A voyage into the ‘Bermuda triangle’ of British Politics - Evaluating House of Lords Reform Debates
By Mahek Bhatia
Date: 20th November 2023
The House of Lords Courtesy of the UK Parliament (2008)
Introduction
The UK Parliament is composed of two chambers: the House of Commons (elected) and the House of Lords (unelected). Members of the House of Lords (HOL) are mainly appointed. As of 2023, there are 780 members or ‘peers’ in the chamber. Their role is to scrutinise proposed legislation that has passed through the House of Commons, and examine the actions of the government. The HOL consists of life peers, hereditary peers, and Church of England bishops and archbishops. Peers are seen as bringing a range of expertise to their work as they are typically drawn from various fields such as academia, law, culture, science, business, and public service.
The House of Lords holds less power than the House of Commons. Reforms, such as the Parliament Acts of 1911-1949, have imposed restrictions on the powers of the HOL, which previously had the authority to prevent the implementation of legislation. That being said, the chamber still has a very pertinent role in the legislative process. Their amendments to bills are mostly recognised by the Commons. At this stage, it becomes necessary to evaluate the relationship between the Commons and the Lords. Lord Norton and Maer describe the House of Lords (HOL) as having a more complementary relationship than a competitive clash with the Commons. Their relationship is characterised by both restraint and cooperation.
Lord Hennessy famously described the debate surrounding the reform of the House of Lords as the ‘Bermuda triangle’ of British politics- ‘people go into it, some never reappear, others appear singed, vowing one thing, never to return’. The author, within this article, will attempt to embark on a metaphorical voyage into this very elusive Bermuda triangle of reform. This undertaking will involve analysing previous explorations made by relevant stakeholders and the waves that may lie ahead. Lord Hennessy’s metaphor reflects the complex nature of the discourse surrounding reform, which is riddled with challenges, yet has the transformative power to drown and reshape UK politics.
The Case For Reform
Before dissecting the proposals for reform, it is imperative to extrapolate the motivations propelling such endeavours. Fervent calls for reform have originated within constitutional and political discourses, many often highlighting key issues with the HOL, the foremost concern being the ever-growing size of the chamber and the subsequent expense that it generates. Peers, even those inactive in House debates, arguably claim hefty allowances, and questions about whether the chamber is worth the cost it generates are subsequently raised. Secondly, there are concerns surrounding the democratic legitimacy of the chamber. The composition of the HOL has also been subject to scrutiny. The underrepresentation of women (constituting 27%) and individuals from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds (comprising 5.4%) within the chamber, as articulated by Elliott and Thomas, engenders rightful critique. Having set the scene with the calls for reform, let us now analyse reform proposals.
The House of Lords in Action. Courtesy of Carl Court (2019).
Reform 1: Abolishing the Lords?
