The House of Lords: the elephant in the room on the United Kingdom’s quest to champion democracy

Apr 20

Apr 20 The House of Lords: the elephant in the room on the United Kingdom’s quest to champion democracy

It is fair to say that the United Kingdom has been experiencing an identity crisis for the past few decades. Its role as leader of the Commonwealth, special ally to the United States and partner of Europe have all been greatly diminished, which has left it somewhat floundering on the international stage. One approach that the British government has attempted to take since 2018 is projecting the idea of ‘Global Britain’. What this specifically means is hard to say. The government website states that “Global Britain is about reinvesting in our relationships, championing the rules-based international order and demonstrating that the UK is open.” It is the ‘championing the rules-based international order’ which is especially interesting due to the all-round abstract meaning. It alludes to championing liberal values such as democracy, equality and human rights. However, a closer look reveals that the United Kingdom’s attempt to project norms and values such as democracy onto other countries is in fact hypocritical due to one glaring elephant in the room: The House of Lords. The upper house of the UK parliament is such an affront to British democracy that it makes it impossible for the United Kingdom to advocate for norms and values such as democracy, without being totally sanctimonious.

The House of Lords started off its existence as an advisory council to the king in medieval times and became a distinct chamber to the House of Commons during the reign of Edward III. It has grown from a group of about 50 members to the 794 which it has today. To be one of these members you can either be appointed as a life peer by a committee, be a religious leader (26 seats are saved for Bishops of the Church of England), or be one of the 92 hereditary peers from noble families. It is important to stress that to become a peer you require no qualifications, let alone be democratically elected. The House of Lords role today encompasses three main things: to check and challenge the government, to work with the House of Commons to shape laws and to investigate issues through committees and debates.

This system was reformed by Tony Blair in 1999, when he reduced the number of hereditary peers and attempted to open the House of Lords up to people from ‘all walks of life’. However, this was somewhat of a performative action as currently, the average age of a peer is 70 years old, 28% are women, only 46 peers are from ethnic minority backgrounds and just one of the 794 peers worked in a manual trade.

The blatantly obvious problem with the House of Lords is that it gives unelected people the final say on the laws that shape the United Kingdom. This isn’t simply a symbolic relic from our history, such as the monarchy, as these unelected, unrepresentative officials really do have a substantial effect on the way the UK is governed. Advocates for the house argue that it brings in ‘experts’ from all walks of life to give insights and advice on important issues- but what qualifications does an expert in the field of medicine have in issues of foreign affairs? Of course there are some members of the House of Lords who are seen to be qualified and the recent passing of Baroness Williams of Crosby reminds us all of the peers who have devoted their lives to public service. Shirley Williams served in the Labour cabinet from 1974-79 and co-founded the party that would go on to be known as the Liberal Democrats. As an experienced, elected official, few would object to William’s advice and knowledge, but she is in the company of 92 hereditary peers who are there purely through the fortune of their birth and even more political peers who are there arguably due to political connections and cronyism.

Although most members of the House of Lords are not paid a salary, they can claim up to £300 a day in expenses which is which is almost three times the amount that an adult on minimum wage would earn after a 12-hour shift in the UK. Because of this, the House of Lords has been riddled with expenses scandals for years. Labour peer David Brookman, the former trade union general secretary, claimed almost £50,000 in attendance and travel expenses in 2018, despite never speaking or asking any written questions.

There are some positives to the House of Lords. As they are unelected, they do not have to play to party politics which allows them to theoretically vote how they want and to advocate for issues which may be unpopular to discuss in the House of Commons, one example being female genital mutilation. Being unelected also means that they do not always have to have one eye on the next election and therefore don’t have to pander to voters. However, the basis of both of those arguments is that they can do what they want because they are unelected- which is the problem! There is little to no accountability nor representation in the House of Lords. They are appointed for various reasons, some are qualified, most are not, and then they are free to vote as they wish. Furthermore, it is not for lack of alternative that the House of Lords still exists. The Australian Senate is a great example of an elected, well-functioning upper house. It is composed of 76 senators who have been popularly elected through proportional representation and serve six-year terms. The reason the elite members of British politics don’t want to change the House of Lords, is because it benefits them.

Non-British people who learn about the House of Lords are usually shocked at the amount of power that a group of unelected people can have over the United Kingdom. It is an archaic remnant of a time where power lay in the hands of a single person. However, unlike the Royal Family, it actually can affect the lives of British citizens. Therefore, it is largely hypocritical for the British government to try and find a new identity as a beacon for liberal norms and values, with the current structure of its parliamentary system. So the United Kingdom’s identity crisis will continue to rattle on until it can reconcile that the future is very different from the past which it enjoys to revel in.