Why the House of Lords is dysfunctional, and what to do about it

Following from the previous blogpost, it follows that if the honours system is to be replaced, the House of Lords will become redundant. At present, the undoubted expertise of a number of members is counterbalanced by the dead weight of political appointees.Governments have shamelessly used their powers of patronage to increase the membership of the second chamber to a completely unsustainable and unjustified level. many members don't bother to attend (according to the constitutional expert Hilaire Barnett, on average only 400 attend; 'Britiain unwrapped,' page 138). A significant number of those who do attend don't bother to contribute. The membership of the House The elimination of most of the hereditary peers by Tony Blair's first government made the place only slightly less unsatisfactory. Not unsurprisingly, it is very weak as a check on the Commons. This matters, because, as the political scientist Anthony King made clear in his incisive book 'Who governs Britain ?' (2015), the executive dominates the House of Commons, through its powers of patronage. To describe this grotesque apology for a second chamber as an insult to democratic process as an 'anomaly' is a ridiculous understatement.

Nevertheless, a second chamber is essential, as a check on the House of Commons. As its legitimacy as a second chamber is in doubt, its powers at the moment cannot extend beyond scrutiny and amendment.

Proposals for a replacement for the House of Lords have foundered on the problem of its replacement. I propose two solutions:

First, occupational representation should be considered. Trades unions and professional organisations could nominate suitable people, who would have limited and specified tenure in the second chamber. Given its preponderance of lawyers and journalists, the House of Commons does not reflect the occupational diversity of this society. During this pandemic, the absence of expertise in the legislature in science, all the medical occupations and care working is particularly marked. This proposal would have the merit of preserving the atmosphere of greater freedom of debate, where, unconstrained by party whipping, members have greater latitude to debate matters which pose difficulties for party loyalties, such as euthanasia, abortion and embryo experimentation. In this reformed chamber, given the greater variety of backgrounds which would be a consequence of this proposal, the quality of discussion could be enhanced.

Second, if we had a federal system of government (which is something that is urgently needed), representatives from the devolved governments and from (future) provincial assemblies in England would be able to counteract the damaging 'Londoncentric' bias of government. This second chamber would be modelled on the German system, where representatives of the 'Laender', or provinces, sit in the federal parliament. However, care would have to be taken to ensure that members were not too constrained by party loyalties, and that the more unconstrained atmosphere of the second chamber could be maintained.

However, the necessity of reforming the second chamber remains as pressing as it was in 1911, when the democratic reform of the Lords was first mooted. (This was in the aftermath of the Lords' having been deprived of the power to challenge finance bills, after the controversy over the Asquith government's proposals for progressive taxation (or Lloyd George's 'People's Budget'). As Professor Barnett says, the House of Lords is 'one of the most extraordinary features of British government', and not one that reflects any credit on it.