The inaugural proposition presents an exceedingly radical notion – abolishing the Lords. Advocates for this proposal assert that the bicameral legislature must be discarded and replaced with a unicameral system. This proposal resurfaced during the Labour leadership election, brought forward by Rebecca Long-Bailey, a Labour party MP. Gordon Brown, who previously served as the Prime Minister of the UK, also asserted that Labour must abolish the ‘indefensible’ HOL. Owen Jones, a columnist and political commentator, presents similar propositions, stating that we must ‘simply dispose’ of the HOL. He highlights serious concerns within the chamber, suggesting that it is permeated with nepotism. Jones suggests that inspiration should be taken from unicameral systems like that of New Zealand, Norway or Finland. Their system, comprising of a single legislative chamber has democratic legitimacy, as it is an elected body. Within his proposal, he suggests that to avoid concentrating power in the executive, there should be a focus on increasing checks and balances within Parliament. This would be part of a wider constitutional change in Britain, encompassing ideas like electoral reform. Jones’ arguments seem convincing on the surface- the case for abolition is rather strong, and would yield substantial fiscal savings. Currently, the HOL costs 90-95 million pounds to run annually, and the money and space saved by abolishing the Lords could be utilised for other purposes. This proposal, whilst ostensibly persuasive, is deeply flawed- abolition is a disastrous choice. There is universal agreement that a fair amount of legislation that appears from the House of Commons is a ‘mess’, ‘ill-considered’, ‘badly drafted’, and not ‘fit for purpose’ (Anthony King, The British Constitution). With abolition, the scrutiny function performed by Lords would elicit replacement. Peers also provide resistance to ‘power-grabbing’ legislation such as the Original Schools Bill. The scrutiny function of the Lords was demonstrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who voiced his opposition to the Small Boats Bill (The Illegal Migration Bill, now The Illegal Migration Act) in May, describing it as ‘isolationist’, ‘morally unacceptable’ and ‘politically impractical’. Abolition would prevent such voices from having any influence or sway in the Commons. Furthermore, it is imperative to acknowledge the vast size and considerable diversity characterising the United Kingdom, attributes traditionally linked with bicameral parliamentary systems. The case for abolition is fraught with difficulties. Despite the criticisms, these reform proposals cannot be ignored- there is a likelihood that Sir Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, may commit to the abolition of the House of Lords if elected, as reported by The Guardian.
Reform 2: An elected chamber?
A session in the House of Lords. Courtesy of The Institute for Government (2023).
Rather than complete abolition, some advocate for the replacement of the HOL with an elected chamber. This is a mainstream position occasionally mentioned in political discourse in recent years. In 2008, the government suggested that a reformed second chamber must be elected. Yet, to preserve an independent and expert element, 20% of members should be independent appointees. Most suggestions include a small number of appointed members to retain expertise in various fields. This majority-elected, minority-appointed system was set out in the Clegg Bill and supported by the Brown government. On the surface, this reform seems effective. It would provide democratic legitimacy to the House of Lords. However, upon closer scrutiny of the reform proposal, it becomes evident that it is replete with challenges. Democratic legitimacy generated through elections, according to Peter Leyland, could be ‘problematic’. As a result, The House of Lords may act as a competitor to the House of Commons, which could cause delays in passing legislation, disrupting the ordinary government process. Bogdanor remarks that electing the HOL would make Britain more ‘difficult to govern’. There is also a concern that the House of Lords may mirror the ‘political tribalism’ of the House of Commons, causing the chamber to turn into a ‘replica House of Commons’. Politicians, mindful of potential voters, may be less likely to display the political independence that has been depicted by the members of the House of Lords. A comparative study of the legislatures in Ireland, Spain and Italy, suggests that an elected second chamber could end up being an ineffective legislative body if the government enjoys a majority in both Houses. Since the role of the House of Lords is to scrutinise legislation, this reform is rather problematic. Jones rejects the idea of an elected body as it is likely that a proportional electoral system would be established. This would result in a ‘clash’ between the two chambers over which House garners more legitimacy. Thus, a proposal to elect the second chamber, whilst providing democratic legitimacy, is fraught with serious concerns.
Reform 3: Relocation?
The Queen’s Speech in the House of Lords Courtesy of the UK Parliament (2012),
The most widely discussed proposal is to move the HOL to the city of York (although locations like Birmingham have also been suggested). The rationale behind this relocation is territorial rebalancing, and restructuring parliamentary arrangements away to other parts of the UK. Government insiders have gone as far as to scope a possible site. Whilst some locals have accepted the proposal, others have rejected the idea and called it ‘symbolic and superficial’. The reform would certainly cause short-term upheaval and result in a significant increase in expenditure for the state. There are also good reasons to have geographical proximity. If ministers and officials are to be held accountable and questioned in both chambers, it is convenient to have both chambers in one city. Secondly, informal politics often ensues in the corridors of Westminster. Geographical separation would steer conflicts between the chambers. Several concerns are expressed about relocation by prominent figures such as Lord William Hague (former Conservative leader and Yorkshireman), who is ‘not so sure’ about the proposal. We can conclude that this proposal is unsatisfactory. Peers themselves are ‘outraged’ by this proposal, as reported by the National in 2022. Lord Norton of Louth, asserting the need for both chambers to be in one location, accused this proposal of being ‘a power grab by the executive’. Former Lord Speaker Lord Fowler called this proposal a mere ‘empty public relations measure’ with ‘a range of practical drawbacks’.
