Does the House of Lords have any power?

This July, the King’s Speech outlined the government’s intention to remove hereditary seats from the House of Lords. This is a positive step toward reforming parliament’s second chamber, as it signals the beginning of the end for peerages granted on the grounds of birthright.

But it’s not just hereditary peers which serve as a thorn in the side of our democracy. The majority of Peers in the House are appointed as ‘life peers’ through a number of routes, including appointments by resigning Prime Ministers. Just as is the case with the soon-to-be-reformed hereditary seats, the British public have no say in these appointments.

Given that membership of the second chamber hinges on a wholly undemocratic system, it’s worth asking: what can the Lords actually do?

How does the House of Lords influence our laws?

Before a law can come into force, or before an existing law can be changed, it starts out as a Bill.  For a Bill to become law it must be approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Once a bill arrives in the Lords, members can suggest amendments to the proposed legislation. There might be several rounds of amendments between both houses before both agree on the Bill and it is able to become an ‘Act of Parliament’, or law.

Following the Parliament Act 1911, the House of Lords is unable to veto bills passed by the House of Commons. In practice, this means the House of Lords will push certain revisions to Bills rather than attempting to block them. These various stages of revision to a proposed law can mean that Lords can delay Bills for up to a year.

The checking and challenging role of the Lords

The House of Lords also plays a role in holding our government to account through questions and debates. For example, Lords can ask up to six questions a day in writing, and are entitled to a response within two weeks. Another instance of this power to scrutinise the government is Lords Questions, where peers have half an hour to question the government on topics ranging from the cost of living to police corruption.

Scrutinizing public policy

The House of Lords is host to members with a broad range of experience from across a wide array of professions, from politics to medicine, business and the arts. Peers use their experience to analyse public policy, largely through select committees, which hold inquiries into specific policy areas and produce reports which are presented to government.

Whilst there are Peers with a broad range of backgrounds in the Lords, some professions are vastly over represented, at the last count around 30% of Peers were former politicians (with a further 8% former political staffers of activists), whereas there were only 2% with a medical or healthcare background and none who had a background in manual or skilled labour.

In whose hands should these powers lie?

All things considered, it’s not the norm for the House of Lords to ‘defeat’ the government in any substantive sense. Their impact is primarily one of revision rather than blocking of legislation. Still, the power to table amendments and challenge the government is not insignificant. In a democracy, these powers should be granted to a democratically elected body, with its scrutiny and suggestions the product of a diverse and representative range of elected voices.

Removing hereditary peers is a key step toward this goal, but it’s far from enough. A more impactful reform would involve replacing the House of Lords with a House of the Nations and Regions: a second chamber designed to represent the diverse voices of the UK’s regions.

Using expertise to weigh in on policy decisions and legislation; holding the government to account: these are all important responsibilities held by the House of Lords. They’d be better placed in the hands of a chamber with a democratic mandate.

Do you agree that these powers belong in the hands of the people?