An Undemocratic Lords Is Important

From Neil Kinnock to Nick Clegg, calls to democratise the House of Lords have been around for decades. At first glance, the argument appears compelling. A natural and necessary step for the evolution of British democracy. Why should, in a modern political system, any legislative body, responsible for representing the people and scrutinising the laws that will affect our lives, remain unelected? Yet this instinct, while understandable, risks overlooking the distinct and valuable role the House of Lords plays. Reform is indeed needed, but democratisation is not the answer. Rather than transforming the Lords into a second political chamber, the necessary reforms should preserve its current revising function while reshaping it into a smaller, more expert, and less partisan body.

The first point to recognise is that the House of Lords already occupies a carefully balanced constitutional position. It is not a rival to the House of Commons, nor should it be. Its power to delay legislation, but not veto it, is a vital feature and not a flaw. This limitation ensures that the House of Commons, a house that contains the elected representatives for each and every one of us, retains primacy. That is what the House of Commons is for, reflecting the democratic will of the electorate. That’s not the role of the Lords, nor should it be. The House of Lords should not be composed of representatives, it should be composed of experts, experts that can provide insight and scrutiny, revision, and reflection. The Lords asks the Commons a very British question: are you quite sure Sir? And if, after a period of reflection, Sir is sure, even if one judges Sir to be wrong, one submits and Sir gets his way. 

This dynamic fosters a healthy legislative process, one chamber proposes, the other refines and that way Britain is protected from rushed decision-making and governments cannot ram through legislation without checks and balances. Introducing a democratic mandate to the Lords would destroy this valuable scrutiny. If both chambers were elected, a crucial constitutional question immediately arises: which house has the greater legitimacy? An elected House of Lords could quite rightly claim its own competing mandate, and what then when they don’t agree, we get bogged down in the quagmire of parliamentary gridlock that so many countries across the world have seen. Do we really want to import American style government shutdowns or Australian constitutional crises to Britain? 

Beyond constitutional tension, there is also a more practical question: do we really need more politicians? The House of Commons is already a highly political environment, dominated by shouting, party loyalties and MPs being told how to vote by their whips. Replicating this dynamic in the Lords would add little value and take away all the advantages it currently has. Instead of improving legislative scrutiny, it would duplicate the most unattractive elements of British democracy, the elements that so many people have grown frustrated with. 

Of course, the current composition of the Lords is by no means ideal. Reform is necessary, particularly in terms of size and appointments. There are currently over 800 members of the House of Lords which is, quite frankly, an absurd number. Around 80% of these members were appointed by a Prime Minister meaning plenty of the members who sit in the House of Lords were appointed to reward political loyalties rather than public service.

What we need therefore is a house of experts. 300 or so members, real people, with knowledge, experience and expertise across all realms of society. 

Right now the House of Lords is a mess. It’s a village of 800 people that contains within it a church, a retirement home for politicians and with genuine experts an inconspicuous minority, and each villager gets a £371 daily allowance for expenses. What is needed is to harness the value of the House of Lords and remove the waste. Keep its powers limited. Keep its role for scrutiny. Keep it appointed. Democracy should be kept as far away from the House of Lords as possible. A reformed House of Lords should draw on individuals with deep experience and knowledge in law, science, economics, education, defence, healthcare and beyond. Scrutiny of government legislation is best left to experts, not politicians. Politicians, with their party loyalties and concerns over re-election, are the last people who should be scrutinising government legislation.

What is also crucial is that the power of appointment is taken away from the Prime Minister. The idea that the Prime Minister should have the power to appoint the people to scrutinise government legislation is a contradiction as obvious as it is blinding. Instead, the Lords should be appointed by a committee. A blend of an independent panel and senior backbenchers in the Commons who together can propose individuals to be nominated to the Lords. Nomination to the House of Lords must then be seen as an honour, a privilege, a duty, not a right that is afforded to former politicians who have been either chucked out by the voters or given up their role in the Commons and fancy a comfortable red bench to retire upon.

Such a chamber would enhance, rather than undermine, democratic governance. Elected representatives in the Commons would continue to set political direction, while the Lords would ensure that legislation is workable, evidence-based, and carefully considered. This division of labour is both logical and desirable. Democratisation would turn the Lords into a mirror of the Commons, reflecting its worst parts, rather than a cooling, sagely saucer. There are plenty of extremely capable members of the Lords currently, both independent and political appointees, who dedicate a serious amount of their time and expertise to the scrutinisation of government policy. We must keep and amplify this tradition by removing the members of the Lords who are, quite frankly, subpar and superfluous. 

An unelected House of Lords made up by appointed experts would add serious value to our democratic process. An elected Lords would take the worst elements of both the Commons and the Lords and combine them into a chamber that would, depending on political composition, either add little in the way of scrutiny or seriously frustrate the process of good governance in Britain.

Illustration: Will Allen/Europinion