It’s beginning to look a lot like… a hold up?
In recent months, several government bills have been facing extended scrutiny in the House of Lords. While careful examination of legislation is an important part of parliamentary work, some of these delays looks less like careful scrutiny and more like deliberate obstruction.
Lord True, the Conservative leader in the Lords, warned ministers they would face “very aggressive procedural action” if they went ahead with removing the hereditary peers.
And as promised, peers submitted 46 pages of amendments at committee stage, for the two-page House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. A simple manifesto promise, passed by the House of Commons, has still not got out of the House of Lords.
But it’s not just in saving their own jobs where the peers have decided to spend time.
Peers have also been in the headlines in the past few weeks for their interventions and amendments to hugely significant legislation such as the government’s Employment Rights Bill and the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
A chamber with great power and no accountability
Peers hold genuine political power – shaping legislation, influencing government priorities, and controlling parliamentary timing – yet remain completely unaccountable to voters. This is not a minor quirk; it is a profound democratic deficit.
It’s not up to us to decide if the House of Lords is doing the right thing in delaying these bills. But we should be able to hold them to account for those choices.
These are not all technical fixes in line with the spirit of the legislation but often attempts to re-write or block the law. Gaining a seat in the Lords by being friends with the prime minister or being a major party donor does not confer a right to decide which laws should pass and which delayed.
The second chamber should be able to scrutinise legislation and ask the government to think again, but in the knowledge they will be held to account for their actions. Right now, there is no mechanism for the public to reward effective oversight or to respond if peers obstruct legislation.
Power with no accountability is rarely a good combination.
‘Tis the season for real democratic reform
When unelected politicians can slow, stretch and stall laws promised to voters – not because they are flawed, but because they threaten their own status – public trust erodes. The system starts to look closed, self-protecting and hostile to change.
The more the House of Lords leans into obstruction as a tactic, the clearer the case becomes for a second chamber that is modern, democratic, and accountable. An elected House of Lords would mean peers answer to voters, not to inherited privilege or party games. Obstruction would carry consequences, and scrutiny would serve the public interest rather than private interests.
All we want for Christmas is stronger democracy – but do you agree?
Add your name to our call for an elected second chamber