The House of Lords: An institution beyond repair

“What about the history?”, the constitutional anachronisms proclaim whilst extolling the constitutional and cultural ‘brilliance’ of Britain’s unelected second chamber. But what about the present? The House of Lords has devolved into a political tool rather than a political asset, wielded by Prime Ministers to secure loyalty amongst the backbenches with the promise of peerages – an enticing gateway to status and wealth. Today, the Lords maintains notoriety in only its shortcomings and outdatedness. We should consider its abolition a political necessity – focusing on what comes next, as opposed to continually evaluating this undemocratic relic.

The House of Lords functions as a revisory second chamber, ostensibly providing an invisible legislative value through wisdom and expertise. It’s like your slightly xenophobic Grandfather who’ll help you “see the world in a different light”. Defending the Lords often involves listing specific niche peers who hold great expertise in particular fields. This argument holds some merit: some peers provide genuine expertise and integrity. I have had the pleasure of several  exchanges with Baron Norton of Louth, whom although I disagree with on many political matters (including the topic of this very article), has been described as a “world authority on constitutional issues”, exemplifying the isolated intellectual calibre that can exist in the second chamber. Such individuals are, however, the exception, not the rule.

The reality is most peers are former political figures. Over a fifth are former MPs, with 112 other members having served as MEPs, in regional assemblies, and as council leaders, not to mention the abundance of civil servants and special advisors. While some possess relevant experience, most are merely reaping the rewards of unwavering party loyalty. Recent analysis from The Guardian revealed that 1 in 10 Lords receive payments from businesses and lobbyists. It is doubtful that these peers are being paid to be pretty, so unless falling asleep during debates is a desirable trait, the second chamber appears behaviourally corrupt and structurally unable to be otherwise.

When discussing the state of the House of Lords, hereditary peers have to be considered. Hereditary peers (those who have inherited their Lordship from a parent) are archaic curios that stain contemporary British democracy. Although Tony Blair’s admirable 1999 House of Lords Act removed 667 of them, 92 remain. These entitled aristocrats yield legislative influence by virtue of ancestry, an indefensible constitutional anomaly – they need to be swiftly purged. Their removal, currently under pursuance by the Starmer administration, is long overdue.

But, will this reform fix the Lords? Deeper flaws evidently persist; it won’t address the institutions’ corruption, or how it facilitates the appointment of unelected cabinet members. Far from needing a history textbook to be exemplified, former Prime Minister David Cameron served, through the House of Lords, as an unelected Foreign Secretary in the recent Sunak administration.

Further, the reform also won’t alter the Lords’ status as a tool for Prime Ministers. The Lords is a carrot firmly in the grasp of the PM, who has the power to appoint people to it. It is dangled over MPs as a reward for party loyalty, especially at moments in which their party may not be performing admirably for said MP’s constituents. The draw is obvious: the ease of a lifetime of red-bench-living, lucrative income, allowances, and a prestigious title. Although party loyalty is an important element of effective governance within these fair isles, so are the independent voices and elected platforms of our Parliamentary representatives. Their industry and judgement define our democratic representation, which flies close to the sun when we threaten it by continually lauding peerages over MPs like a toy rat above a house cat as a means of suppressing independent political judgement.

At its core, the House of Lords is a feudal remnant that fosters elitism, facilitates undemocratic appointments to high office, enables corporate influence over policy, and crushes elected independence, with limited contribution to public policy in terms of merit and consistency. Instead of patching over these foundational flaws, we should consider abolition – dismantling the Lords entirely, allowing for a second chamber (although not strictly necessary) to be constructed from the ground up. One cannot fix what is inherently broken.

The real debate is not one over the House of Lords, but instead, what should replace it. Elected second chamber options include the creation of a system akin to the US Senate, or an assembly of the regions and nations, as suggested by Gordon Brown. Alternatively – it can be argued we don’t need a second chamber at all. There is no reason the minimal but still apparent expertise some Lords provide could not be channelled through the Commons or select committees.

Regardless, the Lords is beyond mere reform. We ought to accept that, and instead of clinging to an anachronistic institution, focus on what comes after. Considering the Lords’ persistent survival, perhaps this view can be classified as utopian, perhaps political forces will never allow the Lords’ abolition. But if striving for it is idealistic, then so be it. As Oscar Wilde put it: “A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not even worth glancing at”.