Andy Burnham began his Premiership with promises of change and a break with the past way of doing politics.
Which is why one of his government’s first decisions deserves scrutiny. Anas Sarwar, the outgoing leader of the Scottish Labour Party, has been appointed to the House of Lords in order to serve as a Minister for Trade. Consequently, he will vacate his seat in Holyrood and leadership of his party.
There is no suggestion that Sarwar lacks enough experience to serve in government. But the route he has taken to get there raises a bigger question, how does this really look to the public?
Power, no election needed.
As a result of his appointment, Sarwar – someone not elected to serve in Westminster – now has a direct role in shaping laws and trade deals for the whole country. Without the voters so much as being asked.
This is possible because British Prime Ministers retain incredible powers of patronage. They can appoint anyone to the House of Lords and then select them to serve in the government. A famous recent example was the return of former Prime Minister David Cameron into the role of Foreign Secretary by Rishi Sunak. To many voters, this risks looking like the “jobs for mates” political culture which Burnham promised to leave behind.
A Ministerial job is temporary, they can last months or years, but a seat in the House of Lords lasts a lifetime. Long after he stops being a Minister, Anas Sarwar will retain his seat and therefore, his power to shape and influence the laws of this country.
This matters because the House of Lords is already bloated and unrepresentative. At almost 800 members it is the second largest legislative chamber in the world. Only China’s National People’s Congress is bigger. Prime Minister after Prime Minister has continued to appoint former politicians, allies, and party donors to make an already bloated second chamber even bigger.
The problem is not just the appointment of Sarwar, it is the system which supports it. A system where access to our laws is still being granted by political leaders and not voters.
Sarwar was right about the Lords
Sarwar himself has recognised these issues with the House of Lords and made the case for change. In a 2022 interview, Sarwar said: “The House of Lords must be abolished and replaced with an institution which better reflects the make-up and the identity of the United Kingdom”. He argued that it was unacceptable for unelected people to hold such power and agreed with proposals to reform the Chamber into an elected senate of the nations and regions.
We agree with this, an elected House of Lords can and should play a role in scrutinising legislation, challenging governments and representing the people of this country. However, those who exercise power over British people should be accountable to and chosen by the British people.
A crisis in trust
Appointments to the House of Lords should not be seen as Westminster housekeeping. They are taking place at a moment when the public’s trust in politics and politicians is at an all time low.
According to Ipsos, just nine percent of people say they trust politicians to tell the truth. YouGov polling reveals that only 16% of the public support the Lords’ in its current form, 55% of us support an entirely elected upper chamber. The most recent British Social Attitudes survey shows that 45% of us would ‘almost never’ trust any British government to put the needs of the nation above the interests of their party, higher than ever before.
Too much of life in Westminster already looks remote and self-serving to the voting population and every new friend of the Prime Minister given a job for life in the House of Lords risks reinforcing this.
From words to meaningful change
In the past, Andy Burnham has spoken positively of the need to reform the House of Lords. In an interview with The House magazine he called for an indirectly elected second chamber saying, “I’m not going to hold back on it [reform], actually because I just think we’ve allowed this to persist for too long”. His framing is as part of his wider programme of rewiring Britain and using the second chamber to achieve better regional representation of the UK in government, something we look at in our report Unfinished Business.
This is a very welcome starting point; however, the British public is entitled to expect his actions to reflect this standard.
Without action, the House of Lords will remain a drag on British democracy. Every new Prime Minister will appoint new Peers to counteract their predecessor. Each controversy will further corrode public trust.
We need a smaller, elected second chamber that gets on with its job of holding the government to account, and can be held accountable in turn.
Do you agree with Anas Sarwar that the House of Lords needs to be reformed?
Add your name to our call