Is it time we elected the House of Lords?

Yes – Tagore Nakornchai

The idea that there would be an unelected legislative chamber completely and utterly unaccountable to scrutiny and democratic processes seems completely foreign in a modern, liberal democracy. Yet that is exactly what the House of Lords is – a body made up of MPs who lost their seats, ex-CEOs (or ex-Union leaders) who donated to the parties, great-great-great-great grandsons of 18th century generals and the bishops of the Church of England.

It really is a question of principle. Should a group of unelected peers really be able to block legislation from a democratically elected House of Commons? While the Lords have long since lost their power to kill legislation, they can still potentially derail legislation submitted by the Commons by amending it to such a an extent that it is unrecognizable or ineffective, or by sending it back to the commons and delaying it’s passage into law. This is not a bad thing, per se – checks and balances are essential in a democracy – but this is a bad thing when the checks and balances are wielded by a wholly unelected and unaccountable body.

Allow the Upper House to reflect... UK society

It’s not like the Lords actually represent the people. There are 90 seats or so reserved for hereditary peers – who are only there because one of their great-great-great-grandfathers did something at some point that made some previous monarch happy – most of which has long since been lost to history (including Wikipedia). There are also seats reserved for 26 Bishops of the church of England, which is a travesty, as the latest British Social Attitudes Survey showed that a plurality of Britons are non-religious. In an increasingly secular country, the Lords Spiritual are but a historical relic who should have been removed a long time ago. The only other country in the world which still has members of religious organizations appointed to sit in their upper house is Iran, hardly a paragon of democratic virtues.

Change is needed – having the Lords democratically elected will bring greater legitimacy to the Lords – since they have the mandate of the people to act, they will be able to stand up to the commons on more issues and be more willing to stop insane legislation from sailing through. It would allow the UK to have a truly bicameral legislature – with the two houses being able to check and balance each other out, rather than having a supremely dominant commons, and most importantly, it would allow the Upper House to reflect a cross-section of UK society, rather than remaining a dictatorship of the elite.

So really, is there any case for not reforming the Lords? We’d get rid of one of the last undemocratic institutions in the UK, improve the accountability of the House of Commons and preserve, even enhance the checks and balances that presently exist. Oh, yes, and of course, since there won’t be that many Lords in the reformed Lords, we’ll presumably have to change the name as well. Maybe it’s time we copied something from the former colonies and rename it the Senate.

No – Matthew Parker

Why fix something that’s not broken?

It seems incredible that a country that has one of the oldest traditions of democracy should still have the composition of its 2nd most important chamber, with the power to amend and reject bills, be appointed without any elections. Surely only an absolute imbecile would want to keep a system that only benefits a few, expanding, privileged toffs, and that has the verve to kick democracy in the balls in the process. Well, I am he. It certainly isn’t because of “tradition”; keeping something because “we-have-been-doing-this-for-a-long-time, therefore it must be right” is a poor reason.

Firstly, there is a significant misunderstanding in the functions and powers of the Lords. Although it can certainly reject, its main purpose is to review and amend legislation. It cannot debate laws concerning taxes and budgets, or which amend the terms of Parliament. Like most of the constitution, the Lords is bound by precedents and conventions; the Lords is “supposed” not to reject legislation that has been clearly presented in the ruling parties manifesto (i.e. has a clear mandate from the public), or which has been passed by parliament in two successive sessions (i.e. The Commons really wants it). The idea that the Lords is holding the sceptre over our public life (ready to club any upstarts) is a misnomer.

Those who sit in the Lords are not just politicians, but businessmen, doctors, generals, policemen, civil servants and scientists or others who have made huge contributions to their fields or shown outstanding dedication to public good. Most of the Lords can still, and should still, be able to contribute their advice and debate, which years of public service have left them well placed to do. Because the house of Lords is unelected it cannot be filled by supporters of whichever politician may be ruling today; they cannot be coerced by a Party Whip, or terrified for voicing unpopular opinions. Any elections would completely alter its venerated composition, making it full of career politicians or party cronies.

Of course, I’m not saying the Lords doesn’t have problems. I’d hope most people find hereditary peers (although these are no longer inheritable) or the Lords Spiritual anathema. Increasingly life peers are given to big party-sponsors, while the likes of Lord Taylor and Lord Strathclyde show the Commons doesn’t have a monopoly on sleaze. The Lords should certainly be reformed.

However, I find that the Lords does a pretty good job of what it is supposed to do; a place for people with experience, wisdom and knowledge to debate new legislation, and who can be trusted to defend democratic institutions. The Lords can be accused of being undemocratic, but it was here the national ID card register and 42-day detention, after having passed the commons, were defeated. Far from being a threat to democracy, the Lords is its last defender. And why fix something that’s not broken?