Last night, the first debate of the Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill happened in the House of Commons. The Bill, if passed, will remove the remaining 92 Peers who sit in our House of Lords purely on the basis of their birthright.
It would be a landmark occasion, and the biggest change to the make-up of British political representation since the project to reform the Lords first began in 1999 under Tony Blair’s government.
With trust in politics so low, and getting ever lower, we hope that the Bill passes without difficulty as it would represent a big step forward in bringing our politics into the 21st century.
Why are the hereditary peers so bad?
Political power is not something that should be inherited. You wouldn’t accept a hereditary lawyer or dentist, so why a hereditary legislator?
Being drawn from a small group of aristocratic families, and whittled down by archaic inheritance rules, the hereditary peers are nothing like the people who have to follow the laws they vote on.
The current Hereditary Peers are all male, and all white. Due to male primogeniture, we essentially have reserved seats for men in our parliament.
Within the pool of aristocrats who have said they would be willing to stand in a by-election to become a hereditary peer in the Lords, there are only two women. However, a point that was frequently made in the debate yesterday is that when an all-male group of Hereditary Peers are presented with electing either a woman or a man, they’re likely to pick the man. Overall, the House of Lords has only reached a 29% representation of women. Far lower than the Australian and Mexican second chambers, which are directly elected, and have achieved parity.
Additionally, whilst being incredibly skewed towards men, the House of Lords, and particularly its Hereditary Peers, are also highly skewed towards London and the Southeast. Whilst not all of them declare their residence amongst those who do in the Hereditary bloc, 35% live in London and the Southeast. There are none who are registered as living in the Northeast, Wales, or the West Midlands.
We need a broad set of experiences in parliament, to ensure our laws are the best they can be
The right place to start to get House of Lords numbers down
The House of Lords, with almost 800 members, is currently the second largest secondary chamber in the world. The first is China’s National People’s Congress – an appropriate bedfellow for ‘the Mother of all parliaments’?
By removing 92 Peers in one fell swoop, the House will be reduced by almost 10%. Bringing it further in line with comparable European chambers; the French Senate hosts 348 members, for example. It is much more common in modern democracies for the second and first chambers to be roughly the same size.
MPs want House of Lords reform to go further
The debate lasted around six hours, and we at the ERS watched it all so you don’t have to. There were valuable contributions from all sides of the House. Encouragingly, many MPs were advocating for much further reform, as was promised in the Labour manifesto.
Steff Aquarone MP [North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat] made the point that the organisation of government must evolve to work within the 21st century:
“The House of Lords is only one part of our broken system, which needs to see urgent, radical reform. The structure and organisation of government itself must evolve to be fit for the modern age”
Shaun Davies [Telford, Labour] argued that the UK was a world leader in many areas but this part of our democracy required urgent attention:
“There are many areas in which the UK is a world leader or aspires to be one – our education system, civil liberties, creative and business sectors and many more – but the House should agree to modernise and transform this area. It is right that the House of Lords be reformed.”
Gavin Williamson MP [Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, Conservative] argued for further reforms of the upper chamber:
“The government have a mandate to deliver change, but I encourage them to take more significant steps, whether on the removal of bishops, the retirement age or other reforms that will make the other place a better place.”
The main point being made by the opposition benches, is when exactly is the new government going to push forward with the wholesale reform of the House of Lords that was laid out in the Labour manifesto earlier this year?
Whilst this Bill represents a very good step in the right direction there is much more to still be done. Particularly given the amount of public support reorganisation of the House of Lords receives. Only two percent of the public have ‘a lot of confidence’ in the House of Lords. 46% of the public think that the House of Lords should be elected. Only 15% think that the Prime Minister should have the power to ennoble the life peers who vote on our legislation for the rest of their lives without election or accountability.
MPs voted by a large majority to move the Bill to the next stage. If it goes on to be fully enacted, it will be quite the moment for the British constitution. However, we can still go further. We will continue to push for an elected second chamber which represents the British public effectively, efficiently, and with a diversity of regions and nations represented.
This bill needs to pass, but it should just be the start – If you agree, add your name to an end to people inheriting seats in the House of Lords
Add your name to tell them to pass the bill