Reform 4: Reducing the size?
Lord Norman Fowler in his previously held role of Lord Speaker. Courtesy of PA Images (2019)
Sir Norman Fowler, a member of the HOL, denounces a faction of peers colloquially termed ‘passengers’ within the allegedly ‘bloated’ chamber. According to him, they make little to no contribution to debates. Despite being a minority, they undo the pertinent work done by the majority.
We turn to the final and most convincing proposal, one initiated by the House of Lords itself. It is to reduce the number of peers in the chamber. This was a result of a report initiated by a committee under the chairmanship of Terry Burns. As previously noted, as of 2023, there are 780 members or ‘peers’ in the chamber. The report aims to witness the total membership of the House capped at 600. Additionally, they strive to employ fixed terms for new members. Fowler, who was involved in the setting up of the commission, has introduced a dual reform; to reduce numbers and initiate a mechanism to assess whether new candidates are willing to make contributions to debate at a similar level to current peers. He proposes a system in which, upon the confirmation of appointment, the appointment commission would question each candidate about their contribution to the chamber. Such a reform, reducing the Lords’ size and evaluating individual contributions, aligns with pragmatic capabilities and offers a realistic solution. Notably, this approach effectively addresses some of the prevalent criticisms surrounding the Lords, particularly those surrounding financial burdens.
Russell argues that a compulsory retirement age must be introduced for peers. This could be another way of reducing the ‘ballooning’ size of the chamber. Several groups have proposed a retirement age of 80. Whilst this would affect Labour peers and crossbenchers disproportionately, as Russell asserts, this could be compensated through new appointments. The concept of limiting the power of the executive to create new peers in the House of Lords has also been suggested. As early as 1719, a bill was proposed to restrict the number of new peers, but it was not passed. Fowler proposed a temporary ban on new appointments until the size of the Lords is reduced. Lord Burns also suggested limits on appointment numbers. These proposals were endorsed by the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The Constitution Unit has also recommended a moratorium on appointments since 2011, as they found that without control, the chamber could reach 2000 members. Many members of the Lords support this action. However, this requires the Prime Minister to give up some of their patronage power. Russell’s reform proposals could be effectively combined with those generated by Fowler, encompassing a broader umbrella of incremental HOL reform.
The preeminent proposal for holistic reform, incorporating incremental steps to diminish the size of the HOL while concurrently enhancing its efficiency, stands as the most prudent course of action. This comprehensive strategy falls within our current national capabilities and adeptly addresses previously stated concerns regarding the Lords. Through the phased implementation of measures, it seeks to adeptly navigate the intricacies of HOL reform providing a viable and comprehensive solution to improve its effectiveness.
Conclusion
This article embarked on a scholarly exploration into Hennessy’s metaphorical Bermuda Triangle, offering an analysis of a spectrum of ‘waves’ or previously proposed reforms. Reform propositions, including those advocating abolition, election, and relocation, have been carefully extrapolated, revealing inherent concerns expounded. Consequently, I submit that the most realistic and compelling policy reform currently lies in incremental measures. Specifically, there is a need to concentrate efforts on reducing the number of Lords while concurrently enhancing their efficiency. We must reinstate our focus on passengers who remain inactive in debates and invalidate the work of other peers. I believe that the scrutiny function and expertise of the House of Lords is irreplaceable. Abolition may create a ‘scrutiny vacuum’ of sorts, facilitating the passage of poorly drafted legislation. Reforms, therefore, must focus on altering the present functions of the HOL to ensure that the institution is fit for purpose.
Copyright © 2023 Sparklight Media