Baroness D’Souza - Evidence in Review

On 7 September the Commission welcomed its co-convenor, Baroness Frances D’Souza, to discuss reform to the House of Lords and help inform its next paper due to be published in the new year.

It was recognised that the House of Lords has a valuable role in scrutinising and refining legislation, particularly when the Commons is not functioning well. As a chamber it has been particularly strong on civil liberties, including recent work regarding the electoral commission.

The sizeable presence of crossbenchers, with their wide range of significant expertise, also means it is relatively non-party political. Accordingly, it is more concerned with checking the power of the executive and is better able to effectively stand up for good legislation. Draft bills often leave the Lords in far better shape than when they came in.

The democratic mandate of the chamber was discussed by the Commission. It is open to being crammed with allies of the government of the day; it is open to allegations of cash for peerages; it is class ridden with a southern bias; it is too big; and it is expensive. It was noted that peers get no administrative or policy support, and as a result they are more inclined to depend on organisations who have the resources to develop and research policy. Whilst this can leave it open to inappropriate influence by big corporations and vested interests, it also means that the chamber can reflect many grassroots organisations and has a strong outreach to civil society.

The Commission observed that whilst the convention is that the Lords will not challenge secondary legislation, this is where most detail of an Act of Parliament now lies, as government often introduces skeleton bills and uses statutory instruments to fill the remainder. Some peers, such as Lord Judge, now call for the chamber to be much more active in voting down statutory instruments.

The Commission discussed some detailed reforms as well as taking a fundamental view of reform about whether a second chamber was needed, what a new electoral system could look like, and who should be in the chamber.

Whilst there was scepticism about how an elected second chamber would function, it was discussed that the Appointments Commission could have a stronger say in nominations. Currently, around 3,000 people apply through the Appointments Commission and about five get through. It was considered that the Appointments Commission could be given statutory powers to consider both size and composition.

Further options were suggested, such as reducing the size of the house to between 450 and 500, something looked at by the Burns Committee which has recommended a ‘two out, one in’ policy.

Peers could also have term limits and could be named senators, which it was pointed out might not be so attractive to the people who want to be in the House merely for their egos.

Having a small proportion of elected peers was considered, but this could create a two-tiered system of peers and upset the balance of a delicate constitution. 

Functional constituencies were discussed, as a way of bringing in peers from professions, trades, and other vocational sections of the body politic to make the house more representative of the country.

The Commission discussed that form should follow function, and that the role, responsibilities and powers of the second chamber should be clearer to give it more legitimacy. It was discussed whether unicameral systems, like New Zealand, are still able to hold their government to account and cause them to think again. Whilst there is a clear role for scrutiny, revision and making the executive think again, it was discussed whether more powerful committees could also perform this role.

Whilst Commissioners varied in their solutions, all agreed that some kind of reform to the chamber was necessary to strengthen democracy in the UK.