While being interviewed by the journalist Sophy Ridge for Sky News on January 12 2020, Labour Party leadership hopeful Rebecca Long-Bailey stated her intention to abolish the House of Lords when in power. And it isn’t just those from the left of the political spectrum that harbour such views. Increasingly, the right-wing populist press and even prominent personalities from the opposite side of the spectrum have articulated similar desires to either abolish or significantly reform the Lords. Many in Britain feel that the upper house of Parliament is increasingly irrelevant to the political landscape of the day, bursting at the seams as it is with “elite” figures from the Westminster “bubble” who are out of touch with the realities and necessities of modern life. Others, however, continue to believe that the House of Lords performs an essential role, acting as it does to review, challenge and thereby moderate the many decisions taken in the lower chamber-the House of Commons.
To decide one way or another, it is necessary to re-examine the facts. The House of Lords is indeed a large body of people, having reached a membership of 796 on January 13, following the admission of its two newest members. This makes it the largest upper parliamentary chamber in the world, as well as the second largest legislature of all, just after the National People’s Congress of China. It is also a historical entity, with the House of Lords first being mentioned during the reign of Henry VIII (1509-47). This large and historical body can be broadly divided into the secular Lords Temporal and the religious Lords Spiritual (26 Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England). The Lords Temporal are comprised of 92 hereditary peers (elected from the ranks of 814 peers with inherited titles), a self-perpetuating oligarchy, and life peers, who were first created under the Life Peerages Act 1958 and cannot pass on their titles further down the family tree. This particular Act facilitated the appointment of women peers and has since opened up the Lords to a wide range of expertise, in the form of scientists, doctors, nurses, entrepreneurs, business people, economists, writers, judges, lawyers, police officers, charity organisers, and many other net contributors to British society.
But appointment or election to the House of Lords carries no actual responsibilities, and there are many absentee members, including even tax exiles, as well as those who attend but hardly ever speak. Attendance is not compulsory, no salary is paid out, and there are no specific expectations other than when political party leaders nominate so-called “working peers” to engage in policy making, debating and voting in the upper chamber.
So, why would anyone wish to become a peer of the realm? For a start, in honour-obsessed Britain, who would turn down the right to be called “Lord” or “Lady”? Many previously militant trade unionists and others hitherto unconvinced have gratefully accepted peerages when such honours have come their way. These are undoubtedly prestigious appointments, which bring with them many privileges. To start with, there is a tax-free attendance allowance of £300 per day for attending the chamber. Travel fees to Westminster are reimbursed, as are the basic expenses for certain forms of official overseas travel.
There is a certain grandeur associated with the new workplace. The Chamber of the House of Lords is a lavishly-decorated room. This grand setting includes a Royal Throne (the Queen is not allowed into the House of Commons), a “Woolsack” (on which the Lord Speaker sits), an ornamented ceiling, stained-glass windows, armorial bearings, baronial statues and other symbols of aristocracy and privilege. The members of ‘the other place’ (as referred to by members of the House of Commons) also have access to an excellent library, a well-equipped gym, a well-stocked bar and enviable catering facilities within the building. Wining and dining in the impressive riverside Peers’ Dining Room can be a memorable experience, readily verifiable by those members of the public who are allowed to visit at certain times in the year.
When peers choose to “work” they can potentially devote themselves to several areas of Parliamentary activity, which both complement and moderate the House of Commons’ own activities. The Lords can speak in debates, ask oral (in the chamber) or written questions, can propose private member’s bills or suggest amendments to existing bills (draft laws), as well as sit on various select committees, which either conduct narrowly focused investigations or investigate long-term policy issues. Many bills that originate in the House of Commons are subjected to thorough and line-by-line scrutiny by the Lords. The Salisbury Convention, a constitutional convention, allows the Lords to give a second reading even to bills for which an elected government has a Commons majority and indeed a manifesto commitment. However, the Lords’ track record on dealing with the issues of tax credits and Brexit has, in recent years, laid it open to criticism as an unelected body bent upon thwarting the results of a democratic Parliamentary voting process.
Criticism of peers has also come from other quarters, including the media and members of the general public. Corruption came to light in the Parliamentary expenses scandal of 2009, which exposed many examples of fraudulent claims, often excessive, for personal gain. Some convicted criminals have been also been able to return to their seats in the chamber. Some of this behaviour seems to have been predictable, given some highly questionable appointments from the ranks of those with immense popular wealth and resources, which have been funnelled into providing money and services to the major political parties.
The House of Lords has been undergoing reform for some time. The Life Peerage Act 1958 has democratised the Lords, while the Peerage Act 1963 has allowed women peers to take their seats and enabled hereditary peers to disclaim their titles. Most recently, the House of Lords Act 1999 has significantly culled membership, reducing the hereditary element of the house to 92 members, elected by their “peers”. Imagine all 814 hereditary peers claiming their seats in the chamber at the same time! Also in 1999, the judicial function of the House of Lords as the highest court of appeal in the UK was taken over by the newly constituted Supreme Court of Justice, further weakening its powers. However, more recently, further reform was prevented with the failure of the coalition government’s House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 to be passed into law.
As with all political institutions, reform is not merely desirable but essential when it comes to the House of Lords, irrespective of whether it is eventually abolished. The process of appointment should be made more transparent and equitable, along with a better definition of roles when actually appointed. Rewarding party donors, ’emeritus’ or failed politicians and the like can be achieved by other means, without potentially bringing Parliament into disrepute and without giving unelected people the ability to scupper the democratic vote for cynical political opportunism. A second chamber that is genuinely meritocratic, mainly composed of so-called crossbench peers, is likely to provide valuable support to the formulation and scrutiny of public policy and to assist with the process of governmental decision making.
Ashis Banerjee