Abolishing House of Lords ‘should not be a priority’

British Labour leader Keir Starmer’s plans for an elected second chamber risk US-style ‘gridlock’ and should not be a priority, a House of Lords member said.

Keir Starmer unveiled a 40-point plan for constitutional reform. Picture: Getty Images

British Labour leader Keir Starmer’s plans for an elected second chamber risk US-style “gridlock” and should not be a priority, a House of Lords member said, as questions were asked about how urgently a Labour government would abolish the chamber.

Mr Starmer on Monday unveiled a 40-point plan for constitutional reform, led by former prime minister Gordon Brown. He pledged that it would form a “first-term agenda” if he wins the next election.

He said Mr Brown’s review, which also proposes more powers for Scotland and Wales, would give people more “democratic control over their lives”.

Mr Starmer avoided a firm commitment to replace the Lords with a “senate of the nation of regions” during a first term as prime minister.

Lord Blunkett, a former home secretary, said a “rational, sensible dialogue” about Lords reform was “both desirable and necessary” but that “a degree of prioritisation will be necessary”.

“I look forward to … ensuring that people understand the practical as well as the constitutional challenges, and reflect on the problems currently experienced in the United States with a democratic process that leads to gridlock,” he said.

Lord Mandelson, another former cabinet minister, said that reform of the Lords would be “swept up into a sort of quagmire of disagreement” unless it was done “on a cross-party basis”.

Another Labour peer said there was “frustration” that the policy would “make quick change harder”.

The times