The Commons: Should the House of Lords Be Abolished?

PA

Carmen Smith, the youngest peer to become a member of the House of Lords, has recently stated that she believes that the institution should be scrapped. As a member of the historical House, stating her belief that it should be abolished has been controversial, especially given its history and widespread respect for the institution.

Baroness Smith is also a member of Plaid Cymru, a Welsh political party that has campaigned for Welsh independence. The House of Lords originated sometime in the 11th century and has been a main staple of the U.K. political system ever since its creation.

As a result of Baroness Smith’s latest comments, this article will take a deep dive into the arguments for and against the abolishing of the House of Lords. Despite the controversy of her speech in the House of Lords in March, the debate over whether to abolish the institution has been a long-standing one.

Back in 1999, PM Tony Blair introduced reforms in the House of Lords Act which removed the majority of sitting hereditary peers. These were replaced by an appointment system based on recommendations from the Prime Minister.

This came as a result of continuous calls to modernize the House of Lords due to fears of the institution being outdated and out of touch. In 2012, Nick Clegg, who was in the coalition government leading the Liberal Democrats with the Conservatives, proposed a reform to the House of Lords to make it a majority-elected body. This was later shut down after heavy opposition from the Conservative Party, but these calls for reform to the chamber have been long-standing and have been a cross-party campaign.

However, none of these calls have come from an existing peer, which makes Baroness Smith’s comments even more compelling. Baroness Smith stated during one of her speeches that “I fundamentally disagree with an unelected chamber”.

As mentioned before, the House of Lords is currently appointment-only with recommendations from the Prime Minister to the House of Lords Appointments Commission. This has created many claims that the chamber has become politicized due to the PM being able to make recommendations. Many Prime Ministers appoint donors who donate to their party, and this can lead to a loss of trust from the public with the lack of transparency from these appointments.

It has been reported that nearly 25% of the individuals nominated for a peerage in the last ten years “were party donors”. This latest statistic could shape the narrative of the House of Lords as a chamber full of highly politicized ‘quid pro quo’ favors, which is not what the chamber originated to be.

Smith’s arguments for an elected House of Lords are to install more trust in the institution so the public would be able to finally hold the chamber accountable. Currently, accountability is difficult as all peers can hold their role for life. Allowing a group of unelected individuals to have the power to alter crucial policy areas harms the legitimacy of the U.K. political process and by abolishing the House of Lords, the transparency issues in U.K. politics could decrease. However, abolishing the chamber would mean there would only be one legislative branch in the U.K. political system.

When stating her reasoning for wanting to abolish the House of Lords, Baroness Smith also explained that the institution is “not a diverse space”. The chamber has faced heavy criticism for not being geographically and socially representative. For instance, nearly 25% of the chamber is from London compared to only 3.0% in the North-East of England.

The geographical disparity in terms of representation has created issues over the lack of voices from different backgrounds and social groupings. The House of Lords has been described as a privileged institution before with only the interests of a select few at heart and the lack of representation for those in the North, who have less prosperity and many economic issues, means that the argument that the chamber is outdated and should be abolished holds weight.

Despite these arguments, opponents counter that there are still many important reasons that the House of Lords should not be abolished as a key legislative chamber. For instance, the House of Lords has been an integral part of politics in the United Kingdom since its inception and its role in being able to check the power of the House of Commons, even if it is limited, allows them to play a crucial part in the legislative process.

Unlike other liberal democracies across the world, the U.K. only has 1 sovereign legislative chamber, and despite the House of Lords being able to propose amendments and delay the passing of certain bills, the House of Commons can reject the proposals.

Despite this, getting rid of the House of Lords would mean that the House of Commons would go unchecked in terms of their power and this could lead to situations where the tyranny of the majority could take over. The House of Lords has played a big role in amending recent major legislation, such as the issues of Brexit and Covid-19.

A House of Lords equipped to deal with the modern issues it is facing is being developed now, and the discourse brought by Baroness Smith will be important to understanding the future of the chamber.