House of Lords Reform Paper
The New House of Lords: An Elected Constitutional Chamber — Version 5
Cross-references
Constitution Article 8: Parliament and consent · Commons Reform: executive dominance and scrutiny · Control Note: deadlock and plebiscite
Version note
This document forms part of a proposed Constitutional Programme - Version 5.
1. Purpose
The author did not begin with abstract constitution-writing. It began with the perceived need to restore Parliament to its primary constitutional work: supervising the executive, controlling supply, presenting grievances, and holding public power to account. This Constitution secures that restoration.
This paper proposes replacing the present House of Lords with a fully elected second chamber: the New House of Lords.
The purpose of this reform is to create a constitutional chamber with democratic legitimacy, long-term perspective, and clear authority to scrutinise government, restrain executive overreach, improve legislation, and refer great unresolved questions back to the people.
This paper begins from the principle that the people are sovereign, not Parliament. Parliament exists to serve the people. No temporary Commons majority should be able to govern without constitutional restraint.
2. The Case for Change
The present House of Lords performs useful revising and scrutinising functions, but because it is unelected it must remain subordinate to the elected House of Commons. It may advise, warn, amend, and delay, but it cannot claim an equal democratic mandate.
That changes if the second chamber is elected.
A fully elected second chamber should not merely inherit the limited status of the present House of Lords. Once elected, it would possess democratic legitimacy of its own. It should therefore have a defined constitutional role and meaningful powers.
However, it should not become a rival government. The House of Commons should remain the chamber from which the Government is formed. The New House of Lords should instead become the chamber of longer perspectives, constitutional concern and gathered wisdom
The Commons should govern. The New House of Lords should scrutinise. The people should remain sovereign.
3. Executive Dominance and Mid-Term Accountability
One weakness of tour current present system is the long gap between general elections.
A government with a large Commons majority can govern for several years while ignoring public concern, parliamentary criticism, poor administration, broken promises, and changing national circumstances. Once elected, a government may treat its majority as a blank cheque.
This danger is increased because the Government controls the Commons timetable, legislative program, party discipline, and much of the parliamentary machinery. Parliament can become less a check on the executive and more an instrument of it.
4. Composition
Each member of this proposed new chamber should represent an area made up of two parliamentary constituencies. This would produce a chamber half the size of the House of Commons while keeping members rooted in recognisable local areas.
Members should serve ten-year terms, with half of the chamber elected every five years.
Elections to the New House of Lords should take place between Commons general elections, creating regular mid-term democratic accountability.
This system would give the chamber democratic legitimacy, independence, local connection, and long-term perspective.
5. Ten-Year Terms
Members of the New House of Lords should serve ten-year terms.
The House of Commons is necessarily shaped by short electoral cycles, party discipline, media pressure, manifesto commitments, ministerial ambition, and immediate public controversy. This is unavoidable in a chamber that forms the Government.
The second chamber should have a different character.
A ten-year term would allow members to take a longer view. They would be better placed to consider the long-term consequences of legislation, constitutional change, public debt, war powers, civil liberties, national infrastructure, demographic change, family policy, national sovereignty, and the moral direction of the country.
The Commons would express the immediate political mandate. The New House of Lords would express a slower, more reflective mandate.
The purpose is to add constitutional memory, experience, restraint, and statesmanship to national decision-making.
6. Minimum Age
Candidates for the New House of Lords should be at least 55 years old at the time of first election.
This requirement is intended to shape the character of the chamber. The New House of Lords should not become a second House of Commons, a training ground for party careerists, or a stepping stone to ministerial ambition.
It should be a chamber of maturity, experience, independence, and long-term judgment.
A minimum age of 55 would encourage the election of people who have already lived, worked, built, failed, served, and learned before entering national constitutional office.
The chamber should draw on people with substantial experience in business, farming, family life, public service, law, medicine, education, the armed forces, local government, trade, engineering, scholarship, charity, industry, and community leadership.
There should be no automatic upper age limit. If voters wish to elect or re-elect an older candidate who is still able to serve effectively, that should be their right.
7. Separation from the House of Commons
Sitting Members of Parliament should not be eligible to stand for election to the New House of Lords.
Former MPs should be eligible to stand, but only after a clear break from the Commons. A former MP should be required to spend at least two years out of the House of Commons before standing for the New House of Lords.
This cooling-off period would act as a democratic leveller. It would prevent immediate transfer from one chamber to the other, reduce party patronage, weaken automatic entitlement, and allow voters to judge former MPs as ordinary candidates rather than sitting office-holders.
8. Relationship with the House of Commons
The House of Commons should remain the primary political chamber.
It should continue to determine who forms the Government. Confidence, supply, taxation, and the ordinary machinery of government should remain primarily matters for the Commons.
The Commons should be the chamber of government. The New House of Lords should be the chamber of constitutional accountability.
This separation prevents the second chamber from becoming either a rival government or a powerless revising body.
9. Constitutional Role
Its principal duties should be to:
Principle
continue to scrutinise legislation passed by the Commons;
examine whether Bills are necessary, proportionate, intelligible, and constitutional;
protect civil liberties and fundamental rights;
review emergency powers;
examine treaty commitments and questions of national sovereignty;
scrutinise major public appointments;
review the work of regulators and public bodies;
examine long-term constitutional and moral questions;
act as a mid-term democratic check on the Government;
refer important unresolved questions back to the people where necessary.
