The Merits of House of Lords Reform

The United Kingdom is one of only a few states in which the upper house has more members than the lower house. Currently there are 765 members of the House of Lords whilst there are 650 members of the House of Commons.

Current reform proposed by the coalition government would call for 80% of the members to be elected to a reduced chamber of 450 members. These members would now be salaried (lords currently only get allowances) and would be called Senators rather than being called Lords. They would also be elected on 15 year terms on a system of proportional representation.

There are a number of troubles with reforming the House of Lords, many MPs fear that since an elected House of Lords (or a Senate as it would then be called) would try to challenge the supremacy of the House of Commons. This could be disastrous for our democracy, many MPs point to America where power is spread amongst three federal institutions (presidency, House of Representatives and the Senate) and the legislative movement has ground to almost a complete halt.  

Personally I agree with the idea of House of Lords reform as the upper house does have some power. Yet I do want to maintain supremacy of the House of Commons to keep legislation moving fast. I also believe that they should still be called Lords, we are the only country with a “House of Lords” and I think it would be a good way to maintain tradition whilst moving to more democracy. I also agree that 80% should be elected whilst the remaining 20% are appointed, this would again maintain some tradition but moving towards greater democracy.

Once the reforms above have been implemented, constitutional reform should stop, we should remain a monarchy with a House of Lords and House of Commons. Our system works well and we shouldn’t try to change something too much that is working perfectly fine. There is wisdom in the saying “if it isn’t broke don’t fix it.”