Think twice before shaking up the House of Lords, says its speaker

IT IS THE peculiar fate of the House of Lords, the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, to be rarely in the headlines except when there are calls for its reform or abolition. Now is one of those times.

In my non-political role as Lord Speaker, which includes chairing the chamber’s daily business, it is not for me to promote a favoured blueprint for a future upper house. However, it is my duty to ensure that any debate is conducted with proper understanding both of the work that the Lords performs and the pros and cons of current arrangements.

We live in a democratic system. It is easy to assume that this simple fact renders an unelected House of Lords “indefensible”, as asserted in a recent report recommending its replacement with an Assembly of the Nations and Regions.

However, of the 78 second chambers globally, just 20 are wholly directly elected. Many of these—not least the United States Senate—are the subject of domestic controversy. Others have a mix of direct or indirect election and appointment, with 15 wholly appointed.

The composition of the House of Lords is indeed unique: a mixture of lifetime appointees, hereditary peers and Church of England bishops. But this does not in itself make it anachronistic or unacceptable. More important is the quality of its work and the impact this has on the governance of our nation.

In his recent book, “How Westminster Works…and Why it Doesn’t”, Ian Dunt described the Lords as being “one of the only aspects of our constitutional arrangements that actually works”, pointing to its record of diligence, expertise, independence and consensus.

During the passage of legislation through Parliament, it is in the Lords that a bill receives detailed line-by-line scrutiny. With no guillotine on debate and no restrictions on which amendments can be debated, unlike in the House of Commons, the lower chamber, discussions continue for as long as it takes. With no overall party majority, ministers must proceed by persuasion rather than force of numbers, often seeking support from the 25% of peers who have no political affiliation. Without the need to secure re-election, peers can focus on the substance of issues, rather than chasing headlines or indulging in partisan point-scoring.

Government defeats occur more frequently in the Lords than in the Commons—around 100 in a typical session. But when they are overturned by MPs, peers most often back down, accepting that the elected Commons must have the final say.

More significant are the 1,000-plus amendments passed in the Lords annually with government backing. These often represent ministers revising plans in response to concerns raised by peers. University College London’s Constitution Unit estimated that 55% of changes to legislation made during passage through Parliament occur this way.

However awkward this may be for ministers, many acknowledge that it helps highlight difficulties and prevent unintended consequences. This is the case, in no small part, because of the expertise and experience on offer in the second chamber.

The appointments system means that the Lords’ red benches are home to eminent figures from all corners of public life: scientists, doctors, diplomats and judges; business leaders and trade unionists; campaigners for civil liberties and disability rights; environmentalists, academics and engineers. Their presence reflects the fact that the life of the nation resides not only in political parties, but is expressed through organisations of many kinds. It makes the second chamber a forum for the discourse of civil society.

That expertise is to the fore in Lords committees, whose reports are recognised for their astute analysis of crucial long-term issues. For example, as long ago as 2021 the Economic Affairs Committee was raising the alarm over looming inflation. And critical reports on the HS2 project dating back as far as 2015 warned of the very outcome which we have just seen: the scrapping of the high-speed-rail project’s northern leg.

Advocates of an elected House of Lords must explain whether it would deliver similar levels of expertise and independence. Would former judges, generals and secretaries of state stand for election? If not, would their contribution be missed?

Would an elected second chamber accept the primacy of the Commons, and if not how would disputes be resolved? If both houses were elected on the same voting system and timetable, how could the second chamber avoid being a redundant carbon copy of the first? If election systems were different, how would this affect perceptions of legitimacy?

Anyone doubting the importance of this final point need only consider what would have happened in 2019 if the large Commons majority to “get Brexit done” produced by Britain’s first-past-the-post voting system had been confronted by a proportionally elected second chamber where most members belonged to parties promising a second referendum.

I am not arguing that the Lords as currently constituted is perfect. Reform is needed. I have myself raised questions over the balance between independent recommendations of crossbench (non-party-political) peers by the Lords Appointments Commission and prime ministerial nominations. Baroness Stowell of Beeston, a Conservative former Leader of the House, has proposed barring the award of peerages in “resignation honours lists” drawn up by outgoing prime ministers. There are proposals within the Lords to reduce the number of peers and to end by-elections for hereditary peerages.

These follow the tradition of incremental reforms which have improved the Lords, such as the creation of life peerages, the removal of most hereditary peerages and the introduction of retirement. More radical plans—under Harold Wilson in the 1960s, Tony Blair in the 1990s and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2012—stalled because they had no answer to the questions listed here.

Edmund Burke famously said: “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.” But when reform is being considered, my watchword is: “First seek to understand.” Understand the work of the Lords and understand the potential consequences of radical change.■

Lord McFall of Alcluith is Lord Speaker of the House of Lords.

This article is part of a series on the British political system, examining the forces shaping the country’s future. Read our guest commentaries on the political constitution and devolution.