The progressive reform of the House of Lords could reach a quick conclusion if only we choose to follow the single-chambered footsteps of countries like New Zealand.  

This was the tongue-in-cheek thought of Baroness Hayter who, addressing a group of first-year students from the Centre for Journalism at the University of Kent, admitted she was taken aback by the functioning of New Zealand’s single chamber government.

“I went [to New Zealand] thinking: ‘How are they managing with only one chamber?’” she said, “and the answer is very well!

“I’m starting to think we should get rid of us altogether!”

New Zealand abolished the Legislative Council, the upper house of their Parliament, in 1951 after growing criticism over its efficiency and the purpose of bicameralism in such a small country. Whether a single chamber Parliament would work here is a different matter.

The reformation of the House of Lords has been chipped away at for a century now, and the latest call is for the House to be wholly elected. In 1999 the then-Labour government dismissed all but 92 hereditary peers so as to make peerage something you earn with experience and success, rather than ‘luck into’ through birth.

When quizzed on whether an elected House of Lords would be better or worse than the current system Baroness Hayter took the middle ground, arguing that while it would eliminate those who inherit their title it could also cost them experienced and valuable members. These are the crossbenchers; individuals without party allegiance whose expertise sees them serve in the Lords while maintaining a career outside it.

“I like having a different sort of person in here and not just more of the same,” she mused.

“We would lose the crossbenchers and I personally think that would be worse. Adding more members as well – it changes this House altogether.”

As the questions came in the topic quickly changed to electoral reform and the upcoming referendum on May 5^th and the Baroness, who stated her support of the current First Past The Post system, admitted to concerns over the potential voter turnout and the consequences this would have.

“I tried to get a threshold of 20% put in place which was then raised to 40% in here, but thrown out altogether in the House of Commons.

“So if, and it could happen, only 10% of people turn up to vote and AV wins, questions will be asked. If even 25% voted, and every one of them voted ‘Yes to AV’, it would be hard to take, but I would accept it.”