The Sylvan House of Lords debate considered the following motion:
This house believes the UK would be better off without an upper house in Parliament.
The debate took place on Monday, 9th January. Julian Meek proposed the motion and Matthew Lobo opposed it.
The proposition arguing to remove the House of Lords
The proposer opened by pointing out that this question encompasses emotion as well as logic. We need to send a clear signal to the cesspit of Westminster. The House of Lords (HoL) is only one aspect of the establishment – if we get rid of it, more will crumble. The HoL still includes fossils, that should sit in the Natural History Museum. We should move to a more perfect society than we have today. Even the Elgin Marbles seem destined to go back to Greece. We should fire the Lords rather than pay them £300 per day. Many historical hangovers persist, for instance the bishops – does it represent the rest of us? A high level of cost, given the large number of members and the ageing chamber. The electorate should determine the alternative.
Removing the HoL represents one step towards a revolution – power to the people! Yes, individual Lords have contributed significantly. The Warnock Report on special education, Doreen Lawrence. The HoL does have expertise and provides scrutiny, but we can do this without an upper house. In the 21st century Parliament must represent the whole community. The HoL is full of corruption and faces its own Waterloo.
The opposition against the House of Lords debate motion
The opposer began by defining terms and referencing the recent Gordon Brown report on potential constitutional reforms. This motion can consider an amended upper house. The HoL’s core role comprises refining and adding to laws. Its strongest power allows the HoL to delay a law by one year; it cannot remove the government. The HoL is not elected nor is it supposed to be democratic. The majority of life peers do good work. Whereas the Commons MPs includes inexperienced but elected representatives. Combining this democratic legitimacy with HoL experience and expertise leads to the best legislative outcomes.
Indeed, the HoL can change form, for instance when in 1999 the number of hereditary members reduced from 750 to 92. In 2005 the law lords moved to the new Supreme Court. There are several new options for an alternative to the HoL. First, Gordon Brown’s parliaments of the regions. Second, move the HoL to York or Birmingham. Third, an elected HoL, directly or indirectly, which has precedence in other countries.
Floor speakers explored a wide range of related points. We can get rid of the hereditaries and keep the HoL. An elected HoL would resemble the Commons too much and the people would lack expertise. We should also consider a unicameral Parliamentary system, a key facet of this debate. Governments face strong scrutiny from the Lords and do not take them for granted. Denmark and Portugal have unicameral systems, along with proportional representation rather than our first-past-the-post system. We need to repair both houses together, along with the building – we can repair our democracy. People can buy peerages for about £1 million. Unicameral parliaments produce poor legislation.
Parliament embodies the feudal system from which it evolved, and it would require a revolution to change it. Elected representatives does not mean it is a democracy – in ancient Greece each citizen had a vote. And MPs don’t actually represent their constituents. The HoL provides strong scrutiny, and don’t have to satisfy constituents, they improve legislation. An official commission could oversee appointments to the HoL. Are the Lords really experts? A number face criminal investigations. They don’t represent modern-day Britain. The HoL costs £92 million per year, use those funds to hire real experts. It needs a breath of fresh air, why not a House of Ladies?
The opposer’s rebuttal
In rebuttal, the opposer pointed out that the HoL forms a fundamental part of UK government. During law making and before Royal Assent, we need revision and refinement. MPs serve in parties and have personal ambitions. We need the HoL within the democratic institutions of our government.
The proposer’s closing speech
Result: the House of Lords debate motion did not carry
The Sylvans concluded through the House of Lords debate that we should retain the Lords as the upper house in Parliament.
See information on other Sylvan debates here.