Get The FT View updates for free
Subscribe to the myFT Daily Digest email and stay informed about the latest The FT View news every morning.
If the replacement of the UK’s House of Lords were a simple task, it would have already been accomplished. The arguments in favor of reforming the second chamber of parliament are strong. Its system of patronage leads to cronyism and worse. With its assortment of appointees, political operatives, party donors, 26 Church of England bishops, and over 90 hereditary peers, it is a democratic disgrace. It is also antiquated, lacking diversity in age and representation, and excessively large with close to 800 members.
Despite its weaknesses, the Lords survives due to its limited power. While it can delay legislation, it does not possess the ability to defy the elected Commons. Additionally, the Lords performs a crucial role as a chamber of revision, accomplishing this task effectively without causing gridlock. Its debates far surpass those in the Commons, and it offers a means to bring ministerial expertise into parliament. However, recent controversies surrounding Boris Johnson’s and Liz Truss’s honours lists have demonstrated abuse of the system for patronage. While its flaws are evident, the lack of a consensus on how to replace it allows its continuation.
Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour party have pledged to replace the current Lords with an elected chamber, although there have been indications of wavering commitment. There is now mention of “interim” reform. Some changes, such as the removal of the 92 hereditary peers, are easily imaginable and supported. Birthright should not entitle individuals to a legislative position. Other options include implementing time limits or a mandatory retirement age, as well as a “one in, two out” policy to reduce its size. The automatic seats for bishops should also be eliminated or, at the very least, reduced.
However, when discussing broader reforms, agreement quickly dissipates. Gordon Brown’s report for Starmer proposes replacing the Lords with a smaller elected Assembly of the Nations and Regions to enhance geographic representation, with specific responsibilities and powers to safeguard the UK’s devolution settlement and reject constitutional changes. Any discussion on the future composition of the Lords should commence with a clear understanding of its purpose and powers. Although the Brown report partially addresses the purpose, it falls short in determining powers, appearing somewhat driven by Brown’s desire to counter Scottish independence, without providing spending powers or the right to initiate legislation that would satisfy separatists.
Alongside its role in protecting devolution, Brown largely maintains the chamber’s current powers. However, by calling for an elected chamber that operates at different times than the Commons, he inadvertently creates conditions that could challenge the supremacy of Members of Parliament by claiming greater legitimacy. Precise regulations will be necessary to prevent such a scenario. Furthermore, the essential role of the Lords as a revising chamber will be compromised as experienced legislators are replaced by ambitious party loyalists. If the chamber is perceived merely as a stepping stone to the Commons, it will fail in its primary mission, particularly if reform results in the loss of independent and knowledgeable crossbenchers.
There is also an argument for granting seats to elected mayors and leaders of devolved parliaments. Nevertheless, any debate on the future of the Lords must begin by recognizing, protecting, and ideally strengthening its primary function as a revising chamber, responsible for rectifying flawed legislation.
While the era of an appointed chamber has clearly passed, the next steps must be carefully deliberated and should enjoy cross-party agreement. Starmer, if elected, should implement interim reforms while making it unequivocally clear that the commitment to an elected chamber remains non-negotiable. Regardless of the complexities involved, the time has come to relegate unelected legislators to the annals of history.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
