Does the Rwanda Bill signify a shift in opinion towards the House of Lords?
The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill (Rwanda Bill for short) has been a huge point of contention in British politics in recent times, where some asylum seekers arriving in the UK would be sent to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be processed (BBC, 2024). This Bill, after passing through the House of Commons, has become a topic of much debate in the House of Lords, with calls for pushback, delays, amendments and even blocking the bill altogether coming from many members of the UK’s upper house (Webber, 2024).
There has been much support for the usefulness of the House of Lords in this context, from their ability to delay the Rwanda Bill (Green, 2024), to over two hundred and sixty charities and other expert groups calling for the House of Lords to fully reject the Rwanda Bill (Liberty, 2024), to more general support of the House of Lords’ ability to “pick apart” the Rwanda Bill (Kettle, 2024). Based on this, this blog post aims to identify whether the Rwanda Bill has caused a shift in opinions on the House of Lords, concluding with the argument that while before the Rwanda Bill arguments focused on the House of Lords have surrounded abolition, replacement and severe reforms, future debate may lean towards less extreme, but still necessary, reforms.
Why should the House of Lords (not) be abolished?
Notably, while these actions have gained much support from many commenters on British politics, before the Rwanda bill, the notion of abolishing and/or replacing the House of Lords has been very prevalent among these commenters as recently as last year (The Guardian, 2023; Electoral Reform Society, n.d.; Sortition Foundation, n.d.). Calls for major reform and abolition have centred around representation, democracy and legitimacy (Kelso, 2006). As the House of Lords in an unelected body, it is therefore not representative, which, along with members becoming “life peers”, makes it in turn undemocratic and illegitimate (Kelso, 2006). Other, less prevalent arguments include questioning the use or need for the House of Lords, given its already very limited powers (Norton, 2004).
However, on the other hand, supporters of the House of Lords indicate how the Lords are often appointed due to their experience and knowledge, which could not be achieved as well with an elected upper house, given to elected representatives’ focus on re-election (Rieche, 2011). In terms of usefulness, opponents to the abolition of the House of Lords show that it has more power than it is usually given credit for, with the government being defeated in the House of Lords over four hundred times between 1997 and 2007 (Russell and Sciara, 2007). An elected House of Lords would also lead to a more partisan chamber, with the House of Lords current non-partisan (to an extent) composition often making it a more independent check on the Government than the House of Commons, which has much closer ties to the Government (Dorey, 2023).
It is important to note that two of the three sources in support of the House of Lords above still call for at least some form of minor reform. Rieche argues for an independent appointments commission over Prime Minister patronage (2011), with Dorey supporting the same idea in the form of the proposed House of Lords Appointment Commission (HOLAC) by the Labour Party (2023). This shows that, even within supporters of the House of Lords, the amount of people who want no reform for the House of Lords are few and far between.
Have opinions towards the House of Lords changed?
The Rwanda Bill has definitely shown that opinions on whether or not the House of Lords needs to be abolished or reformed are not as defined as one may have expected. In lieu of this recent increase in support for the House of Lords, this blog post expects that future debates on discussions will shy away from the outright abolition and excessive reforms, and instead lean towards less drastic reforms, such as ideas similar to the concept of an appointment commission noted above. This blog post believes that, based on the evidence shown here, the House of Lords will be retained as the upper house of the UK Parliament, but that some minor changes will be necessary to create a more legitimate chamber, which will be in line with the current more tolerant views of the House of Lords.
References:
BBC (2024) “What is the UK’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?” [Online] Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866 (Accessed 1st February 2024).
Dorey, P. (2023) “Elected or selected? The continuing constitutional conundrum of House of Lords reform”, The Political Quarterly, 94(3), pp. 402-411 [Online] Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-923X.13298 (Accessed 3rd February 2024).
Electoral Reform Society (n.d.) “Replace the House of Lords” [Online] Available at: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/elected-house-of-lords/ (Accessed 1st February 2024).
Green, D. A. (2024) “Why the House of Lords can and should delay the Rwanda Bill” [Online] Available at: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/64673/why-the-house-of-lords-can-and-should-delay-the-rwanda-bill (Accessed 1st February 2024).
Kelso, A. (2006) “Reforming the House of Lords: Navigating representation, democracy and legitimacy at Westminster”, Parliamentary Affairs, 59(4), pp. 563-581 [Online] Available at: https://www.proquest.com/docview/201644955/61C552D308DA4918PQ/1?accountid=13374&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals (Accessed 2nd February 2024).
Kettle, M. (2024) “The House of Lords is very flawed. But if it picks apart Sunak’s Rwanda bill, that’s its job and it deserves support” [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/25/house-of-lords-rishi-sunak-rwanda-bill (Accessed 1st February 2024).
Liberty (2024) “Over 260 charities and expert organisations call on House of Lords to reject shameful Rwanda Bill” [Online] Available at: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/over-260-charities-and-expert-organisations-call-on-house-of-lords-to-reject-shameful-rwanda-bill/ (Accessed 1st February 2024).
Norton. P. (2004) “Reforming the House of Lords: A view from the parapets”, Representation, 40(3), pp. 185-199 [Online] Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00344890408523265 (Accessed 2nd February 2024).
Rieche, O. (2011) “Reassessing the House of Lords: Why the Lords should remain unelected”, Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse, 3(11) [Online] Available at: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/594/reassessing-the-house-of-lords-why-the-lords-should-remain-unelected (Accessed 3rd February 2024).
Russell, M. and Sciara, M. (2007) “Why does the Government get defeated in the House of Lords?: The Lords, the party system and British politics”, British Politics, 2(1), pp. 299-322 [Online] Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/palgrave.bp.4200064 (Accessed 3rd February 2024).
