The Future of the House Lords

Over a month ago in the King’s Speech – another relic from a distant age of crown-infused politics – the new Labour government revealed a different future for the House of Lords; one that has once again fallen short of the bold promises that have been made for over a century. 

In their 1910 manifesto Labour said that the upper chamber “must go”, yet over 100 hundred years later we still find ourselves with a chamber containing dukes, earls and viscounts. Granted, not all of those outdated title remain, and Starmer has pledged to restore trust in British politics by abolishing the presence of hereditary peers in our law-making together. Yet, as always, there is a loophole for those at the top to exploit. Labour Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede lost his seat as a hereditary peer but soon returned as a life peer, showing how abolishing hereditary peerage may not be the answer to this great constitutional question. 

After all, we can’t expect much. Labour’s 2024 manifesto was deliberately vague, promising only an “alternative second chamber”, and failing to mention elections to the upper chamber – which, I assume we all agree, is the most radical reform that Starmer could make that falls short of complete abolition. Back in 2022 such was his plan, claiming the Lords to be “indefensible”, and an outdated fossil of a bygone era that serves neither place nor purpose in today’s United Kingdom. Nevertheless, we once again find ourselves with a Labour government that is unwilling to make good on its promises. 

In it’s first week in office, Labour made a sweeping set of announcements that confirmed it would continue to pursue its mandate of change that it campaigned, and was ultimately elected, on. From junior doctors’ industrial action to the promise of pay rises for teachers, Labour’s first week in office came as a breath of fresh air against the last fourteen years of stagnation. So, why stop at the Lords?

For much of the 20^th century the Labour Party had been wholeheartedly opposed to class privilege, and by extension, the existence of an unelected House of Lords. A thread of arguments in favour of abolition have been woven through the ranks of the Labour Party for decades, and time and time again they have become untangled by settling for a more moderate option: reform. In 1949 Attlee’s government passed the second Parliament Act, reducing the upper chamber’s delaying powers to one year from two, and in 1999 Tony Blair eradicated all but 92 hereditary peers. This leaves us with the question, why is the House of Lords still here?

Despite being one of our country’s greatest anachronisms, the House of Lords has enjoyed a confused history that has seen it as neither the superior nor inferior house. In 1817 the Duke of Wellington, at the beginning of an age where the democratic Commons took centre-stage in law-making, remarked that Nobody cares a damn for the House of Lords; the House of Commons is everything in England and the House of Lords nothing. Yet just under a century later, the House of Lords took back the centre-stage during the People’s Budget debacle which eventually culminated in the 1911 Parliament Act. Despite this turbulent history, however, the Lords has always had one thing going for it. 

Without the shadows of looming elections and the theatrical elements of politics found in the House of Commons, the Lords are able to take their law-making business much more seriously and with a great deal more clarity. This is chiefly because of the new blood that was infused into the upper chamber through the 1958 Life Peerages Act. The Act created the life peers we know today, appointed to their offices for life in recognition of their services to the country in a variety of fields: politics, commerce, law, or charity. This provided a House that had been entirely hereditary since 1387 with increased moral authority and legitimacy, a House no longer consisting entirely or earls, dukes and viscounts. With a multitude of backgrounds flooding into the House of Lords, law-making in the upper chamber became injected with experience, knowledge and, to a degree, a decent level of common sense.

Without the shadows of looming elections and the theatrical elements of politics found in the House of Commons, the Lords are able to take their law-making business much more seriously and with a great deal more clarity.

My readers familiar with law-making will know that much of the business conducted in parliament is done so in committees and following the 1958 Act these committees have been graced with the presence of seasoned knowledge and life experience. In 2004, for example, the second reading of the Blair ministry’s Higher Education Bill saw over half the peers involved emanating from chancellor or professorial roles at universities. Compared to the career politicians engaged in shouting matches in the Commons, the upper chamber seems to be the far greater house of legislature of the two. 

I’ve been down this road before, demonstrating my admiration for the superiority of the Lords in terms of law-making. However, this is not to say that its place in the modern world needs a rethink. The best part of the Lords is the teachers, GPs, professors, lawyers, and entrepreneurs that find themselves in the Palace, not the landed gentry and ranks of nobility that have earned their place by virtue of the circumstances of their birth. This is what needs a rethink, at the very least. 

The trouble is not lamenting at the outdated nature of the House of Lords, however, but to think about what come after it, should there be anything at all. Our constitution is unique, developed over some 1,000 years of history landmarked by events such as the Magna Carta, the Great Revolution and so on. Michael Heseltine, regardless of your opinions of him, certainly summarises this well. 

You couldn’t invent the House of Lords. It’s an anachronism, it’s part of our history, it’s an evolution, it’s where it is. But the moment you start to rationalise it, you’ll end up with what? A second House of Commons? Is that really going to change anything?

Michael Heseltine, House of Lords Podcast

So, if a second Commons is not the answer, what is? The proposals to mandate age limits for peers and abolishing the “indefensible” hereditary peerages that remain are a great start, however that does not mean the remaining life peers will make the upper chamber any more attractive. Lord Pearson of Rannoch (a former UKIP leader, and, therefore, hardly conducive to an attractive legislature) has blatantly displayed outright racism and Islamophobia by claiming that “radicals” (the right and the establishment love that word, essentially the blanket term given to all those who happen to disagree with them) will take over “through the power of the womb and the ballot box”. 

Paying homage to tradition and history is something that had been present in British public life for centuries, yet has the time finally come for us to be rid of the House of Lords completely? No. Is the time for a new, revamped House of Lords fit for the new age we are tumbling into? Yes. Most definitely. 

Archie Rankin is a Fellow at the Sixteenth Council