An idea for institutional change
31st March, 2024
The Labour Party have promised to reform the UK House of Lords if elected this year.
Lords reform seems like an unimportant issue. Few people care deeply about it. But the appointed Lords are often the last line of defence against bad laws passed by the elected Commons. Many Lords have expertise in some area â a science, an industry â which makes them better at scrutinizing legislation than overworked or uninterested MPs.
Even so, I agree that the House of Lords needs to change:
For one thing, itâs too big.
The House of Lords is far larger than the Upper House in similar Westminster-style systems. Compare the almost-800 sitting peers with the 106 Canadian senators or 76 Australian senators. There is not even enough physical space for all the peers in the House of Lords chamber.
For another, operative political power should not be inheritable.
The House of Lords still has 92 hereditary peers, appointed by and from a group of about a thousand people who inherit their titles. Itâs just not sensible, as a rule, for seats in Parliament to be handed out like that. (I write this while in very distant remainder to a Scottish peerage myself.)
How, then, to reform the Lords?
Below are my suggestions for Sir Keir Starmer, who will almost certainly be Prime Minister by the end of the year.
Good reforms would:
Maintain the primacy of the elected House of Commons.
Allow for high-quality scrutiny of legislation from experts who would not otherwise stand for election.
Preserve the United Kingdomâs culture and history.
With that in mind, I propose to:
Retain an appointed, rather than elected, upper house.
Itâs important not to undermine the legitimacy of the House of Commons.
An elected upper house would cause unnecessary deadlock, especially if different parties controlled the two chambers.
Abolish 90 of the 92 guaranteed seats for hereditary peers, and the 26 Lords Spiritual.
The two constitutionally required lords (the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain) can stay for the time being.
Without hereditary peers and Lords Spiritual, about 675 peers would remain.
Cap the House of Lords at 650 members, the same as the House of Commons.
This would reduce overcrowding in the House of Lords chamber, which is built for only 400 people.
Like today, the monarch, on the advice of the Prime Minister, would appoint new members of the House of Lords whenever a current member retires or dies, up to the 650 limit.
Slowly shrink the House of Lords to 650 members by adopting a two-out, one-in policy until the target membership is reached.
Keep it so that members of the House of Lords are appointed by the monarch on the advice the Prime Minister.
Keep the convention that, via the Prime Minister, opposition party leaders also recommend a number of new members to monarch.
To sit in the House of Lords, it should be necessary, but not sufficient, to be a peer, either life or hereditary.
Otherwise it wouldnât be the House of âLordsâ.
In the current system, becoming a life peer automatically entitles you to sit in the House of Lords. Why not separate the two events, making becoming a peer and joining the House of Lords two distinct things?
When a government wants to appoint someone who is not already a peer to the House of Lords, they must first elevate them to a peerage, and then send them to the Lords.
In practice this could be done simultaneously.
Of course, if a candidate for appointment is already a peer (life or hereditary), then they could simply be appointed, without the need to make them a peer first.
These changes would even let the government start giving out new hereditary peerages if it wanted.
Titles cost nothing, but people value them a lot, especially if they can pass them on. We should use that to encourage people to do great things.
The UK could make people Viscount so-and-so like the USA gives out Presidential Medals of Freedom.
I eagerly anticipate a job offer from Sir Keir Starmer, to implement these reforms as quickly as possible.