Labour set to unveil plan to abolish Lords in favour of an elected senate

UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw is expected to announce a proposal to replace the House of Lords with a wholly elected second chamber of senators. The move is aimed at capitalising on the unpopularity of the Lords, especially following question marks over the rules of expenses which can be claimed by peers.

Last week, it emerged Labour peer Baroness Uddin will not be prosecuted for fraud despite claiming a living allowance for a house she hardly visited.

The proposal is also meant as a challenge to David Cameron's Tories to back the reform and oppose privilege and patronage.

Mr Straw and the Labour leadership have calculated the bulk of the Conservative peers in the Lords will oppose any abolition.

Lord Peter Fraser, a Scottish Conservative peer, has warned against the reform, claiming it will rob parliament of much-needed expertise, undermine the authority of the Commons and hand too much power to the party whips.

Instead, Mr Straw envisages a chamber of 300 senators elected by a proportional representation system at the same time as general elections. One third would then be elected on each occasion, with members serving three terms up to 15 years. The new "peers" could also be subject to a US-style "recall ballot" which would disqualify them for incompetence.

In the event of death, members would be replaced without the need for by-elections under some form of "best loser" system.

The legislators would be paid a salary which has yet to be fixed, but it would almost certainly be less than the 65,000 currently paid to backbench MPs.

Ministers are expected to consider whether an artificial "balance" could be introduced so that the reformed chamber included a certain proportion of women and different faith groups.

It would see the last of the hereditary peers, reduced to 92 in a deal done with Tony Blair in 1999, thrown out of the parliament along with the Lords Spiritual, the Church of England Bishops. The House of Lords would also be renamed following a consultation with the favourite for the new name would be likely to be "The Senate".

The latest proposals seem to go further than the tentative reforms sketched out in the 2008 White Paper published by Mr Straw.

Three years ago, the Commons voted by a majority of 113 to reform the upper house to an all-elected chamber – but that move was blocked by the House of Lords itself, which voted for a fully appointed assembly.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "We plan to come forward with proposals on Lords reform in the weeks ahead. We do not comment on leaks."

FOR: 'No democratic mandate at all'

Lord George Foulkes

After five years in the Upper Chamber, I am now convinced that there is only one reform that is acceptable. It must be directly elected.

First it is totally hypocritical of UK parliamentarians touring the world preaching the value of democracy, supervising elections and urging greater accountability while the second chamber of our own parliament remains unelected.

Second, it has been an unedifying experience sitting through debates with the pompous pontification of people with no democratic mandate whatsoever followed by their votes overturning decisions of the elected House of Commons. True, the House of Lords is full of people with great experience in many fields and this is the strongest argument of the supporters of the status quo.

But this talent and experience can be mobilised in many other ways to advise and support government and it is not a justification for denying the people the right to choose who should legislate in both chambers of a bicameral system.

There is, of course, one other viable option. We could move to a unicameral system and abolish the Lords. Scottish legislation is now only considered by the one chamber of the Scottish Parliament. It is an attractive option.

AGAINST: 'Expertise would be lost'

Lord Peter Fraser

If the Lords is really to be abolished, then something would have to be done about providing proper scrutiny of legislation, which the Commons is absolutely pathetic at doing.

The members of the House of Lords are willing to sit down and go through the detailed scrutiny that is needed to make sure Bills are properly prepared and looked at. Quite often this involves carrying out work on unfashionable things like stem cell research and end-of-life issues. From the experience of the Scottish Parliament, I am also less than convinced that a single chamber parliament is able to do this sort of work either.

Expertise is another aspect of the Lords which would be lost through reform, especially on the cross benches. There are statistical, scientific and other experts who probably would certainly not seek election. They provide a huge amount of knowledge to the workings of parliament at very little cost.

The danger, too, of having an elected chamber is that it would seek parity with the Commons. I think it would be undemocratic to suggest that one sort of vote is worth less than another and if proportional representation was used for the Lords then it is possible that, in the future, it could argue to be the senior chamber and then why should the PM not be based there?