House Of Lords Reforms. Is It Necessary?

3080 Words13 Pages
Define efficiency. Like most things, it is a matter of perspective. Like the House of Lords Reform. A certain Mr. Blair once claimed that the house stands in the way of effective law making. Efficiency, like I said a matter of perspective. This will be further illustrated and explained, later in the essay. As for now, a brief background on the House of Lords and the House of Commons, the history and relationship between them is required to understand the significance of the proposed 2 stage reforms which are as follows: a) The first stage , to remove the right of hereditary peers to vote in parliament (not fully accomplished), and the second stage; b) To decide whether the lower house should remain fully elected or partially elected and nominated. The term “parliament”, was coined in the 13th century. Its origins traced to the King’s council which essentially was an assembly of advisers to the King which also decided on appeal cases. This assembly, under one house, together with the crown made up what was known as the Parliament. The separation of the house into two houses as we know it today, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, occurred during the fourteenth century, although some scholars believe that the houses were separate since its origin. Functions of the houses at the time as juxtaposed with today were different. At the time, the Lords gave advice to the King, while the Commons consented to the King’s proposals. Today, the House of Lords is composed of the spiritual Lords and the Hereditary, Life, and Judicial peers. The spiritual Lords, their reason for existence in the Lords is mainly historical and traditional. They are the link between the parliament and the Church of England. They owe no allegiance to any political party, and also they are the voice of caution and reason on issues relating to moral and social wellbeing such as
Open Document