On 7 March 2007, MPs will have the best - and possibly last - chance to democratically reform the House of Lords for a generation. This website is dedicated to encouraging MPs to vote for a predominantly or wholly elected second chamber, and to reject proposals to retain political patronage.

• Rally (Monday 26 February)
• Arguments for Reform
• Myths About Reform
• What you can do

Our Position

We want MPs to vote for second chamber that has as large an elected element as possible. While we would be content with a second chamber that retained a minority of appointed 'crossbenchers' we reject proposals to retain as much as 30% of the second chamber subject to appointment by party leaders.

Specifically, we are calling for MPs to vote on the following lines:

• Vote YES for reform of the House of Lords
• Vote NO for abolition of the House of Lords
• Vote NO for a fully appointed House of Lords
• Vote YES for ALL the options for a second chamber with an elected element, particularly 60% and 80% elected.

We understand that some MPs would prefer a majority elected House of Lords to a wholly elected House of Lords, and vice versa, but to avoid the disaster of the 2003 vote, we are calling for all reformers to unite on this historic vote. We must not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Arguments for Reform

• Party Patronage devalues politics. The perception that people can buy or connive a seat in the legislature has been a source of controversy for over a century.
• An unelected House lacks legitimacy. While the House of Lords often does a good job at improving legislation, it is constantly hampered by the fact that it has no claim to be representing the will of the people. The Government constantly cites the Lords' illegitimacy as a reason for ignoring what it says. An elected second chamber would have more authority.
• An elected second chamber would be more representative. Elections would allow for members from smaller parties and independents to sit in the second chamber as working peers.
• The public want it. Opinion polls consistently suggest that around two-thirds of the public want a majority or wholly elected second chamber. More than 55% of the public voted for a party committed to an at least substantially elected second chamber in 2005.

Myths About Reform

MYTH: "An elected second chamber would be more partisan."

TRUTH: Existing working peers in the House of Lords vote on party lines just as much as MPs do. The House of Lords amends government legislation more often than the Commons because no party has a majority in it, not because it is more 'independent'. The Government proposals are that members of the second chamber should not be allowed to seek re-election, so the party whips would have no more control over them than they do at present.

MYTH: "The current House of Lords is full of 'experts'."

TRUTH: Only around 10% of current House of Lords members are there specifically because of their expertise, nor would it be desirable for the House of Lords to have more of them. An expert in astronomy, for example, is no more equipped to deliberate on adoption issues than anyone else. Crossbenchers typically attend votes 10% of the time, partially because they often have little knowledge or interest in the issue being discussed at any one time. The second chamber would need to have many more members than it has now if it were to have significant numbers of experts on every conceivable subject in it and still be able to function.

Appointment to the House of Lords is not the only way to bring expertise into lawmaking. Work is already under way in Parliament to improve pre-legislative scrutiny and to use experts more extensively when scrutinising legislation.

MYTH: "An elected second chamber would challenge the primacy of the House of Commons."

TRUTH: The House of Commons gets its 'primacy' from how its powers are defined, not from elections. There are no proposals to increase the powers of the second chamber and any future proposals would be subject to approval by the House of Commons. As such, existing legislation limiting the amount of time the House of Lords can delay legislation would still apply.

That said, there is no denying that a second chamber that was predominantly or wholly elected would be more assertive in scrutinising legislation and holding Government to account. Primacy of the Commons does not mean the Government should always get its own way.

MYTH: "An elected second chamber would create 'gridlock'"

TRUTH: The House of Lords currently has the power to delay certain types of legislation by up to a year and an elected second chamber would similarly be restricted in this way. There is no reason to believe we would have any more 'gridlock' than we have now.

Nor is gridlock an especially bad thing. It means the second chamber is doing its job: scrutinising legislation and asking the Government to think again.

MYTH: "Politicians in the second chamber would be of a lower quality - and more careerist - than MPs"

TRUTH: There is no reason to believe elected politicians to the second chamber would be of any lower calibre than the appointed politicians who currently sit in the Lords. The second chamber does a different job to the Commons, and would be elected in a different way. It would therefore follow that it would attract a different type of politician, just as some politicians are more interested in local politics than national politics.

The White Paper on Lords Reform proposes to restrict members of the second chamber to one term of office, and to prevent them from being allowed to stand for the Commons for a period after they have been elected. There will therefore be restrictions in place to put off people from using the second chamber as a launchpad for their political careers.

MYTH: "Members of both chambers would compete for casework"

TRUTH: It is not the role of members of the second chamber to deal with constituents, nor would they be resourced to do so.

The White Paper proposes that members of the second chamber should be elected using the existing European Parliament regional constituencies, which encompass dozens of Commons constituencies. The White Paper also recommends only paying members of the second chamber in relation to their attendance at Parliament, not for a working on behalf of constituents.

Finally, members will be only permitted to serve a single term of office. They would therefore have no political incentive to deal with casework, unlike members of the Commons.

MYTH: "There is no consensus on Lords reform"

TRUTH: There is more consensus on Lords reform than there is on almost any other issue. A clear majority of the public consistently state in opinion polls that they want a predominantly or wholly elected second chamber. The Conservatives campaigned for a "substantially elected" second chamber in the last general election. The Liberal Democrats campaigned for a "predominantly elected" second chamber. Most Labour supporters want a predominantly elected second chamber.

For too long, a hardcore minority has been allowed to confuse this issue and put off reform in the interests of "consensus". This should not be allowed to continue.

What you can do

• Look up your MP's position on Lords reform - and write to them. We need people to keep up the pressure on their MPs between now and 7 March.
• Sign up as a supporter.
• Spread the word - email a friend.
• Promote this website - add our logo to your website.