Radical House of Lords reform now looks unavoidable. The flooding of the Lords with Tory donors and apparatchiks, taking the sheer size of the House to well over 800 members (far larger than the Commons); the ludicrous system of byelections among hereditary peers (again mostly Tories); the controversies around Conservative peer Michelle Mone and the VIP lane for PPE contracts; and sundry other activities of the nouveau peerage have all made the status quo unsustainable.
Even if Keir Starmer wished to avoid reforming the upper chamber—which he doesn’t—the growing imbalance between the parties in the Lords is driving new demand for change. There are now many more voting Tory peers as Labour peers—many of the dwindling band of Labour members are now over 80 and barely attend—and since the creation of more than a hundred new Labour peers to achieve parity after a change of government isn’t feasible, there has to be more fundamental reform.
An immediate step would be to remove the remaining 92—mostly Tory—hereditary peers. But beyond that, the case for an entirely new model for our second chamber is increasingly accepted. I say this as a peer appointed under the previous system who believes the upper chamber has a vital democratic role to play.
A coming report, led by Gordon Brown and commissioned by Keir Starmer, is likely to recommend a wholly elected second chamber, by proportional representation, premised on the protection and promotion of devolution to the “nations and regions” of the UK, federal-style. Starmer made headlines earlier this month when he said his plans would constitute abolition of the second chamber as we know it.
This basic concept of a federal second chamber, as in Germany, makes a lot of sense as the UK moves towards a more devolved constitution. This is not just about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but equally about the English regions whose interests have tended to be neglected at Westminster, especially by a House of Lords largely drawn from London and the southeast and containing no members of the SNP whatever.
The debate over the particularities is likely to focus on whether direct or indirect election is best. Germany’s second chamber, the Bundesrat, represents state governments and is not directly elected by voters; instead, the state governments send representatives to serve in the upper house in Berlin. It does not seek to challenge the primacy of the Bundestag, the first directly elected chamber, in the conduct of the federal government, although it has significant powers to amend legislation directly affecting the German states.
It would be hard to constitute an indirectly elected second chamber on a similar model in the UK because there is no uniform pattern of devolution, especially within England. Hard—but not impossible, now that many mayoral authorities have been created across England, including most metropolitan areas. Areas without these authorities might be given members through nominations from local councils.
Deciding on the details of a new second chamber is going to be a bean-feast for parliamentarians and constitutional anoraks. The existing Lords will probably be obstructive. But fundamental reform is an idea whose time has come—nearly!
