Analysis: The House of Lords- Democracy's Aid or Arch Enemy?

The House of Lords is Britain's 'Upper House' of the Legislature. It serves as an unelected assembly in addition to the elected House of Commons. Its members (Peers) are either appointed by the Government, are Church of England Bishops (Lords Spiritual) or are some of the 92 remaining hereditary peers. Many argue against the existence of the House of Lords and believe that it has no place in modern day democratic Britain. Whereas others praise it for its abilities to keep politicians in check and assist the day-to-day running of Britain, taking some of the weight off the shoulders of elected MPs in the Commons. In this blog, we will explore the arguments for and against the House in red and evaluate its place in 2022.

 

First of all, an advantage that’s more relevant in 2022 than ever, its ability to keep the Commons in-line. Unfortunately, the Lords doesn't get full control over how our elected MPs behave in public office they do get some quite significant power: legislative power. The process for a bill in the U.K. is as follows: 1st Reading, 2nd Reading, Committee Stage, Report Stage, 3rd Reading, Change of House, 1st Reading, 2nd Reading, Committee Stage, Report Stage, 3rd Reading, Consideration of Amendments and finally, Royal Ascent. But it's that change of House that is significant here. Most Parliamentary Bills start in the House of Commons, meaning that it is our elected MPs that come up with them. Therefore, by the changing of the House the lords get a say on Bills. Many Lords, for reasons that will be discussed later, will be swayed in their views by sense, and what is right for the British people. Therefore, they can create what is known as a 'Lords Amendment' if they disagree with part of a bill. However, the main downside with this is that it has to be agreed on by the Commons. But this concept can certainly put pressure on the House of Commons, especially the Government if they are having their Bills criticised by the Lords, meaning change is more likely to happen as a result. With controversial Bills coming through Parliament such as the Health and Social Care Bill and the Nationality and Borders Bill, this may come as peace of mind to many critics of controversial bills, as there is a legislative body holding the Government to account on their proposals.

 

However, its most notorious disadvantage is the one everyone knows, to a point it needs no introduction. The fact it is not elected. This is a major issue, not only because Peers that sit in the Lords are not accountable to the electorate, but because they make up the majority of Parliament. At present, there are 763 Peers in the Lords, split between Life and Hereditary. This makes up 54% of all politicians who sit in Parliament. The arguments for why this is a huge issue are clear. Britain claims to be a modern and liberal democracy, but with the majority of Parliamentary politicians being unelected, it clearly cannot be that way. However, if you have ever watched a session of the Lords, chances are there are actually very few Peers sitting, typically the only time they will almost all be present is once a year for the State Opening of Parliament, whereas the Commons is more or less filled weekly for Prime Minister's Questions. In fact, Peers only have to turn up to the Chamber once every session to keep themselves in a job. Therefore, in the day-to-day workings of Parliament, more elected members will sit in the Commons than unelected Peers in the Lords. The principle of 54% of politicians being unelected does of course sting, but we can take solace in the notion that generally at any one time there will be more elected MPs sitting. 

 

Another key advantage of the Lords is that of the expertise of those sitting. One of the absolute key functions of the House is that they serve as an advisory body to the Commons, with many Peers appointed for their expertise. For example, Amstrad billionaire Alan Sugar was appointed by Gordon Brown for his expertise in enterprise, as well as his Apprentice aide and West Ham Vice-Chair Karren Brady, who was appointed in 2014 by David Cameron. This is ultimately a massive strength of the Lords system as MPs in the Commons are seldom experts in a particular field. Even in the cabinet, Ministers tend not to be absolute experts in the field of their ministry. Granted, there are some cabinet ministers with experience in the field they represent, such as Rishi Sunak and Ben Wallace, with Sunak having been an investment banker and Wallace having served in the armed forces. But having business magnates, economists, scientists and foreign policy experts to name just a few proves a massive advantage for the Lords as they can assist and scrutinise MPs just as well, if not better, than the experienced Civil Servants in ministries thanks to their role in the legislative process.

 

Arguably, one of the Lords key disadvantages lies in its procedure. This is due to the fact that in law, the Lords is less powerful than the Commons. This arises from two key 20th Century acts- The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. Both of these massively limit the powers of the Lords when compared to the Commons. While these acts both reduce the Lords powers, they do it in slightly different ways. The 1911 Act's primary function is to strip the Lords of its power to reject fiscal legislation. This is a massive loss to the Lords as it means that it lost its power to have any say in how taxpayers money is spent, however, it re-enforces the doctrine of legitimation and means that only the legitimately elected MPs with a democratic mandate can have a say in how taxpayer money is spent, while this is certainly the right call in the name of democracy, this act needs reform as a lot has changed in the 111 years since this act was passed in terms of how the Lords functions, especially Blair's 1999 reforms slashing the number of Hereditary Peers to 92. Therefore, with the expertise of some Peers in state spending, in the name of practicality they should certainly get at least some say in how taxpayer money is spent. The 1949 Act furthered the decimation of the power of the Lords by limiting the delay the Lords can put on Public Bills to a year. This means that with persistence, the Government of the day could theoretically push bills through as long as they are prepared to wait a year. However, in 2022 this suffers from the same problem as the 1911 Act. It restricts the Lords for a purpose it served in a much different era. While, again, it is certainly right that the Lords shouldn't have absolute power to delay bills at their pleasure, to increase levels of scrutiny they should certainly have the ability to delay for longer so they can actively work with the government serving as an advisory body to the Commons.

 

The Lords is a divisive institution, no one will dispute that for as long as it exists; it is undeniable that it has massive issues, such as its lack of legitimation, but as does the Commons, such as its overly theatrical nature. The Lords serves as a cornerstone in political scrutiny and greatly helps the legislative process by weaving in a second, generally very well-educated opinion. Without its presence the British political system would cease to function as it would be ran entirely by those deadly focused on winning elections, not creating the policy that is best for Britain.