When visitors come to parliament, it seems incongruous to explain that, in our mother of parliaments, we have a second chamber – the House of Lords – which is unelected. Those who support its existence in its current or similar form justify it on the grounds that it performs a useful revising function which can improve the detail of legislation, and it undoubtedly does good work.
But the fact that it is unelected can only be tolerated in a democracy provided its members accept that it is for the House of Commons to have the last word on what becomes law and what doesn’t in this country.
If the Lords resort to blocking procedures, and impede the implementation of decisions taken in the Commons, this is effectively breaking this convention. So how long should we, as the democratically elected chamber, put up with it?
Matters seem to be coming to a head with a private member’s bill currently in the House of Lords. The proposed law in question is the assisted dying bill, which was the subject of lengthy and often lively debate in the Commons. We, as democratically elected MPs, each made up our own mind on the bill because it’s a “conscience issue”, not party policy.
We didn’t support it, but respect the fact that it passed through the Commons with a convincing majority. The question now is: is it acceptable for the Lords simply to keep talking in an attempt to reach the end of the parliamentary session without ever getting to a vote? The answer to that must be no.
Or, if they do get to a vote, and they reject the will of the Commons, what should happen next? The expectation is clearly that, within a reasonable timeframe, the decision of the democratically elected chamber should take precedence.
Any attempt to derail that process not only breaks convention, it also risks setting a precedent that would undoubtedly increase the calls for a radical reform of the House of Lords sooner rather than later.
We would respectfully suggest that members of the Lords who may be contemplating going down that route should think very carefully about the consequences of their actions.
Nia Griffith MP
Justin Madders MP
Debbie Abrahams MP
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
