The House of Lords

Disclaimer: This article is written by Rohan Seenarine. Any views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the team editor nor any entities they represent.

Introduction

The history of democracy in the United Kingdom has been defined by reform – it began as a deeply unfair and unequal system, which enfranchised only a small number of wealthy landowners and completely excluded women. It was not until the passage of the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928, that women and men gained equal voting rights in the UK. However, there is still significant progress to be made. The House of Lords remains a deeply unequal institution, which consolidates power in the hands of a (relatively) small number of individuals, in contravention of the UK’s strongly held democratic principles. The House of Lords is an institution that is in desperate need of reform.

Representation

Jessica Garland, director of policy at the Electoral Reform Society (ERS), described the underrepresentation of women in Parliament as a ‘quiet scandal’ and noted that the issue is particularly prevalent in the unelected upper chamber, where around 72% of its members are men. Additionally, a 2019 report found that just 6% of Peers were from ethnic minority backgrounds. It is evident that the current system of appointments entrenches inequality and limits the ability of marginalised groups to contribute to the scrutiny of legislation performed in the upper house.

Meritocracy

Appointments to the House of Lords have often been made on the basis of political loyalty and past financial support – research conducted by Transparency International has suggested that around 1 in 4 Peers have donated to political parties. This is intrinsically unmeritocratic and further limits the extent to which the composition of the chamber is representative of the country it serves as it necessarily causes wealthy individuals to be overrepresented.

In addition to this, some peers are appointed to the upper chamber on the basis of lineage rather than any purported merit – no practice could be more emblematic of antiquated nature of the current appointments system.

Size and Cost

A report commissioned by the UK Labour Party noted that the House of Lords is one of the largest legislative bodies in the world, second only to the National People’s Congress of China. The large number of peers necessarily costs the taxpayer an extraordinary amount of money, the combined expenses of the chamber totalled over £17.7 million between April 2019 and March 2020 alone, with the average peer claiming an average of £30,687, according to the ERS. This is a wholly unnecessary waste of taxpayer funds, limiting the number of peers could reduce the cost of the chamber.

As noted by the aforementioned report, the UK Parliament is out of step with the majority of democracies around the world, as the second chamber is typically smaller than the main legislative body. It is entirely possible therefore, for the UK to reduce the size of the House of Lords without limiting its ability to scrutinise legislation – many upper chambers such as the Australian senate have substantially lower numbers of members than the Lords, with the Senate having fewer than 100 members, as per the Australian Parliament’s website. There is no evidence to suggest that the large number of members improves the work done by the House of Lords.

Reform

Despite the ‘archaic’ nature of the House of Lords, much of the work it does is essential to the functioning of our democracy, the process of ‘Ping Pong’ in which proposed pieces of legislation are passed between the two houses can provide detailed scrutiny. Therefore, the idea of abolition without replacement is intolerable – the issues outlined in this article can only be addressed with reform.

The Labour Commission suggested the creation of an ‘Assembly of Regions and Nations’ as a replacement for the House of Lords – one that would be democratically elected, one separate electoral cycle to the House of Commons. As suggested by the report, it is crucial that the upper house remains subordinate to the House of Commons, as this would likely make it too difficult to pass legislation. Bicameral legislatures with houses of relatively equal stature, such as the United States congress, are too often disrupted by political stalemates, which limit the ability of the state to make changes and adapt to the rapidly modernising world.

The Commission Report also argued that the upper chamber should be granted the power to reject legislation which violates a select number of constitutional laws, effectively providing a form of ‘entrenchment’ to the UK’s unwritten constitution.

The creation of such an Assembly would provide an opportunity to rebalance politics in the United Kingdom and could help to alleviate the crisis of underrepresentation, which has troubled politics for too long. This occurs on multiple levels – including racial, geographical and gender inequality.

The upper chamber could be transformed from one of the UK’s most unequal institutions to one of its most diverse. Regional disparities could perhaps be best addressed through the creation of this chamber – by encouraging the nations and combined authorities of the UK to work collaboratively and share ideas, as well as providing scrutiny to legislation from a more regional perspective. The subordination of the upper chamber could be an asset in terms of addressing regional inequality, each constituent nation could be afforded an equal number of seats regardless of population, similarly to the US Senate, but without the associated gridlock.

Addressing the underrepresentation of groups such as ethnic minorities and women may prove to be more difficult – but a reformed upper chamber could also help to address this. The new chamber would not necessarily need to be elected using the First Past the Post system used for elections to the House of Commons, it could instead adopt a more proportional system. This, as noted by Jessica Garland would provide an opportunity for the introduction of quotas, ensuring that women are adequately represented in the parliament. Such measures could also be deployed to tackle the underrepresentation of other groups.

Conclusion

To conclude, the House of Lords is a deeply antiquated institution and should be replaced by an elected upper chamber, that aims to address issues of underrepresentation and facilitate a more cooperative relationship between devolved and central government. It could also take a crucial role in protecting the constitution of the United Kingdom and safeguarding the rights of its citizens. The status quo cannot credibly be maintained.