The debate on how to reform the House of Lords has gone on for many generations. It began before this but the 1911 Preamble to the Parliament Act commits to replacing the Lords with a Chamber constituted on a popular not hereditary basis. Over a century later, we are still waiting.
Recently, Peers debated a Bill that would take a modest step towards that ambition and allow the public to have their say on what should replace the House of Lords. Yet, the Government and Peers were reluctant to commit to a timetable on fulfilling their manifesto promise:
“Whilst this action to modernise the House of Lords will be an improvement, Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Labour will consult on proposals, seeking the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them.”
What does the Bill propose?
Baroness Carmen Smith of Llanfaes, the youngest Peer in the House of Lords, laid a Private Members Bill in the Lords that would have forced the government to consult Ministers, devolved governments, civil society and most importantly, the public on what changes they would like to see made to the House. The purpose of the Bill was to hold the government accountable for its commitment to a second chamber which better represents the regions and nations.
The Bill requires this consultation period to have begun within six months of it being passed and run for at least 12 weeks. The Government would be compelled to publish its response to it within six months of its conclusion.
The notable difference to other debates on Lords reform that arose from this Bill is that it stipulated that the public must be allowed to have their say.
The Bill does not pre-empt what a reformed House of Lords would look like or what powers it would have. It would simply require the government to begin a process they have already promised us and ensure that the public deserves a say in deciding the outcome.
Surprising agreement
In the recent spate of debates on reform in the House of Lords, there is always a surprising amount of agreement amongst Peers.
However, the agreement is always that the House needs reform. Not what reform that should be. Lord Hannah of Kingsclere laid this out by saying: “Everyone is in favour of it on paper, yet somehow it never becomes a proposal”.
The public element of Baroness Smith’s Bill received considerable support, however. Baroness O’Grady strongly supported public consultation on the grounds of low public trust in political institutions. Lord Scriven explicitly supported the Bill and challenged the government on their lack of a timetable to consult on a senate of the regions and nations.
The objectors: Why change a House that works?
The main objections were about the value of the House and the risks of reform.
Baroness Finn argued that the effectiveness of the Lords grants it legitimacy, and she and Lord Bourne emphasised the expertise and scrutiny capacity provided by the House. However, effective scrutiny and democratic accountability via elections or public involvement in the debate for reform of the House of Lords are not mutually exclusive.
Critics also warned about the risks if the House of Lords becomes elected and the potential for it to challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. Some even alluded to it being more legitimate than the House of Commons should it be chosen via a form of proportional representation. However, Baroness Smith herself took on these arguments and asked why democratic legitimacy would be an issue for an institution which would help make our laws.
The expertise and opportunity for scrutiny in the House of Lords is absolutely worth preserving. What isn’t is the absence of democratic accountability.
The Government’s response
Baroness Twycross acknowledged the commitment in the government’s 2024 manifesto but claimed that the Private Members’ Bill would constrain the government prematurely. She highlighted the achievement of the removal of the Hereditary Peers as evidence of progress.
When she was challenged by Lord Scriven on whether the Government intended to begin or conclude a consultation process before the next general election, she said: “I cannot say now exactly when it would start”.
The Government has made headway with reform of the House of Lords by abolishing the Hereditary Peerage from the Lords. However, given the great ambition of their 2024 manifesto to better represent our regions and nations in the House, it should be taken as a first step and not the only progress made on reform of the House.
The government has already promised this; it shouldn’t take another election to find out when that conversation with the public will begin.
Reform should not remain a conversation between Peers
Baroness Smith mentioned that growing up in Ynys Môn, she felt distant from Westminster and that she wants to see everyone have a voice in the institutions that govern them.
We agree that the future of the House of Lords should stop being solely decided by the people who happen to sit in it. It is time for the public to have a say.
Add your name to the call