Lords reform is needed but an elected second chamber would invite unnecessary conflict
3 min read
The House of Lords fulfils a valuable role but it suffers from being much misunderstood. I have been asked, “Why are we unique in having an undemocratic second chamber?” But we are not unique in having an appointed chamber.
The number of countries with appointed second chambers runs into double figures, including the Canadian senate.
There is a democratic argument for an appointed second chamber. Accountability of governors to the people is core to democracy, but having two elected chambers generates the potential for divided accountability, with no one body (the party in government) accountable for outputs of public policy.
The House of Lords is not an obstacle to achieving change. It is government that is the problem
The House of Lords fulfils tasks that the elected House may not have the time or political will to undertake. Foremost among them is detailed legislative scrutiny, encompassing not just primary but also secondary legislation. It fulfils that task effectively because of the experience and expertise of its membership and by virtue of members not needing to raise their profiles through “look at me” activities.
The burden on MPs is such that they necessarily prioritise tasks and so the serious examination of the latest mass of statutory instruments doesn’t figure. The Commons focuses on the ends of legislation, the Lords on the means. The roles are complementary. The Lords neither duplicates nor challenges the work of the Commons. The two chambers have different cultures. In the Commons, it is one of assertion. In the Lords, one of justification.
Replacing the Lords with an elected chamber would invite the potential for conflict; Members in the second chamber claiming electoral legitimacy to use fully the powers of the existing House and potentially pressing for more – the rationale for the Parliament Act – would disappear. Elections to the second chamber would ensure party conflict, squeezing out independent members. The chamber would likely conflict with, or simply duplicate, the first.
There are problems – with the size of the membership and the process of nominating peers – that need addressing but abolishing the House of Lords is not the way to address them. The need for reform is acknowledged by peers and the means for achieving it is proven. Although the government’s House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 floundered in the Commons, change has been achieved through Private Members’ Bills. Principally, the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (enabling peers to retire, removing any peer who fails to attend for a session or commits a serious criminal offence) and the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 (extending the power of suspension and giving the House the power to expel members).
On 18 November, the Lords gave a second reading to my House of Lords (Peerage Nomination) Bill to put the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis, introduce a high-quality threshold for those nominated, ensure greater transparency in the process and require the Prime Minister to work towards reducing the size of the House as well as ensuring at least 20 per cent of the members are independent. Peers who spoke in the debate were overwhelmingly in support of the bill.
The House of Lords is not an obstacle to achieving change. It is government that is the problem. Achieving reform through Private Members’ Bills is clearly feasible without impinging on the government’s legislative programme to deliver its economic and domestic policies. For government, facilitating the passage of the bill is a win-win situation.
Lord Norton, Conservative peer and professor of government at the University of Hull.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
