In a letter to The Times, the former Clerk to the House of Commons, or Under Clerk of the Parliaments, Lord Lisvane, has written to suggest that it is not the House of Lords that needs reform, but the House of Commons.
Proposals for reform of the House of Lords have been discussed since the 19th century, and some important ones have been implemented. The 1911 Parliament Act is the most significant of these, but the introduction of life peers in 1958 and the removal of hereditary peers in 1999 and 2026 are also noteworthy.
Yet there remain pressures for further change, not because of any identified failure in the Lords, but because of the feeling that it is not validated by a democratic mandate. Although the Parliament Act says in its preamble that it is a temporary measure until a democratic means of selecting an upper house is found, in the 115 years since it passed, no such method has been implemented.
This ought to change the argument. What matters about the House of Lords is not its legitimacy. The totality of the government in the United Kingdom is legitimate, and has popular support, but the question should be whether the Lords fulfils a useful function and leads to better government. On the whole, in light of its powers, it does achieve this. It also recognises the limitation of its powers as a consequence of the greater democratic legitimacy of the Commons.
This makes Lisvane’s thoughts about how the Commons works all the more interesting. It has power and legitimacy, which it ought to use well, but many would say it does so ineffectually. Lisvane argues that having so many new MPs has made the House of Commons less good at scrutinising legislation, and this is probably true, but I think the problem is more deep-seated.
