Report

Lords a’leaping: the growing assertiveness of the House of Lords

Seminar series

A Constitution Unit seminar led by Dr Meg Russell, Senior Research Fellow, the Constitution Unit

One of Meg Russell’s opening statements anticipated her conclusion: “The Lords as it is may be a more interesting topic than the prospects for its reform.” The present House of Lords grew more assertive after the elimination of all but 92 of the hereditaries in 1999 removed an indefensible barrier to its effectiveness. A far greater party balance has since been achieved, with 211 Labour, 208 cross bench and 203 Conservative members, making the Tories only the third largest group, compared to their 471 member dominance of the old chamber. Ironically, the party balance in the non-elected House of today reflects more closely than the Commons the way people voted in 2005. It also gives peers more legitimacy in challenging government policy.

Other reasons for growing assertiveness are: a better gender balance than in the past; declining public support for government policy; a lack of progress in introducing elections to the Lords; and evidence that the public and the media support the Lords intervening on policy.

Evidence of assertiveness is seen in the number of government defeats, 373 of them since 1999, an average of 49 a year. The number of Bills in which peers have insisted on their amendments has increased from 4 in the period of minority Labour government in 1974-79 to 17 in 2001-05.
A belief in their own assertiveness is found in the opinion of peers themselves, as recorded in the surveys by Russell and Sciara of the Constitution Unit. It can further be deduced from government responses to peers’ behaviour. Peers are also more assertive over secondary legislation, in which by convention they did not previously interfere – for example as over the defeat of the order to establish the Manchester supercasino this March. Evidence exists of the government withdrawing secondary legislation rather than risk defeat.

According to the Russell and Sciara surveys, 78% of peers believe they are now more legitimate (2005 survey.) 75% say they have become more confident in demanding policy changes (ongoing 2007 survey); and 82% believe the House is overall more assertive. Two thirds of Liberal Democrat peers believe that the Salisbury convention by which the Lords does not block manifesto commitments should be abandoned. This compares with only 35% of Conservatives, who may not want to rock the government’s boat too violently, in case the tables are turned against them by Labour in opposition to a future Conservative government.

Government responses to Lords assertiveness include: the emergence of written handling strategies to put before the legislative programme committee for taking Bills through the Lords; ministers’ open briefings for peers of all groupings; and more consultation with opposition parties – e.g. as over anti-terrorist legislation, giving the Lib Dems, with 72 peers, a pivotal position. New members are now vetted by the Labour and the Lib Dem whips in advance of taking their seats, to try to ensure their attendance and voting discipline.

The impact of growing assertiveness can be found in terms of policy outcomes and political dynamics. On government defeats, the Lords “ won” 40% of the time, a high rate of government acceptance Nor has defeat been limited to minor matters. If anything, defeats on major policy items are less likely to be reversed than lesser ones. Examples of Lords blocking include changes to the terms of control orders made against foreign terrorist suspects in 2005, and the defeat of attempts to get rid of the Chief Inspector of Prisons in 2005 –06.

The political dynamics have changed as a result of the 1999 Lords reform, now that it has become a “no overall control” chamber in which the government depends on the support or acquiescence of an opposition party. For example, the government lost only 13 divisions when the Lib Dems voted with them - confirming that party’s pivotal position, especially over civil liberties issues. But deals are also done with the Conservatives on other matters. Peers also act in partnership with Labour rebel MPs, who have backed Lords amendments returned to the Commons.

The implications of all this assertiveness for further reform are considerable. The more assertive Lords has hardened opinion against an elected chamber. An elected Lords would be bound to become more assertive still, thus increasing the bargaining power of the Lib Dems. Both the Labour and the Conservative parties are in any case internally split over elections to the Upper House.

All this creates a major disincentive for further reform, despite the Commons vote in favour of an 80% to 100% elected Upper House in March. The prospects for further reform therefore are bleak, even though Jack Straw has insisted to the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee that in time reform would be agreed, provided “we do not rush the fences.”

But it can be argued that the Lords has in effect, been reformed already. It is, as we have seen, already more representative, politically and demographically. More than half the peers were appointed under Tony Blair. It is already much more a chamber of party blocs, which is what one would expect if it became elected. And so, as has been observed by one senior peer, even without an elected element, people may think that nothing has really changed, but in fact “almost everything has changed.”

This page last modified 25 January, 2008 by v.spence@ucl.ac.uk