Contributions - House of Lords Reform
The Commission on Political Power has invited contributions as it plans its third paper on reform of the role of the House of Lords in British democracy. The Commission has been grateful to receive many thoughtful and interesting proposals concerning the second chamber. These have varied from abolition including radical ideas for a replacement, to more measured reform. They have formed part of the Commission’s discussions as it deliberates options for change.
Ideas to gradually reform the chamber included a contribution from Baroness Meacher to place the approvals committee on a statutory footing. This would be an attempt to dissolve the significant link between wealthy donors, political allies, and peerages. To this end it was also posited that non-parliamentary peerages could be created if political leaders want to reward people for favours. Placing a limit on the amount of money one can donate to a political party or cause before being prevented from gaining a peerage was also mooted.
Several submissions agreed with Baroness Meacher’s further suggestion of focusing on the geographic make-up of the House of Lords. It was argued that a senate of nations and regions could replace the Lords and more accurately reflect the country at large. On the more radical end, Richard Allen suggested that the House of Lords could become a chamber of nations, with the House of Commons becoming the English Parliament. Rules in the new Chamber of Nations would support a federal structure.
Other contributions suggested proportional representation as a way of electing peers on a regional basis, using large electoral constituencies and with a low threshold. Albert Weale suggested a reform of the second chamber based on the principles of the bicameral system as used in the Australian Commonwealth and some states in Australia. This would see the Lords become a fully elected house, but one which would not be entitled to refuse confidence and supply to the government of the day. The government would therefore remain in office so long as it maintained the confidence of the Commons. A PR system for the chamber would allow for a wider variety of voices of around 400 peers to be heard.
James Leeson argued for a partially elected, based on geographical regions, and a partially appointed Lords, based on distinguished service to the country, drawn from across the full spectrum of British national life. He suggested basing the elected portion on the same constituencies and voting system that was used for European Parliament elections. This would comprise Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the nine English regions as constituencies, using the D’Hondt method to achieve proportional representation.
James Leeson suggested that to respect the different areas of the UK, the nations should have more members than an English region, even though in many cases the regions have significantly larger populations. If using the former European Parliament constituencies, this could mean 10 or 12 members per nation and 8 or 10 members per English region. This would lead to a total of between 103 to 127 elected members, depending on the exact numbers chosen, a far smaller chamber than its present form.
This reflected a wider desire to reduce and change the membership of the second chamber. It was suggested that there are too many ineffectual and inactive peers, with a number between 300 and 400 better served properly to carry out the chamber’s functions. An age limit for peers was proposed. It was also suggested that peers should not have life membership, but would serve for a specific term on a different timetable to MPs. Other contributions, however, posited that membership of the second chamber would reflect general election results for three quarters of peers, with the remainder to be cross-bench.
Several submissions, notwithstanding, emphasised retaining the important role of cross-bench peers and their effectiveness in the chamber. Ed Straw argued we must first look at what role we want the second chamber to play. It was suggested that this is principally to provide feedback on all that the government does, which means introducing a fourth separation of powers and a new institution to produce independent scrutiny. It would follow from this that the second chamber would not be party political, instead deriving democratic legitimacy from outside the party system.
The role of a new second chamber has also been explored by Titus Alexander. This includes a role in promoting dialogue round important issues; assisting in policy research and development; and scrutinising and revising legislation by the Commons through a “public reading stage”. In contributing to greater consensus building and reviewing legislation at all stages, the second chamber could better monitor implementation and scrutinise ministers.
John Radford suggested that the basis of awarding peerages should be their expertise, with functional constituencies an option to ensure those from different trades and professions could enter and bring a diversity of experience. This would include allocating one or two peers / members to represent, for example, trades unions, employers organisations, religions and non-faith groups, professional bodies like doctors, schools, higher education, and learned societies. This would create around 50 to 100 peers with one or two covering each area.
Other contributors agreed that this would create a more merit-based chamber which might merit more public support and where all peers were capable of holding the executive successfully to account. To improve this, legislative review powers of the second chamber could be strengthened, and more use could be made of bill committees to examine expert witnesses.
The link between the second chamber and religion was suggested as an area of reform. The National Secular Society (NSS) urged the unsustainability of an ex officio bishops’ bench in the House of Lords, calling for an end to their presence. This bench, comprising two Archbishops and 24 bishops of the Church of England, is symbolic of institutional favouritism of one religion and was argued to be unjustifiable. The NSS cited a 2021 YouGov survey which found only 16% of British people believe bishops should be entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. An earlier ICM poll commissioned in 2010 by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust also found that 74% of the population – including 70% of Christians – believe it is wrong that some Church
of England bishops are given an automatic seat in the House of Lords.
Humanists UK contributed a similar stance to the NSS, arguing for the Bishoprics Act 1878 and the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 to be repealed in order to remove the automatic rights of the bishops to sit in the second chamber. They also posited that each House of Parliament should at the next opportunity revise its standing orders to see the practice of saying prayers before the start of business replaced by an inclusive time for reflection. Prayers could instead be held elsewhere in Parliament for those who want them.
Humanists UK suggested there is no desire amongst the public to have any religious representatives automatically appointed to the chamber, and that it would ignore the growing populations of humanists and other non-religious people. It would also require adding at least 85 other religious leaders to the chamber.
It was suggested by Gavin Barker that more deliberative processes could be used to give legitimacy to constitutional reform. Reports from constitutional reform bodies could be submitted to local and regional citizens’ assemblies across the country, lending greater weight behind the movement for change. Alongside the Commission on Political Power, Gordon Brown’s Labour commission on the constitution and parliament’s Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) are looking at constitutional reform amongst others. In all, it was submitted that they shared the absence of the voice of citizens.
Gavin Barker suggested that this would build the crucial bottom-up momentum required to create and sustain serious constitutional reform. It was noted that Greater Manchester Combined Authority presides over a population of 2.85 million people; Liverpool city region 1.56 million; and West Yorkshire Combined Authority 2.34 million. If each of these mayors used citizens assemblies to build a popular voice, it would help develop a mandate that Parliament and Westminster would find very hard to ignore.
The extended submissions of each contributor named in this blog are available by contacting info@commissionpoliticalpower.uk.