The New Lords exists to provide the longer constitutional view within Parliament. Among its leading duties will be examining whether legislation, delegated powers, public expenditure, treaty obligations, institutional reform, and changes to the machinery of government are consistent with the constitutional settlement and the rights and liberties declared within it.
It is not principally a constitutional court. It does not govern. It does not compete with the Commons. It serves as the parliamentary chamber of constitutional memory, restraint and review.
10. Legislative Powers
Ordinary legislation should normally require approval by both Houses.
If both chambers are elected, it is no longer sufficient to say that the Commons must always prevail merely because it is elected. Both chambers would possess democratic legitimacy, though of different kinds.
The Commons would represent the immediate political majority and provide the Government. The New House of Lords would represent a longer-term and staggered democratic mandate.
The Commons should be able to act. The New House of Lords should be able to scrutinise, delay, amend, and challenge.
The constitution should provide clear procedures for disagreement between the two elected chambers, so that scrutiny does not become paralysis.
Once the New Lords is fully elected, the Parliament Acts should be repealed. Their original justification was to prevent an unelected chamber from permanently frustrating the elected Commons. That justification falls away when both Houses are elected.
11. Deadlock and Referenda
Where the Commons and the New House of Lords are permanently deadlocked, the issue should be framed in such a way of being referred to the people by plebiscite.
This would avoid the need for a modern equivalent of the Parliament Act, under which one chamber simply overrides the other. Where two elected chambers cannot agree, neither should automatically dominate. On great unresolved questions, the sovereign authority - the people - should decide.
The New House of Lords would therefore act as a constitutional safety valve. It could not rule in place of the people, but it could require that the people be consulted where perminant parliamentary deadlock cannot otherwise be resolved.
Principle in the Constitution. Machinery in Enabling Legislation. Practice in Standing Orders.
The detailed machinery for deadlock, timing, question-setting, thresholds, and official statements should be supplied by Enabling Legislation and Standing Orders, not overloaded into the constitutional principle.
12. Christian Heritage
This paper recognises the historic importance of the Lords Spiritual and the Christian foundations of the United Kingdom’s constitutional order.
However, if the second chamber is reformed into a fully elected New House of Lords, unelected religious office-holders should not retain voting legislative power. A chamber whose authority rests on election must not contain unelected members with equal voting rights.
This paper therefore proposes that a limited number of senior Christian prelates should have the right to attend and speak in the New House of Lords, but not the right to vote.
This could include the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, and senior representatives of the Churches in Wales and Northern Ireland.
Their role would be to offer moral, spiritual, historical, and constitutional reflection, particularly on legislation affecting life, conscience, family, religious liberty, education, civil society, and the moral foundations of law.
They would not be legislators. They would not be able to block, amend, or pass laws. Their influence would depend on the force of their argument, not on institutional power.
This preserves Christian witness without creating an unelected religious authority.
13. Christian Heritage and Equal Citizenship
This paper affirms equal citizenship for people of all faiths and none.
Members of every religious tradition, and those of no religious faith, should be free to vote, stand for election, speak in public debate, form associations, influence policy, and serve in Parliament through the ordinary democratic process.
The proposed speaking rights for senior Christian prelates are not intended to give Christians superior political rights. Christians, like everyone else, would exercise legislative power through elected representatives.
The purpose of retaining a limited formal Christian presence is different. It recognises the historic Christian inheritance of the United Kingdom: its monarchy, Parliament, common law tradition, moral vocabulary, parish life, universities, charities, schools, public ceremonies, and constitutional development.
The principle is:
Principle
equal citizenship for all; formal recognition of Christian constitutional heritage; no unelected religious voting power.
14. Summary of the Proposal
This paper proposes:
Principle
replacing the present House of Lords with a fully elected New House of Lords;
electing one member for every two parliamentary constituencies;
giving members ten-year terms;
electing half the chamber every five years;
holding these elections between Commons general elections as mid-term democratic accountability;
setting a minimum first-election age of 55;
imposing no automatic upper age limit;
banning sitting MPs from standing for the New House of Lords;
requiring former MPs to spend at least two years out of the Commons before standing;
retaining the Commons as the chamber from which Government is formed;
giving the New House of Lords a distinct constitutional role;
allowing it to scrutinise, delay, amend, and challenge legislation;
13. allowing persistent deadlock between the two elected Houses to be referred to the people by plebiscite;
giving senior Christian prelates the right to attend and speak, but not vote;
affirming equal citizenship for people of all faiths and none;
preserving Christian constitutional heritage without creating unelected religious rule.
Reforms to the House of Commons and the New Lords concern the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Devolved assemblies do not hold authority over the composition, powers or procedures of either House, and cannot opt out of Westminster parliamentary reform while remaining represented in the House of Commons. The separate question of England’s lack of its own devolved chamber is recognised but left for another day.
15. Core Principle
It should be an elected constitutional chamber.
Its purpose should be to restrain executive overreach, improve legislation, provide mid-term accountability, protect the constitutional settlement, bring wisdom and experience into national decision-making, and return the greatest questions to the people.
The Commons should govern. The New House of Lords should scrutinise. The people should remain sovereign.