House of Lords Reform

The House of Lords Reform Bill, which is currently before Parliament, is the latest of many attempts to reform the upper chamber of the UK Parliament. It is over a hundred years since the enactment of the Parliament Act 1911, which changed the balance of power between the Lords and the Commons, but which was intended only as a stopgap measure pending the transformation of the Lords into an elected chamber. In this video, Dr Mark Elliott assess the House of Lords Reform Bill, arguing that a commitment to democracy does not necessarily require an elected House of Lords -- and that the debate about reforming the upper chamber must take due account of the wider institutional and constitutional framework.
Dr Mark Elliott is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of St Catharine's College. His main research interests are in the fields of constitutional and administrative law. Dr Elliott's recent publications include Elliott and Thomas, Public Law (OUP 2011); Elliott, Beatson, Matthews and Elliott's Administrative Law: Text and Materials (OUP 2011, 4th edition); and Forsyth, Elliott, Jhaveri, Scully-Hill and Ramsden (eds), Effective Judicial Review: A Cornerstone of Good Governance (OUP 2010). Dr Elliott was the 2011 Legal Research Foundation Visiting Scholar at The University of Auckland, New Zealand. In 2010, he was awarded a University of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in University teaching. He writes a blog - publiclawforeveryone.wordpress... - which includes information for people applying, or thinking of applying, to study Law at university.
Law in Focus is a series of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

[@qale3385]

Very informative and understandable approach to the constitutional questions for prospective law student :)

[@agg4000]

I agree with his views on a second elected chamber being hard to justify. Instead, a body of respected experts from diverse backgrounds sounds like something much better to aim for. I think the former choice would just be a cop out, effectively forcing the public to decide what the Lords should be because the government won't.

[@timcallaghan4160]

I think there should be hereditary peers as a point of expertise and experience - the familisation of power that children are brought up to inherit an infinitesimally small and absolutely limited quantity of influence on executive action, and legislation should pass it on the eldest child regardless of sex, it should be more like the monarchy. Equally, the heir ought to have sufficient merit already to be raised to the peerage, and keep the title in only a ceremonial sense.

[@Sesshomaru25U]

I'm interested in learning more about the law, can anyone recommend some things I should do. I'm going to start watching the news and reading the times which will include the law section.

[@QRAndrew]

I wonder what would happen if, say, someone held a private referendum/election to seek a democratic mandate for election to the House of Lords, what the appointment commission would do. Surely they couldn't refuse it?

[@liamj2363]

+Andrew Finn Oh, I'm sure they'd try.

[@BenignCentaur]

Contitution?

[@Sesshomaru25U]

Totally agree with you. I don't like it when university videos make comment pend for approval.

[@fortuner123]

Oh yes - comment pending approval. So much for free speech and democracy. You will fit nicely in the European Parliament.

[@totalwarking7839]

Any political institution with influence over our laws should be elected including the house of lords. There should be a revising upper chamber but it should be elected by the british people using full proportional representation.

[@redcoltken]

Well then..the only answer is to write the darn constitution down...

[@Englishgrammar]

It's almost as if you don’t understand what a politician is there for. The whole point of democracy is that you delegate power. You elect a representative to choose the experts, on your behalf, and your delegate is then held accountable for those choices. We elect politicians and not scientists. A chamber of unelected so-called experts sounds like something Oliver Cromwell once dreamt up. No, we don’t need another rump parliament. We either elect House of Lords or we get rid of it!

[@fortuner123]

My goodness. What a bland description - no feeling, no opinion. No wonder nothing ever gets done if tedious bores like this have anything to do with it. Seems like you enjoy looking for reasons why not and cannot. No doubt all the decision makers are the same.

[@LambChowder1]

all around bad idea.