‘How to make the Lords democratic – but avoid US Senate-style gridlock’

Labour’s rumoured working-age peers plan makes perfect sense, as does abolition of the Lords. However, it could be a mistake to directly elect the new chamber. 

Helpfully, our North Sea neighbours offer a potential model for the UK. Reforming the House of Lords using the example of indirect elections to the Dutch Senate could provide a more democratic and representative way of selecting members. This would address concerns about the undemocratic nature of the current system while still maintaining the valuable role that members of the House of Lords play in British governance.

Appointing more Labour peers is pragmatic in the short term

Labour sources recently told the Times the party is considering appointing more full-time peers of working age to attend the Lords most days to scrutinise and vote on legislation. The plans have been criticised by some. However, it makes perfect sense in the near term. Angela Smith is right to be pragmatic about this: Labour’s priority should be to get legislation through parliament if it wins the next election, even if that means increasing the size of an institution it has promised to abolish. 

Indeed, a cross-party committee of peers looking into the future of the Lords indicated it expects that a Labour government needs to increase its number of peers, as the Conservatives have nearly double the number of members of the second chamber.

Following recent controversies, public trust in the Lords is low. A survey by Opinium for Labour Together suggested that only 20% of the public trust the second chamber to act in the interests of the people, compared to 40% who trust MPs and 43% who say the same of councillors. More than two-thirds believe that the Lords should be abolished and replaced by a directly-elected second chamber, whether nationally or regionally.

Reform to the Lords can and should take place before full abolition

While there is a clear desire to replace the Lords, with what – as Labour Together’s report, A Peerless Democracy, concludes – is a murkier picture. The Lords cross-party committee led by Lord McFall is now suggesting that a proposed reduction in the size of the House to 600 peers could become a second order priority, to be implemented once a “sustainable system” of appointments has been embedded – which would include: (a) a cap on the size of the Lords; (b) term limits of 15 years to allow refreshment and rebalancing; and (c) a fair allocation of new party appointments based on the last election.

Of course, reforms can and should take place even before full abolition, such as getting rid of by-elections for the remaining hereditary peers or scrapping resignation honours lists. Newly appointed Labour peers should commit themselves to reform and abolition. If Labour wants to be sure of progress on Lords reform, the party should implement these changes immediately while consulting on the options for larger-scale change.

The US system highlights the issues of a directly-elected upper house

The House of Lords is an outdated institution, but notwithstanding its unusual composition, its members perform an important scrutiny role – focusing on the detail of policy and helping to hold the government of the day to account.

The constitutional review by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested the House of Lords could be reformed as a directly-elected assembly of regions and nations. This would ensure that appointments are made on merit rather than political patronage. 

However, anyone looking at the institutionalised gridlock in US politics might rightly warn against the creation of an elected upper house that could rival the Commons. Directly electing the new House of Lords could also result in a loss of expertise – with former doctors, judges or indeed working-age experts in other areas reluctant to stand for election.  

The Netherlands provides an alternative model

Labour Together is looking at Japan or the US for inspiration, but one potential solution to this issue is to look at the example of the Dutch Senate, which is elected indirectly by members of provincial councils.

Voters elect regional representatives who, in turn, through an electoral college, elect 75 members of the Senate reflecting the regional elections. These elections follow a different timescale to ensure senators are – although political representatives – more independent and able to scrutinise the government of the day.

This system allows for a more democratic and representative selection process as the members of the upper house are chosen by directly-elected representatives rather than being simply appointed or inherited.

Regardless of approach, Lords reform is urgently needed

A similar system could be implemented in the United Kingdom with members of the Scottish parliament, the Senedd in Wales, the Northern Ireland assembly and other bodies in England indirectly electing members of the newly reformed House of Lords or assembly of regions and nations. This would provide a more democratic and representative way of selecting members while still maintaining the expertise and experience needed to scrutinise and hold the UK government to account.

Another option could be to look at suggestions from the Lords cross-party committee that new appointments should be allocated on the basis of an average of each party’s share of (a) Commons seats and (b) the national vote at the most recent general election.

Whatever option works best in the British context, it is clear that the murky waters need to be cleared before the reputation of the House of Lords and its effectiveness as a second chamber in a well-functioning parliamentary system is completely destroyed.