By Ned Simons - 14th March 2011
We are yet to see Nick Clegg's proposals for a "wholly or partially" elected House of Lords, but worries have started to surface about the balance of power between two elected chambers.
The unelected nature of the Lords means it usually defers to the wishes of the elected Commons.
But MPs and peers alike have raised concerns that a democratically elected second chamber would begin to challenge the supremacy of the Commons.
At present it would be unthinkable for the prime minister to be an unelected peer.
But as Lord Lamont noted today, there is no reason why this convention would, or should, survive an elected upper House.
The former chancellor told peers during a Lords debate that if members of the second chamber were elected it would be "appropriate and necessary" for there to be more senior minsters in that chamber – including the prime minister.
He said: "Wouldn't it be wrong if the government's legislation excluded this possibility?"
The coalition's plans to reform the House of Lords are already overdue, with proposals initially expected by Christmas 2010.
Lamont noted that in several bicameral systems in the world it is possible for the prime minister to sit in either House.
The Conservative leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, said it would "very strange" given the reduced powers of the Lords for the prime minister to be a member of the second chamber, however it was constituted.
He said he was deeply impressed with the "ambition" of the 68 year old former chancellor, suggesting he perhaps fancied a crack at 10 Downing Street himself.
"Ten years to wait doesn't seem too long at all."
He told peers today that the presence of the prime minister in the House of Commons "underpins" its primacy.
But as Lord Lamont points out, the main reason it would be unacceptable to the public to have the prime minister be a peer would be a lack of democratic mandate.
This barrier to office will be removed if the coalition successfully pilots though its plan to democratise the upper chamber.
If peers, or Senators, were elected by proportional representation as suggested in the coalition agreement and MPs continued to be elected by first-past-the-post (if the AV referendum fails) then the struggle for dominance would be even greater.
And if Senators belived they have an equal or greater claim of democratic legitimacy why should the prime minister not sit on the red benches?
In this situation "who would have greater democratic legitimacy, MPs or elected peers?" one peer asked.
This was a "good question", Strathclyde admitted, which peers would come back to many times. Parliamentary code for one to which he had no answer.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.