HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM

It's been a topic that has now dragged on for over 100 years in the UK. There is a broad consensus that the UK's second legislative chamber, the House of Lords, is in need of reform to become more representative, but how this should be achieved has not yet been agreed upon. Proposals generally debate whether a completely elected chamber should be the goal- but then what would differentiate it from the House of Commons to justify its existence, and ensure that one House has more clout than the other?

My personal view is that the House of Lords should be based on a very original concept, with its membership composed of three types of lords/peers: Peoples' Peers, Life Peers and Society Peers.

Peoples' Peers: These would be elected through proportional representation on a UK-wide basis. So if 38% of votes for Peoples' Peers were for the Labour party, approximately 38% of the Peoples' Peers would come from this party. If 8% of votes came from UKIP then they would receive approximately 8% of the House of Lords' Peoples' Peers. As many smaller parties, and their supporters, complain that the First Past the Post System excludes them in the House of Commons, then not only would the House of Lords give them a chance for representation, but would also allow them to establish themselves as credible parties to lead the country and perhaps boost their success in General Elections. They could serve 7-year-long terms (without term limits, as term limits remove the incentive of working hard for the next election)

Life Peers: These would be appointed by the government on the basis of great service to the country in some respect. For example, it is likely that not only former Prime Ministers and high-ranking Civil Servants would be appointed, but also influential inventors, entrepreneurs, scientists and athletes would similarly be appointed for a life-long term (unless their position is revoked due to a scandal).

Society Peers: These would be representatives of various organisations within the UK, thus representing the public in a new and different way. Whilst representatives in the House of Commons reflect the areas people live in, Society Peers would reflect aspects of peoples' lives. So Society Peers could represent religions, causal pressure groups, employers, trade unions and other organisations which include a minimum quota of members, e.g. at least 100,000. Thus representatives of the Church of England, Trades Union Congress and the National Health Service would have seats as Society Peers. The basis of their election/appointment could be decided by the organisations they represent.

I believe this would represent British public opinion in new and original ways, offering even more of the diverse experiences and perspectives of members that the current House of Lords is already praised for today. Its unique configuration would justify its existence and avoid challenging the House of Commons, which it would by sharing a system that is too similar.

The current system doesn't really cause any problems for the public, but there is certainly room for improvement. However, if we're going to bother reforming the House of Lords, let's make it worth doing!