[HoL] The Autopsy

Day 670, 11:39 • Published in United Kingdom United Kingdom • by House of Lords

It was a vote that caused rifts amongst friends and ferocious arguments amongst political parties but the vote has been decided and the House of Lords is set to be abolished. The vote has thrice been before the House of Commons and all those times, it has seen support from a number of different powerful political members. Twice it was presented before the House of Lords and the Lords voted against the abolition. On the third vote, the Lords had no voice.

Of course, one must understand and respect the decision of all parties involved as and the rifts that were caused should be forgiven and forgotten. Although the decision has been made in principle, there is the opportunity for discussion about a number of problems; the number of absent Members of Parliament, the refusal to consider alternative means and the impact it will have upon legislation and, as a greater whole, the public.

The House of Lords was a political organisation or 'organ of the state' that was designed to assess and advise the House of Commons upon legislation that was passed unto them and then to vote whether to pass this legislation, at which point it carry the force of law, or to return it to the House of Commons for further discussion and review.

With its abolition, one must consider the impact upon legislation. The House of Commons is now the sole producer, regulator, and watch-dog over the laws that are passed. This is not a crime nor is it being suggested that the House of Commons only produces ill-considered legislation. Rather that perhaps it would be better to have a distinct group maintaining standards of quality, benchmarks against which future proposals could be judged. This is now lost. The House of Commons risks being seen as an unchecked organ that has no governing body. A legislative branch must be checked and balanced, and our legislators no longer have that.

The House of Lords was seen as an establishment of the 'elite', the top minds of the political world coming together to place their mark upon political history. There are alternatives to the House of Lords and it is important that we consider those with reason and logic. Just as the arguments of 'elitism' in the House of Lords add nothing to the debate, the argument that reform has been considered before is redundant. What has passed has passed. This is the present.

It has been proposed that the Government could award Lordships based on merit and service, and that that power could be checked by the House of Commons. This is not the only alternative. A number of politicians have proposed an advisory body or set of committees and this, like the reformation of the House of Lords, has its advantages. This committee could consist of both Lords and Commons, therefore drawing upon the wealth of experience and expertise amongst the members. It is possible to have committees based upon specific subjects and this could increase democracy within the United Kingdom as the public have the option to call for a public enquiry.

The House of Lords was not without fault. However, neither is the House of Commons. The number of absent Members of Parliament in a vital vote such as the abolition of the House of Lords suggests that it could be debated as to whether we, as the public, obtained a general consensus as to the views of Congress. Perhaps the government should have demanded the vote to be longer, and thus allowing enough time for the attention of all the elected Members of Parliament.

Was this the right decision? Was the abolition of the House of Lords actually what was needed? Or should we now try and rebuild what was once one of our most valued institutions out of the rubble created by rabble-rousing politicians and their false, hollow arguments against that which we need most, stable governance.