Politics with Alex

Yesterday was the second reading of Labour’s House of Lords reform bill, which proposes removing the right for the remaining 88 hereditary Peers to sit in the second chamber of the Houses of Parliament. It was introduced by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Cabinet Office Minister, as the “first step” in Labour’s plans for more comprehensive reform of the House of Lords. And, while it is clearly a welcome first step it also represents a missed opportunity to be more bold and radical as to changing the composition of the chamber.

It is evidently absurd that in the 21st century that over 10% of the membership of the second chamber of the “Mother of Parliaments” are only there due to an accident of birth, that their parent had bestowed upon them the right to legislate and that this has somehow been passed through their blood to their child. It is a further absurdidty that this system of primogeniture discriminates against women inheriting a peerage. It should not be contraversial to say that these should be removed either immediately or through phasing them out once those hereditary Peers retire or expire. But Labour’s 2024 election manifesto actually went further than simply tackling hereditary Peers, looking at both retirement ages but also a full-scale reform of the chamber into a “Chamber of the regions and nations” as proposed by Gordon Brown in 2022. 

Mandatory retirement Age

One proposal from the manifesto states that Labour “Will  introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords.”. Having a chamber where the average age of 71 is above retirement age, with the oldest peer being 99 years old, does not help the Lords’ image of being “pale and stale”. Of course, there are many people above the age of 70 who have a wealth of knowledge and a lifetime of experience in the fields of politics, business, science, or countless other vocations. But, legislating and acting as the revising chamber requires a significant commitment of time and energy, and can you really argue that those 187 peers over the age of 80 really have the energy needed?

Perhaps the real reason that Labour are delaying introducing this reform is that their group of Peers in the House of Lords would be disproportionately affected by such a change? Labour peers have the highest average age of 74 (compared to a sprightly 68 for Conservative Peers). Labour already act as a minority in the Lords, with 186 Peers versus 273 for the Conservatives. By introducing mandatory retirement ages, they would either make passing legislation harder or have to stuff the chamber with huge amounts of their own new Peers. Yet if Labour do not make these changes when in power, it certainly won’t suit the Conservatives to change it when they regain control.

Patronage and Cronyism

Another criticism often levelled at the House of Lords is that it is stuffed full of former MPs, donors or political apointees who frankly are only there due to their party loyalty rather than their expertise in any particular field. This comes from the Prime Minister’s almost untrammelled power to bestow peerages to whomever they like. Just look at recent controversies where disgraced Prime Minister Boris Johnson nominated 29 year old Charlotte Owen for a life peerage, despite her having minimal experience in anything. Or look at the fact, reported by Open Democracy, that the vast majority of Conservative party treasurers (who often donate very significant sums themselves) have been granted peerages soon afterwards. It is this grubby system of patronage for political friends or donors that stains the reputation of the Lords.

The House of Lords Appointment Commission (HOLAC) could be a part of the solution to this. They recommend individuals for non-party peerages and vet political nominations for life peerages. Unfortunately, this “vetting” is simply advice and can be ignored by politicians if politically expedient to do so. If the purpose of the revising chamber is to improve legislation from the Commons, then it should have experts drawn from a wide variety of backgrounds (some of whom could theoretically have come from the Commons). Why not make HOLAC recommendation the main route through which Peers are created, with political appointees either removed entirely or significantly reduced (to, for example, no more than 1% of total membership per Parliament)? Again, making such a change would remove power from the main political parties and reduce their ability to reward donors or loyal members. Just look at the stink that Nadine Dorries kicked up when she felt she was denied a peerage.

Full-scale reform/abolition

If the Labour party are going to do difficult things about constitutional change, then they need to get the ball rolling. A second term is far from certain, meaning they may only have five years to implement fundamental changes. In their manifesto, they talk about “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.”. Quite how this chamber of the regions and nations would work and wouldn’t either duplicate or cause confusion with devolved administrations in Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland is paramount to any such reforms. Of course, there is no devolved English Parliament or regional assemblies, meaning that England suffers a democratic deficit when compared to the rest of the UK. Perhaps a “Chamber of the regions and nations” would be a way of redressing this. But if the same structural issues of cronyism, patronage, and political interference in appointments continues then such a chamber could lack the popular legitimacy needed for it to succeed.

But where are these consultations, and how will this feed into legislation? House of Lords reform does not come around often, with the last proper change happening under the last Labour government in 1999 and subsequent failed attempts in 2012 and minor changes in 2014. By missing their opportunity now to be bolder, the Government are risking simply kicking the can of constitutional reform well into the long grass.