Sortition Foundation (n.d.) “Abolish the House of Lords” [Online] Available at: https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/abolish_the_house_of_lords (Accessed 1st February 2024).
The Guardian (2023) “Abolish the House of Lords – and quickly” [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2023/jul/02/abolish-house-of-lords-quickly-observer-letters (Accessed 1st February 2024).
Webber, E. (2024) “UK House of Lords readies for trench warfare over Rwanda deportations” [Online] Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/rishi-sunak-rwanda-bill-uk-house-of-lords/ (Accessed 1st February 2024).
This post drew an interesting correlation between the Rwanda bill and public opinion of the House of Lords. It is interesting that opinions on the House of Lords are quite divided and undefined. Although the democratic legitimacy of the House of Lords is often called into question, it seems that this issue has currently made some parts of the public feel more reliant on the institution carrying out its traditional function. Others have suggested that the other tenets of the bill, like adherence to international treaties and conventions and the exclusion of European and domestic courts from the law, many people are questioning whether the Prime Minister is overstepping onto the duties of the democratically elected parliament. While Sunak has called into question the legitimacy of the House of Lords, many acknowledge that the other tenets of this bill make controversial infringements on the will of the people.
While this analysis was very interesting, it did not have many studies, statistics, or additional sources within the text to support the author’s claims, lending the reader to infer that the conclusion was reached through the observance of real-life social commonalities which may be out of reach for international readers or those who have limited political knowledge of the United Kingdom.
The House of Lords is very flawed. But if it picks apart Sunak’s Rwanda bill, that’s its job and it deserves support | Martin Kettle | The Guardian
Sorry, the link at the end did not go through!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/25/house-of-lords-rishi-sunak-rwanda-bill
The author presents a balanced analysis by including arguments both for and against the House of Lords. They make convincing points by including reputable sources throughout, and provide a transparent analysis in acknowledging that even for those who support the House of Lords and argue its effectiveness, that most people believe that there is still a need for reforms, however minor. I found the authors personal viewpoints and predictions about the future of debates regarding the House of Lords interesting and insightful, which i think was a successful part of this blog post. Whilst the author refers to an increase in support for the House of Lords, this blog could have perhaps been improved by including specific data to back this claim up.
The author of this blog post immediately addresses the link between the usefulness of the House of Lords and their involvement regarding the contentious Rwanda bill. I particularly, enjoy the author addressing the point of their blog post immediately. As I do not need to search for the point or come to my own conclusion. The topic surrounding the usefulness of the House of Lords constantly draws to my attention, as personally it has no use at being able to effectively scrutinise the House of Commons. Agreeing, with one point mentioned in the blog post. Surrounding the ongoing support for seeking to abolish the House of lords as it constantly undermines democracy and the representation of constituencies in the UK, which it does and was mentioned perfectly by the author. Although, the author also mentions a compelling argument that members of the House of Lords are appointed due to experience. Highlighting, a notable counter argument strengthens the blog posts overall argument, as it isn’t representative of a partisan voice, helping to gain trust from the reader. This blog post helps to change the context of the House of Lords bringing a positive outlook onto them, as it has been the main element in government preventing the Rwanda bill from succeeding. Helping to raise the question on whether it has the possibility of gaining support from people who would be somewhat critical of the House of Lords. The author uses this bill as the background for raising the question and answering the contentious debate on the usefulness of the House of Lords. Immediately drawing in my attention as it keeps within relevant contemporary discourse. As the Rwanda bill is a contentious topic that has caught my full attention, as I do not personally agree with it as a policy. Helping to introduce a new positive perspective onto the House of Lords for the reader which the author has done so throughout this blog post.
As the reader, the introductory section of this blog post was highly appreciated as it clearly defined what the Rwanda Bill entailed, and it laid out exactly what the writer intended to discuss. By asserting that the question of reform for the House of Lords is by no means black and white, this allowed for open discussions on the range of perspectives on what reform would look like. Crucial arguments against the House of Lords such as the lack of representation were cleverly contrasted with arguments for its strength of experience and knowledge, thus providing a full account of opinions of the House of Lords. The conclusive thoughts of this blog post showed that a range of material and perspectives had been used by the writer leading, them to make sound judgements on what the future of the House of Lords may be. It would have been compelling to hear a bit more on the link to the Rwanda Bill and how this has shown major changes to opinions on reforming the House of Lords. However, this blog post was well developed and wide-ranging in its discussions on the topic of parliamentary modernisation.
The author provides a balanced review of opinions towards the House of Lords. The impact of the Rwanda Bill is an interesting point of discussion. It raises the idea that opinions on the House of Lords may have less to do with the structure of the institution, but rather the current actions of the chamber. Given the controversy surrounding the Rwanda Bill, it is not surprising to see support for the actions of the House of Lords, however this support does not necessarily signify a shift in opinion towards the institution. It can be argued that any reform towards the House of Lords may need to be conducted at a time where the actions of the House of Lords are unpopular. Given how quickly public opinion can shift, reform efforts may find success in upcoming years. Overall, analyzing the House of Lords through the lens of the Rwanda Bill provides a new perspective that broadens the understanding of reform efforts.
This post highlights an interesting argument in the ongoing debate surrounding the House of Lords, that the Lords are essential for protecting minority rights through proper scrutiny of legislation. I would argue that the Lords’ pushback on the Rwanda bill is one of a series of such instances – Universal Credit reform, for example – where the Lords have fought against unpopular legislation, leading to more tempered discussions about the future of the Upper Chamber, rather than a complete shift owing solely to the Rwanda Bill. Certainly though, these instances of vital scrutiny from the House of Lords, especially in light of the major lack of trust in the Government and the Opposition leaving the Commons in poor stead, are likely to lead to the future debate being less about abolition and more about level of reform.