The House of Lords: Why the carehome of Westminster needs reform

The House of Lords; a collection of almost 800 peers, some are hereditary, but most have been granted the position for life by the Queen, at the suggestion of the Prime Minister. This melting pot of old money, party backers and ex-MPs comprise the second largest decision-making body in the world, second only to the National People’s congress of China. This gargantuan body of unelected lords plays a vital part in UK democracy; while they are generally unable to fully prevent legislature from being passed, they are able to delay bills and add amendments to be considered in the commons. In this way they generally are able to prevent what the Telegraph’s Peter Osborne called ‘populist measures introduced by governments determined to bolster their right-wing credentials’, for a recent example of this one only has to look to Boris Johnson’s recent Internal Markets Bill which was decisively condemned in parliament’s upper house.

Graph showing the age distribution of the Lords (Mail Online)

While the House of Lords generally fulfils its purpose of checking the power of the executive, the problem lies in the peers themselves. The unelected, often geriatric Lords are not only ineffective and undemocratic, but also undermine the entire concept of a British democracy. When discussing presidential hopeful Joe Biden, a (probably valid) criticism that is often heard is that he is too old; Biden, at 77 is younger than 231 current peers of the House of Lords, 29 of which are over 90. In fact, with the average age of a sitting peer being 70, it is no surprise that critics such as Lib Dem peer Lord Tyler, who is himself 73 have referred to the Lords as, ‘London’s best day centre for the elderly’. This overwhelming majority of OAPs given massive legislative power alienates much of the UK and is likely to entrench conservative ideology in the Lords for years to come.

Partisan alignment in the House of Lords (reserachbrieings.parlaiment.uk)

On top of this, the process of appointing peers verges on authoritarian. There are no constraints on how many peers a Prime Minister can instruct the queen to appoint, a PM can choose when to appoint, how many to appoint and who to appoint. On top of this there are no regulations concerning party alignment of lords leading to a house potentially with peers aligned to one party. In the latest batch of new peerages, 36 new lords were appointed. Members of these 36 include the Russian newspaper tycoon and son of an ex-KGB agent, Evgeny Lebedev and the Prime Minister’s own brother, Jo Johnson. You may find yourself wondering what business these underqualified individuals have being given political and legislative power, but the truth is that peerages are granted as boons to friends or patrons to PMs. This corruption is not a new phenomenon either; in March 2006 the metropolitan police opened and inquiry into reports that peerages have been sold by the Labour government of the day as it emerged that four business men had been nominated for peerages following a combined £5 million donation. This appointment of friends and financial backers not only potentially promotes underqualified lapdogs to a position of great political importance but quintessentially undermines the democratic integrity of the United Kingdom. Another concern with the members of the House of Lords is the automatic appointment of Bishops, this makes the UK the only country in the world apart from Iran to appoint religious figures to parliamentary position. This enforces Christianity on a country in which only 6% of adults are practicing Christians. The House of Lords also provided a political loophole for MPs failing to win re-election, recently Ex-tory MP, Nicky Morgan has been made a conservative peer and so is able to remain a member of Johnson’s cabinet. This explicitly goes against the will of the people, instead favouring an outdated and undemocratic method of government that leaves citizens of the UK unable to hold to account many members of Parliament’s upper house.

All 800 peers are paid a daily allowance of around £300, this is a preposterous use of tax payer’s money which leads to situations such as a peer in 2017 leaving his taxi running as he dashed into parliament to claim his £300. In a BBC documentary about the lords, Lady D’Souza, former speaker for the upper chamber said that ‘there are, sad to say, many, many, many peers who contribute absolutely nothing but who claim full allowance’. This, I think, epitomises the backwards nature of the House of Lords and should be all the evidence anyone needs to promote a reform.

So, what needs to be done to preserve the integrity of British democracy? Proposed legislature such as the internal markets bill has demonstrated the need for a second house within parliament to keep the government’s idiotic streak in check, but a democratic process must be implemented to the Lords for it to be a modern, relevant and effective political institution.

(Cover photo - Sky)