The Archbishops of Canterbury and York question the rationale for a wholly or mainly elected House of Lords in their submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Government’s Draft Bill and White Paper (the submission can be read on the CofE website).
Whilst welcoming the Draft Bill’s proposals to provide continued places for bishops of the established Church in a partly appointed House, the Archbishops ask that the appointments process also have regard to increasing the presence of leaders of other denominations and faiths.
The Draft Bill and White Paper proposes a House of Lords of 300 members, with either 80% or 100% elected by proportional representation. If the reformed House were to retain an appointed element, there would be places for Church of England bishops, though reduced to 12 from their current 26. Bishops would not be allowed to remain in a 100% elected House under the Government’s plans.
The Archbishops argue in their submission that the test of reform is whether it enables Parliament as a whole to serve the people better.
What’s the point of having an elected Lord at all? That seems ridiculous to me. I mean, you might as well go to a Unicameral Parliament if it’s all elected.
The argument for a second chamber is (1) it gives more time for details scrutiny of legislation, which the primary chamber may not have – it can tweak the legislation before sending it back for final approval to the lower house (2) it protects the constitution – this has been historically the role of the Lords. But I agree that an elected House of Lords seems an oxymoron. The rationale of the Lords is precisely that it is not political in the usual understanding of the word. It allows a wide representation of people (the arts; media; medicine; finance, commerce and industry) who would normally never go near politics or get elected, yet who can speak for their sector once they get the letter from the Queen making them peers. In this scheme of things you have an argument for having bishops, imams, rabbis (the Chief Rabbi is usually ennobled). Not that I agree with the argument – I believe in separation of church and state – but I can see that the argument can be made. Archer is correct. Once you have a house that is entirely or almost entirely elected, there is no reason for it to be a house of Lords. The idea is bizarre. Either go for a senate or abolish the second chamber. We are, after all, in a time of belt-tightening and it would save money.
Under the British system they have so weakened the House of Lords that it no longer serves any real purpose. Either do away with it or re-create it as a seperate co-ordinate branch of the legislature along with the Commons.
But a government with true checks and balances is too messy and gets in the way of getting things done quickly. Dictatorships and foux democracies are much more efficient and don’t let things like liberty get in the way. Much better to bend the populace to the will of their betters.
That’s what the State of Nebraska did in the 1930’s to make ends meet: they went to a Unicameral Legislature. Having lived in Nebraska for several years and for a few years living literally in the building’s shadow a few blocks away, it seems to work for them. I don’t see why more US State legislatures don’t go for it. If Senators aren’t appointed or at least serve much longer terms, then what’s really the point? If it is all elected, why have a bicameral legislature? For that matter, why not have a tri-cameral legislature where each region of the state gets its own body in the legislature? I’ve never understood why Americans are do fixated on having 2 houses on the State level.
Separation of power and checks and balances. Power is to be fragmented. Sorry it this is so difficult.
Does Britain really need two houses of Parliament? I think not. The problem I have not been able to overcome is how to get rid of the Commons?