The House of Lords is ripe, not just for reform, but for abolition

As a democratic system of governance, our bicameral legislature, consisting of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, has been respected the world over for centuries. But, in the light of the latest revelations, its upper chamber — the House of Lords — has once again shown its true colours.

An investigation by the Sunday Times and Open Democracy has revealed that individuals who make donations of £3 million to the Conservative party have been able to buy their way into the Lords. It does appear however that a little “work experience”   will also help. According to the report, a wealthy benefactor can be “ guaranteed a peerage if they take on the temporary role as the party treasurer.” It appears to have worked. Of the party ’ s last 16 treasurers, 15 were offered a seat on the red benches of the Lords.

It ’ s not as if this is shocking news. The “other house”, as Oliver Cromwell called it, has been mired in controversy since the English Civil War, so much so that Cromwell abolished it in 1649. When the Commons wished to charge Charles I with treason, the Lords resisted. Under an Act of Parliament the Commons declared that “ the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the people of England.”

There are plenty of examples where the Lords has gone against the Commons. In 1884, the liberal government of William Gladstone sought to extend the franchise to all adult men, but it was blocked by the Lords. The intervention by the Upper Chamber left 40 per cent of men bereft of the right to vote. Then, 25 years later, when the Commons tried to pass the “People ’ s Budget” in order to tax wealthy landowners, once again, the Lords tried to block it.  

The frustration with the Lords’ refusal to pass Lloyd George’s Budget led to the creation of the Parliament Act, in 1911. It helped to limit the power of the peers: the Act stipulated that from then on, the Lords could no longer block Bills passed three times by the Commons, but only delay them.

Even though the composition of the Lords has changed a lot since the implementation of the Parliament Act, the second chamber remains an unaccountable institution, capable of exerting power over us.  Between 2015-19, the Lords defeated Commons legislation over 150 times. It may be less undemocratic than when it was dominated by hereditary peers, but it is much more anti-democratic.

There can be no finer example of this when you consider the Liberal Democrat party. At the last election we returned just 12 Lib Dem MPs to the Commons. Yet this democratic process is absent in the Lords — at present, 89 Lib Dems sit in the Lords. Unlike a general election where MPs can be removed, peers will stay there for life and there ’ s nothing we can do. We can ’ t vote them out. 

With an Upper Chamber full of what Thomas Paine called “ the remains of aristocratic tyranny”, you can be assured that they will protect their wealth at any cost. Lord Grantchester is a hereditary peer and Labour ’ s Shadow rural affairs minister. The former chairman of the Dairy Farmers of Britain sits on a £1.2 billion family fortune. It was inevitable that he would protect the landed gentry from any threats to their interest. In scenes redolent of the repeal of the Corn Laws, Grantchester blocked an amendment to the post-Brexit Agricultural Bill. The free-trade agreement with the United States allowed importation of food produced using cheaper methods than our own. 

While functioning as a convenient tool of patronage, the Lords can be used for political expediency. When life peers were brought in in the 1950s as an alternative to hereditary titles, it not only opened up the possibility of rewarding friends, but had the bonus of removing stubborn and recalcitrant politicians from the Commons. 

Since Boris Johnson took office in July 2019, he has appointed 79 new peers to the Lords. Grantchester is one of 783 members of the upper house, though before the pandemic the number had exceeded 800. This makes it one of the largest legislative chambers in the world. By contrast, the US Senate has just 100. 

Although the 1999 Lords Reform Act managed to remove some 700 hereditary peers, 92 remain (made up of earls, dukes, viscounts, marquesses, barons) and 26 are bishops, otherwise known as “ Lords Spiritual ”. But where aristocratic lineage has partly declined, it has been replaced by nepotism and cash-for-access cronyism, as evidenced by the Sunday Times ’ s excellent reporting.

The very existence of an unelected chamber that can be accessed via vast amounts of money or through the right connections is an affront to democracy. As the current system functions, 783 unelected peers have the power to thwart the democratic will of the very people it claims to represent. 

The Lords is bloated and institutionally corrupt. It is an antiquated relic, anathema to our 21st century system of governance. As history has shown, we are beyond calls for reform. We ’ ve tried for over a century, with little success. It is time the people had a say.   

If we are serious about Britain regaining and strengthening its democracy, it is essential that we, the people, are granted a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords.