House of Lords Reform

Debate between George Eustice and Stephen Williams

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I am not entirely opposed to reform of the House of Lords, but I am deeply sceptical about the idea of an elected House of Lords. The simple fact is that there is far more to a successful democracy than elections. Many people have said that the reason why we must have elections for the House of Lords is to give it legitimacy. That is not the right argument. Lots of institutions in our democracy do not need elections to make them legitimate. Judges and magistrates are not elected, and we have a monarch who is not elected. All these parts of our constitution play a very important role despite the fact that they are not elective.

[Stephen Williams]

Judges and magistrates exist in our constitution to pass judgment over people who have broken laws. They are not there to make laws, which is what the House of Lords is for.

[George Eustice]

I accept that to some extent, although judges often make public policy decisions, and those judgments influence our legal system. However, my point is that we do not need elections for these institutions to be legitimate.