House of Lords reform apparently moving forward

Politics
1

The new Conservative government of the United Kingdom is moving forward towards what likely will be a fundamental reform of the House of Lords.

One of the plans said to be highly favored would completely eliminate the existing membership of the House of Lords. The remaining hereditary peers, all the life peers, all the Lords Spiritual, all without exception would be booted out of the House of Lords. The new chamber, perhaps to be called the Senate or some other name, would be elected from the existing European Parliament Constituencies, in the existing proportions, but in greater numbers.

Currently, those constituencies are:

London - 8 seats
South West England - 6 seats
South East England - 10 seats
East of England - 7 seats
West Midlands - 7 seats
East Midlands - 5 seats
North West England - 8 seats
North East England - 3 seats
Yorkshire and the Humber - 6 seats
Wales - 4 seats
Scotland - 6 seats
Northern Ireland - 3 seats

Total - 73 seats

The number of seats from each of those constituencies would be increased to obtain a total seat size for the new House in the range of 300 to 400 seats, large, but FAR smaller than the current 800 something Lords and smaller than the 650 members of the House of Commons.

Members would be elected by the D’Hondt Method of proportional representation. This method is more advantageous to the larger parties and disfavors small parties. A vote threshold would likely exist to keep out very small parties entirely.

Because it would be elected by proportional representation, likely no one party would ever control the upper chamber and it would likely be controlled by coalitions.

The upper house would still have the same limited powers of the existing House of Lords. It would have no role in the selection of the government and only limited powers to amend or delay power, but no ability to stop legislation the House of Commons is determined to pass. Elections for the House of Commons would automatically trigger elections for the upper house, so both would be elected simultaneously.

I like this idea of reform. The current membership of the House of Lords is nonsensical and represents no one. The House of Lords is far too big. No way should the upper house be larger than the Commons. It should be substantially smaller. It creates a membership that is representative of the United Kingdom as a whole.

I don’t know if this particular idea will be the final choice, but I like it better than other ideas I have seen.

2

What is the point of an upper house if it has no ability to amend or reject bills?

3

What problem is it that they are attempting to solve with this change?

4

The fact they have nonagenarians and octogenarians who should have been put out to pasture decades ago and reducing the number of members eligible to sit in the House of Lords. Thus, reducing the cost as well.

There are two reasons for the proposed changes. There are probably some other reasons as well.

@Tommy-Englander @MoleUK

5

To be honest the reform is proposed to happen but it’s very much just at the debate stage.A bipartisan committee is looking at the Govt blueprint amongst other proposals.

I agree the hereditary members and life Peers should go and I would like to see a scaled down elected upper chamber.At the moment a quarter of the Lords are asleep or half drunk its embarrassing.

6

I saw a clip where a member of the House of Lords was complaining about a room that had been changed to an office space where previously the Lords’s members were able to watch Wimbledon, Cheltenham Races etc.

7

It’s hopelessly outdated, this kind of reform doesn’t go anywhere near far enough but at least the hereditary lot would be given the boot, not to mention the clerical seats.

I’d like to see the Lords mainly serve as a source of expertise and advice for Parliament in some fashion, maybe with alloted slots for former civil servants, engineers, scientists, economists etc etc. Technocrats not donors and former politicians.

Not sure how politically practical that would be though,

9

@MoleUK Do you have a committee stage which scrutinises legislation?

10

I think the United Kingdom is going to get House of Lords reform sooner rather than later. The British public is in a true uproar over the current expenses scandal in the House of Lords, this scandal demonstrating just how corrupt and out of touch the House of Lords is. 110 members getting paid expenses who have never spoken in the House of Lords at any time.

I will stick with the recommendation I made in the OP. Scrap the House of Lords entirely. Replace it with an elected Senate, as described in the OP.

The House of Commons could pass a reform measure that sets up the electoral districts for the new Senate and calls for their election as soon as an election can be feasibly held. As soon as the members are elected, the new Senate would immediately replace the House of Lords which would be immediately and permanently disbanded.

Going forward, the Senate would be elected simultaneously with the House of Commons general election.

I don’t think the public will tolerate any further delay on reform.

Senators would have the same pay and expenses as members of the House of Commons.

Membership of the Senate would be capped so that it would stay roughly in the 300 to 350 range or roughly half the size of the House of Commons, which should be more than enough.

11

What powers would the Senate have? How would they be elected and what would their term be? How would you determine the “districts”? Would Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have the same number of “Senators” as England?

12

As some have suggested, I would use the existing European Parliament Constituencies, in the existing proportions, but in greater numbers.

Currently, those constituencies are:

London - 8 seats
South West England - 6 seats
South East England - 10 seats
East of England - 7 seats
West Midlands - 7 seats
East Midlands - 5 seats
North West England - 8 seats
North East England - 3 seats
Yorkshire and the Humber - 6 seats
Wales - 4 seats
Scotland - 6 seats
Northern Ireland - 3 seats

Total - 73 seats

If you multiplied each constituency by 5, you would get:

London - 40 seats
South West England - 30 seats
South East England - 50 seats
East of England - 35 seats
West Midlands - 35 seats
East Midlands - 25 seats
North West England - 40 seats
North East England - 15 seats
Yorkshire and the Humber - 30 seats
Wales - 20 seats
Scotland - 30 seats
Northern Ireland - 15 seats

Total - 365 seats

Members would be elected in each of the above constituencies by the D’Hondt Method of proportional representation. There would be an electoral threshold to eliminate smaller parties.

Each of the above regions would return members in dramatically different proportions. For example, once parties that didn’t make the threshold are eliminated from the vote total and based on the 2019 General Election results, SNP would likely win an absolute majority of the Scottish seats, but likely zero seats outside of Scotland. Conservatives would likely win absolute majorities in several of the countryside districts around England. Labour might take an absolute majority in London.

But once you put them all together and based on the 2019 General Election, likely no party would have an absolute majority of seats in the Senate. Conservatives would certainly have taken the overall plurality with Labour coming in second followed by the Liberal Democrats, SNP and Sein Fein and the Unionists from Northern Ireland.

For now, I would have the new Senate retain the current power and function of the House of Lords. That is mainly reviewing and scrutinizing legislation coming from the House of Commons and offering amendments to that legislation, subject to the ability of the House of Commons to accept or reject those amendments. They would also retain their right to delay, by one session, certain legislation. I would require that all members of the government come from the House of Commons.

Their term of office would be identical to the House of Commons. When a general election is called for the House of Commons, it would automatically trigger a general election for the Senate. There would be no by-elections for the Senate, since they would be elected by a party list system. Instead, any vacancies would be replaced by the next person on the party’s list.

13

@Safiel Thanks for your post. Some points as per below:

Sinn Fein members as far as I am aware don’t take their seats in the Commons so they probably wouldn’t in the “Senate” either.

I would argue that an upper house that has been elected with no powers to reject legislation is pointless. Could you please clarify what you mean by a session and who would have the ability to end a session?

I would support the methodology for casual vacancies. However, what happens if a sole independent was elected and retires/dies?

Finally, what is the actual mechanism to put this into place given that the UK does not have a written constitution?

14

As with the previous reforms to the House of Lords, it can be done by simple ordinary legislation. Technically, the necessary legislation could even be passed without the consent of the House of Lords. It merely needs to pass the House of Commons. If the House of Lords rejects it, the House of Commons merely needs to re-pass it in the next session, likely the following year. It would then go for the Royal Assent.

I believe sessions in the House of Commons are irregular. But generally, the Queen’s Speech marks the beginning of a new session.

The method used to elect the Senate would ensure that no independents could be elected. An electoral threshold, likely 5% would keep small parties and independents out to prevent excessive fragmentation in the Senate.

As for not being able to reject legislation, the House of Lords has not been able to do that since 1911 as I remember. They can delay, they can amend, they cannot reject.

15

The very big difference is that the House of Lords is an unelected body do should not be able to reject “the will of the people” in terms of government legislation. However, that is not a sustainable argument when the upper house would have been elected contemporaneously with the lower house.

If it is merely via legislation then any government in the future would be able to amend such legislation.

Whilst I would agree that it would be very unlikely for a sole independent was elected, there is still a chance that it happens. Therefore, that would need to be articulated what would happen under those circumstances.