House of Lords should be 80% elected - MPs and peers' report

House of Lords The House of Lords is the upper chamber of the UK Parliament

Related Stories

A reformed House of Lords should be 80% elected and there should be a referendum before any change is made, a parliamentary committee has said.

MPs and peers also said there should be 450 peers - down from about 800 - who would serve for 15-year terms.

But the committee was split - nine of the 26 members voted against elected peers and eight opposed a referendum.

Earlier David Cameron said he was not persuaded of the need for a referendum but would not rule one out.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats agreed in their coalition deal to set up a committee to examine proposals for a "wholly or mainly elected upper chamber" - but the issue is seen as one that is driven more by the Lib Dems.

The government's proposals unveiled last year had been for a smaller, 300-member upper chamber, with 240 elected peers and 60 appointed peers serving single terms of 15 years.

Too small

But the committee said if there were to be elections it should be to a 450-member House of Lords, with 20% of peers appointed "as a means of preserving expertise and placing its mandate on a different footing from that of the Commons".

The 15-year terms would be non-renewable and peers would also receive a salary of about £50,000 a year, rather than the existing attendance allowance.


Reforming the House of Lords is a priority for few voters. And to many it is an arcane debate that rumbles on unresolved decade after decade.

But we have reached another of those moments where the government of the day has scraped together enough political will at least to have a fresh crack at it.

The question of who sits on the red leather benches in the posh end of parliament - and how they are selected or elected - may seem an issue for political obsessives.

And yet in truth the stakes could not be higher. Reform of the Lords raises a fundamental question of where power lies in parliament.

Can the House of Commons remain the supreme authority in parliament with an elected and thus more legitimate House of Lords down the corridor?

It is also a question of political priorities. Should the government spend time and political capital on an issue that is a second-order issue for voters struggling with a sluggish economy?

This is why Lords' reform has set Tory against Lib Dem, and this is why some fear it could tear the coalition apart.

The report said a 300-member House would be "too small to provide an adequate pool to fulfil the demands of a revising chamber".

But some members of the committee released a separate report arguing that the government's draft bill "totally fails" to protect the primacy of the House of Commons and proposing a "constitutional convention" should be set up to consider the issue more widely.

The House of Lords, the "upper house" of Parliament, scrutinises legislation but can be overridden by the House of Commons using the Parliament Act.

Most members, "life peers", are nominated by the prime minister, although some are nominated by other party leaders.

Other peers, the 26 "Lords Spiritual", are drawn from the Church of England, and about 90 hereditary peers remain - 666 hereditary peers lost the automatic right to sit and vote in Parliament under previous reforms.

The committee's report agreed by a majority of just 13 to nine that a reformed House of Lords "should have an electoral mandate provided that it has commensurate powers", although it noted concerns it could mean elected peers would challenge the traditional primacy of the House of Commons.

Graphic showing proposed House of Lords changes

The committee backed the government's proposals that peers be elected by single transferable vote (STV), a form of proportional representation and that the number of bishops be reduced from 26 to 12.

It said the new peers should be introduced in three stages up to 2025 but all current peers who attend fewer than one in three sitting days in Parliament should be immediately removed in 2015.

Heated meeting

A telephone survey of 1,000 British adults by ComRes for BBC Radio 4's World at One programme suggested that 72% backed a referendum on Lords reform, 69% supported electing at least 80% of peers and just 23% supported the status quo.

Committee chairman Lord Richard said the joint committee had undertaken "a thorough and detailed analysis of the proposals put forward in the government's draft Bill" and had decided "on a majority" that the Lords should have a "democratic mandate".

But a dissenting group of 12 committee members, including Labour, Conservative and crossbench peers and MPs, said a wider "constitutional convention" was needed to consider all the issues involved.

One of its members, Conservative peer Baroness Shephard told the BBC research by Labour peer Lord Lipsey suggested there would be a "vast increase" in costs - from just under £19m a year to up to £433m over five years to 2020.

She said it may turn out to be "worth it in the name of democracy" but the public should know: "I wonder if it were put to them in that way whether they would be as enthusiastic as your polling says they are for 450 more elected paid party politicians."

But Constitutional Reform Minister Mark Harper said those costs were "completely speculative" and he did not yet know whether costs would rise, but said a referendum on the issue would cost "around £100m".

Some Conservative MPs are unhappy about the government's proposals to change the House of Lords but Lib Dem Deputy PM Nick Clegg said on Sunday that politicians from all parties should "get on with it now, with minimum fuss".

Mr Cameron told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that while the issue was "not the most important thing this government is doing", it was a "sensible, reasonable" reform and "the right thing to do".

He said he personally was not persuaded of the need for a costly referendum when the three biggest Westminster parties all backed some form of change in their 2010 manifestos, but added: "We don't rule it out."

Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan told the BBC Labour wanted a 100% elected House of Lords and a referendum adding: "It's unacceptable that Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg decide who the legislators are, we believe the public should have a say."

He said the party was "very keen" to work with the government on the issue but added that other issues also needed resolving - to decide which chamber had "primacy": "We don't want gridlock, we don't want the House of Lords flexing their muscles more than they currently do."


More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 432.

    Can any pro- 100% elected commentor answer this:
    If both houses are elected then why should it be the government continues to be the winner of the HOC election?

  • Comment number 431.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • rate this

    Comment number 430.

    The Lib Dems have an obsession with constitutional tinkering. The H of L works well enough as it is. Don't waste Parliamentary time on its reform. It will only mean increases in expenditure on salaries paid for by the poor taxpayer. Funny that the Lib Dems are not pushing to restrict voting in the Commons on English bills - a lot fairer and cheaper to solve the West Lothian Question

  • rate this

    Comment number 429.

    @421.thelostdot, like Berlisconi, or any one of the US senators, or congressmen that take huge sums from lobbyists, or the french system let Chriac who was immune from prosection while he was president. The rest of the world isnt as rosy as you think.

    @422.mab981, thats exactyl what they do, they cant defy the government indefinately, as theres the parliment Act 1911 that prevents them.

  • rate this

    Comment number 428.

    No elected second house. We have one of those and we don't need two.

    Second house should have the role of checking the bills proposed by the first house and suggesting legislation to be repealed. Give every sector of society (represented by their respective organisations) the right to put a certain number of representatives in the house. Idea is that you have people with experience of life.

  • rate this

    Comment number 427.

    I must be dumb. Would someone like to explain why a referendum on Lords reform or on Scottish independence would be public money well spent and would not conflict with our constituional traditions, whereas a referendum on anything to do with the EU is totally unacceptable to the people who govern us?

  • rate this

    Comment number 426.

    We don't need a second chamber - we could have internet based voting - one citizen one vote to approve or block proposals from the lower house - it may help politicians to keep their promises if they knew the people could truely hold them to account.

  • rate this

    Comment number 425.

    How on Earth can we call ourselves a democracy when we have that disgraceful anachronism, the un-elected Bench of Bishops?

  • rate this

    Comment number 424.

    No party affiliations, party money allowed in election of upper house representatives, no "spiritual lords" they represent so few and their is no consideration for other faiths in this way, no appointment of "retired" MPs. Elections funded by taxpayers with small budgets and use of the public service broadcasting mediums for advertising. Committees to appoint skilled representatives house.

  • rate this

    Comment number 423.

    Scrap the Party System whilst you are at it.

  • rate this

    Comment number 422.

    The value of the Lords is exactly the fact that it is not elected and can afford to take the long view without worrying about staying in power. There is no point in a second elected chamber - but the lords should be stripped of all powers to defy the elected government and become a resource of consultancy and experience.

  • rate this

    Comment number 421.

    We don't need so called experts. Power corrupts, and that's always the problem. We need a much more accountable system, as strangely the rest of the world has, so that when representatives become corrupt they can be got rid of. The so-called experts are largely brainwashing, and some of the most corrupting elements.

  • rate this

    Comment number 420.

    80% elected?

    I can squash that in an instance. Someone elected Nadine Dorries!

    Enough said. Leave reform alone

  • Comment number 419.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this

    Comment number 418.

    100% elected. 15 year terms. 20% elected every 3 years. No party affiliations allowed.

  • rate this

    Comment number 417.

    @405.insert_name_here, totally agree, its pointless electing an Upper house when less than 40% of the population couldnt be bothered to vote. They also need to limit the number of terms a politican can be PM to a maximum of 2 terms, just like the american system (about its only saving grace), with party leaders elected by party members NOT mp's.

  • rate this

    Comment number 416.

    An entirely elected house would do exactly the same as the House of Commons; they'd spend the 2 years leading up to an election lying about what good they are going to do for the country before spending the 2 years after the election breaking all the promises they made. We should just ban all ex-MP's and anyone who has ever been friends with an MP.

  • rate this

    Comment number 415.

    The current Lords should be scrapped and a Lords of 150 selected professional persons should be enrolled for 5 years each and then put themselves up for reselection. They should only be allowed to recommend policy. The UK does not want a load of has been political hacks standing for the Lords on a proportional representation ticket. PR was voted out it should never be part of the Lords.

  • rate this

    Comment number 414.

    Get rid of them altogether. We already vote for our representatives so why have another chamber. Its almost as if we don't trust the people we elected.

  • rate this

    Comment number 413.

    So who selects the candidates for the Lords to be put up for election? If it is the same political parties which control the Commons, empty shells which once stood for something important in the country and now stand for nothing but obtaining power, then no. Government by professional politicians and power seekers is worst of all. We need people who have excelled elsewhere and wish to serve.


Page 13 of 34


More Politics stories



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.