An elected House of Lords?

The government has unveiled their plans for a reformed second chamber through a parliamentary committee.

The government has unveiled their plans for a reformed second chamber through a parliamentary committee. The committee favours a much smaller chamber – some 450 peers as opposed to the present figure of about 800. It is important to remember that this is not an argument about the abolition of the second House but a matter of constitutional reform. As informed law students, you may find yourself defending the presence of a second chamber, namely the House of Lords, on the basis that it provides a valuable service as a check on the powers of the Executive and the House of Commons. Events around the world in recent times have, quite apart from anything else, served as a reminder that we do live in a democracy and that we should be careful about giving up any institutions which serve as a check and balance.

The problem is that the Lords is not an elected upper chamber so that, whilst we can see the sense and argue the need for a second chamber, it is more difficult to defend the unelected nature of the Lords, as it is not ultimately accountable to the electorate through regular election processes. At present the Lords participate in the legislative processes and therefore add to the public and open debate.  As the same stages which take place in the lower House, are repeated in the upper House, it is possible to argue that the legislative process benefits from further scrutiny.  There is also the question of amendments so that constructive consideration and debate of policy and law reform is still taking place. In fact the parliamentary committee themselves accept the need for a second chamber as their proposals are dealing with the detail of the reform. They speak of the need for an adequate size chamber (450 members) and thought that 300-members would be ‘too small to provide an adequate pool to fulfil the demands of a revising chamber.’

Hopefully we will hear more of the issues. There is time, as we are told that any reforms will be phased in over a period of many years up to 2025. Already there have been references to the large sums of money that such reforms will cost but what price do you put on democracy?

Related Items

The items below list this Article as being related in some way.


There are no related tags.

Amazon's recommended Books

RSS Feeds


Recent Posts

The latest posts from the blog archives.

Supreme court busy - make sure you are geared up for your course

The Supreme Court has been especially busy lately.

Gina miller v secretary of state for exiting the eu 2016 as an example of the importance of judicial independence

Law students are now required to take note of how the independence and work of the judiciary has been reformed

Policing and crime bill and provisions for bail after arrest but before charge

The clear intention is that decisions on pre-charge bail should come under scrutiny.

The judicial committee of the privy council – a colonial legacy

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the highest court of appeal for many Commonwealth countries.

Does the scrapping of glen parva secure college and the lifting of a book ban herald the start to serious reform of the failing prison system?

How much of Michael Gove's vision for prisons and the criminal justice system will be effective in righting self-inflicted wrongs remains to be seen.

Police-led prosecutions are to be extended again.

Home Secretary Theresa May announces “We will extend the use of police-led prosecutions to cut the time you spend waiting for the Crown Prosecution Service”.

Perverse verdict in the name of justice? mutiny at high down

High Down prison in Banstead may not be on the high seas but apparently it can be the scene of a mutiny.

Statutory interpretation - bogdanic -v- the secretary of state for the home department; qbd 29-aug-2014

The case concerns the operation of the carriers' liability regime in relation to the immigration control zones in France.