Leacsaidh Marlow
The House of Lords, or the Upper Chamber, is a group responsible for scrutinising legislative changes and the work of the government, such as MPs in the House of Commons do. However, members (peers) are not elected in the same way that MPs are, instead predominantly being appointed by the monarch on the suggestion of the current Prime Minister. You can also be a ‘hereditary’ peer by inheriting the title from a parent, or gain your position by holding a particular job (e.g. the Archbishop of Canterbury). Impact’s Leacsaidh Marlow explores the arguments for and against the democratic feasibility of the House of Lords …
Un-elected representatives – surely this is to the detriment of effective democracy?
This longstanding group has received extensive criticism for being ‘undemocratic’ and undermining democracy due to the nature of their appointments and interminable length of employment.
Reformation of the House of Lords was a key part of the current Labour government’s manifesto, with a focus on renouncing the peerage of the 92 members who currently hold a hereditary position in the House (a significant portion were removed in 1999 under Blair’s Labour government).
Hereditary peerage is directly contradictory
Labour also wishes to obligate retirement from the House at the age of 80. Labour disclosed their bid to complete the work of the previous Labour government in September 2024, a move which hereditary peer Lord Strathclyde deemed a “high-handed, shoddy political act” – instead recommending peers be judged for removal on a basis of active participation in fruitful debate, not their hereditary status.
Starmer’s intention to remove hereditary peers from their post has not come without understandable pushback, primarily from those members in question. But Blair’s actions on this matter, which Starmer seeks to recommence and see to completion, are far more in line with democracy than the structure which currently exists. By defining criteria, no liberal democracy should have members of an upper chamber with legislative power who are there only by birthright. The existence of hereditary peerage is directly contradictory to a functioning bicameral legislature (a legislative body with 2 chambers).
Furthermore, because they are not elected, peers are unaccountable to the British people in the way that MPs are – they do not have the pressure of an electorate looking at them to fulfil pledges, proposals and promises. They may have the British public’s best interests at heart, but they fundamentally undermine the 2-way scrutiny that should exist – i.e. they scrutinise the government and the British people scrutinise them – in the way that MPs assess legislation and the people then judge the position of the individuals they voted for.
Arguments for the existence of the Upper Chamber
It can be framed as an extension of democracy given that the majority of members were appointed at the recommendation of the current Prime Minister at the time, an individual who was democratically elected. This means that members are not only reflective of the current democratically elected party, but also of previous elected governments. One could argue that this actually makes them more representative of the electorate as a whole, despite the fact that individuals are not voted into their positions.
While many are experts in politics, members also span expertise in many areas such as science and the arts, meaning they provide a much more well-rounded scope of understanding – a factor that is beneficial in the scrutiny of legislation and policy.
They do not have the same accepted primary power as the House of Commons in shaping legislation
Moreover, while the fact that peerage in the House of Lords is a term with no set end-point has been heavily criticised, it remains that one purpose of a second chamber is to provide policy continuity across multiple governments, and longer membership allows this in a way fixed shorter terms would not.
The mix of political party affiliations amongst the peers, including ~1/5 taking no party whip, can mean they are a necessary check against the government in power. But does this also make them fundamentally undemocratic?
Abolition or reformation?
It is important to note also that the legislative powers of the House of Lords are limited to amending or delaying bills, and that they do not have the same accepted primary power as the House of Commons in shaping legislation. However, notably in times of excessive legislative changes, such as the 2017-18 parliament session pushing a rush of Brexit legislation, the House demonstrates its constitutional power and reminds us that they are still key players in UK legislative politics.
Whether or not the House of Lords is inherently undemocratic or ‘indefensible’ as Starmer calls it, as the second largest parliamentary chamber in the world it outnumbers the House of Commons, and this is unequivocally problematic. There are many reasons that the upper chamber remains as part of the checks and balances against the government currently in power at any one time, but there is no good reason for its membership to outweigh the body of elected representatives. In its current structure, it would not be unfair to argue that the existence of the House of Lords is contradictory to the function of a democratic state, but its abolition would of course also be in direct violation of liberal democracy. Ultimately, systemic reform is the only answer, but it remains to be seen whether Labour’s movements on this matter will be to the benefit or detriment of British democracy.
Leacsaidh Marlow
Featured image courtesy of Gina Bertoldi via Unsplash. Image license found here. No changes were made to this image.
For more content including uni news, reviews, entertainment, lifestyle, features and so much more, follow us on Instagram, and like our Facebook page for more articles and information on how to get involved.
If you just can’t get enough of Features, like our Facebook page as a reader or a contributor and follow us on Instagram.
