Finally, we can all agree that the House of Lords makes no sense
What’s the point of the House of Lords?
The question is back in the news again, after the government was defeated for a sixth time by peers this week over its EU withdrawal bill.
We shouldn’t be surprised by this. You can’t stack a chamber with unaccountable peers for life and then expect cast-iron discipline and unquestioning obedience to the Prime Minister of the day. A certain amount of insubordination is built into the British system of governance.
Read more: Govt’s customs partnership proposal “completely cretinous”, says Rees-Mogg
It has been eye-opening in the last year to watch the established camps switch sides when it comes to the Lords’ non-compliance on Brexit issues.
Suddenly, die-hard traditionalists and conservatives are questioning the wisdom of this unelected upper chamber, while progressives who have been raging against the House of Lords for decades have made an abrupt about-turn and are championing this check on executive power.
Whatever side you’re on, you don’t have to be an expert in UK constitutional history to see that the Lords is a mess.
If you were going to design a second legislative chamber from scratch, it is unlikely you would come up with the current system, made up of a handful of bishops, a hundred or so hereditary peers, and over 660 life peers appointed under various governments.
Once you start to think about it, the system seems insane. Why are the clergy represented in lawmaking at all, given that only 16 per cent of the population are Church of England Christian, and the majority of Brits don’t identify as having any religion at all? And what’s the justification for giving someone a right to vote on UK legislation purely because of who their father was?
And while many life peers are accomplished authorities in their fields who can bring valuable and varied expertise, there has been a creeping tendency to usher in failed politicians and party advisers, who then continue to play out their political careers on the red benches rather than the green.
Perhaps most importantly, why are there so many of them? With 785 peers, the House of Lords is almost the most crowded legislative body in the world – bigger than the European parliament, and second only to China’s National People’s Congress.
The problem is that, while there is near-universal acceptance that the Lords in its current form doesn’t make sense, finding a viable alternative is harder than it looks.
Scrapping the upper chamber altogether is a risky move. While some other countries do have unicameral systems, there is clear value in having a mechanism that takes a longer-term view of legislation, that is less influenced by the fickle winds of public sentiment and party politics.
Of course, any attempt to make the Lords more “democratic”, by electing rather than appointing peers, will impact its ability to resist the tides of the electoral cycle. Moreover, our less-than-enthusiastic response to electing MEPs (35.6 per cent turnout in 2014) and police and crime commissioners (26 per cent turnout in 2016) does not suggest that the British public is itching for yet another set of elections.
There’s also a creative movement to replace the House of Lords with a jury duty style system of citizen service. But even putting the logistical issues to one side, you’d still get the same backlash any time this chamber of selected citizens blocked the wishes of elected MPs.
The most feasible – if unsatisfactorily moderate – option may be to simply cut the numbers (scrapping bishops, hereditary peers, and partisan hacks for a start) and tighten up exactly what powers they have in comparison to MPs. Limited terms may also be a good idea, giving peers long enough to become acquainted with the process and see legislation through, then freeing up their seats for a fresh generation.
And perhaps we should remove the status angle, separating the honour of a title from the right to make UK laws, and call members legislators rather than lords and baronesses (though this may be a step too far for traditionalists).
There have been countless petitions to rethink the system in the past, none of which have progressed much beyond indifference. But the Brexit process has broken down party lines and united former adversaries around a common cause. Maybe this is our moment for House of Lords reform too.
Read more: Rudd: Discussions ongoing over “final position” on customs union