons, weakening its ability to check the government. Secondly, a clash could develop between the Commons and an elected Lords over whether the Commons or the Lords is more legitimate.
The case for an elected House of Lords
The unelected House of Lords is completely indefensible.
The House lacks the democratic mandate to do its job effectively. The House is not full of specialists, but is stuffed full of party donors, lobbyists, and wealthy, well-connected individuals. Appointments have been increasingly numerous and inappropriate, with many new peers rarely contributing to the work of the House. The presence of hereditary peers and religious representatives is not suitable in a modern democracy. Also, attempts to limit the size and cost of the 800-member chamber have had little impact.
The Lords must have electoral legitimacy to do its job well. It should be much smaller and should more accurately represent the regions and nations of the UK whilst keeping the same powers. Then the Lords can play its key constitutional role of ensuring that there are effective checks on the power of government without challenging the authority of the Commons.
Mark scheme: agreement
Agreement
The House of Lords is undemocratic, illegitimate.
By the very nature of being unelected and appointed the Lords is anti-democratic, especially in the case of Bishops,
Archbishops and hereditary peers, who all have the
right to vote on laws that impact the public but are unaccountable at the polling station (AO2)
and this is simply not fit for purpose in a twenty first century democracy so it needs replacing with an elected House
(AO3).
The House of Lords is not full of experts and specialists.
The Lords are not experts and specialists, most are just political appointees that reflect a system of cronyism (Lord
Bamford) and many Peers are very controversial (Michelle Mone, Conrad Black, Lord Lebvedev) (AO2)
and this clearly undermines their ability to do their job and undermines public faith in democracy so it must be replaced by
an elected House that can do its job (AO3).
The size of the current Lords is not acceptable.
The House of Lords which remains too bloated and expensive (£23m in expenses claims in 2018 to 2019) having grown
from 700 peers in 2000 to over 800 now, (AO2)
so a smaller, democratically elected House is necessary (AO3).
An elected Lords will be a more legitimate check on the power of government.
An elected chamber would be in a much stronger position to carry out the Lords’ constitutional role by changing its
membership and there would be no need to change its powers (AO2) showing that an elected House of Lords is now the
right step for the UK (AO3)
Mark scheme: disagreement
Disagreement
Its strength remains its membership, which is specialist, more independent and has more time than the Commons
The Lords plays a key role as a revising chamber and spends the majority of its time on legislation where it debates,
amends and revises bills it receives from the House of Commons (AO2), providing a crucial role in our democratic system
and so is clearly fit for purpose showing an elected chamber is unnecessary (AO3).
The Lords plays a key role as a revising chamber.
The membership of the Lords is its strength; it is less partisan than the Commons, is more specialist and has more time
and this strength is a product of its unelected nature (AO2)
so it is clearly fit for purpose and an elected chamber would be unable to fill this role (AO3).
There is no government majority unlike the Commons.
The key to the Lords is that there is no government majority, meaning the Lords is better placed than the Commons to
check the government especially in a time when the UK is moving towards an elective dictatorship (AO2)
suggesting an unelected House of Lords is vital to UK democracy whilst an elected House might recreate the issues we
see with the party majority in the House of Commons (AO3).
An elected House could increase the power of government or clash with the Commons, upsetting the constitutional
system.
The Lords does need reform, but replacement with an elected chamber would radically change the balance of power
between the Executive and Parliament and the balance of power between the Commons and the Lords upsetting the UK
constitution (AO2)
so it is clear that some form of appointed, and therefore unelected chamber, is fit for purpose in the modern UK rather
than an elected chamber (AO3).