How to create a meritocratic House of Lords

The House of Lords needs reform, and not just because of its bloated membership size. Four times over the past year the institution threatened to create a constitutional crisis. First, they voted to delay for the tax credit cuts passed three times by the House of Commons. This was a huge breach of parliamentary protocol that not only defied the settlement of the Parliament Act of 1911 but in fact undermined the Commons Privilege over financial and taxation matters that dates back to the 1670s.

Next was David Cameron’s honours list that many believe made a mockery of the whole system. And finally it seems that Labour and Liberal Democrat peers stand determined to block Theresa May’s educational reform to bring back grammar schools and some peers are plotting to block and delay Brexit. These incidents are an affront to twenty first century democracy and threaten the British constitution. Therefore I believe the only way to save the Lords and avoid a constitutional crisis is reform it and make the chamber meritocratic.

So what do I mean by a “meritocratic” House of Lords? In short, I mean one that maintains a balance of democratic legitimacy while retaining a role for the expertise and wisdom necessary for legislative scrutiny.

The House of Commons must be supreme to the House of Lords. If a British Senate was to be created, it would have a mandate to start making and blocking legislation. It would blur the lines between the separate functions of the chambers and create gridlock and undermine the government.

In the United States, the Senate used to be appointed (by the state legislators) and the House and Senate carried out very distinct roles. Once the Senate became elected, the traditional roles virtually disappeared, to the point where the Senate crafts financial legislation all the time. In order to avoid regular parliamentary power struggles and the blurring of roles, the Lords needs to stay unelected.

We do not want a situation where the unelected Lords routinely throw out the bills they disagree with. An “activist” House of Lords would not be respectful of the will of the people and their elected representatives. Thus, ideally you want the makeup of the Lords to be one that not only respects its traditional role, but is also mindful of what the electorate wanted when it elected the MPs in the House of Commons.

Most importantly, we need a House of Lords that is competent and brings much needed expertise. Sorry to pick on Baroness Zahida Parveen Manzoor; but what on earth is this person doing in the House of Lords? Let alone tabling a motion to kill off a financial measure passed three times by the House of Commons!

As pointed out by Dominic Lawson in the Daily Mail, before becoming a peer, Baroness Manzoor was “deputy chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, chair of Bradford Health Authority” and, later, “Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales”. She was also regional director for a somewhat opaque lobbying organisation; the “Common Purpose Charitable Trust. She has no private sector experience and has never been elected to public office. Yet, the Baroness of Knightsbridge proposed killing off the principle of “no taxation without representation” from a party of 8 elected MPs. Even James II would probably thought her too much of over-lording aristocrat!

Now, of course I am not saying she should be stripped of her baronetcy, she was lawfully appointed. But her and many other Liberal Democrat and Labour counterparts, along with some rogue Tory Europhile peers like Lord Heseltine and Baroness Wheatcroft) have turned the Lords from a chamber of wise contemplation to a political revenge chamber filled with party hacks. Any Lords reform solution must be to be to minimise the impact of potential Baroness Zahidas and get the most competent people voting on bills.

Therefore with parliamentary tradition, and democratic and competency considerations in mind, I propose a system where the peers choose from the best among themselves to sit in Parliament. This system would be three fold:

  1. The party that forms the government gets to have the largest numbers of peers with voting rights sitting in the House of Lords in line with a proportionate number to the party’s Commons MPs.
  2. Each political party’s peers choose among themselves which peers they want to vote and speak for them in the House of Lords over the course of a government and
  3. Peers who are not chosen to vote among the House of Lords will enjoy non-voting status similar to hereditary peers who have not been chosen to vote in the Lords. Each of the three proposals is explained a little more in depth below.

What I mean by proposal number 1 is that over each parliament each party gets a set amount of voting peers in Lords to more accurately reflect the will of the electorate. Therefore, the general election will affect how Lords sit. Currently there are 249 Conservative peers, 212 Labour peers and 112 Liberal Democrat peers.  As of last October, Labour and the Liberal Democrats outnumbered the Conservatives 324-249 despite the Conservatives forming a government! Under my plan, the amount of partisan Lords who had voting rights would depend on the outcome of the election.

For instance, currently there are 331 Conservatives, 232 Labour MPs, and 8 Liberal Democrats. Labour’s total number of MPs amount to 70% of the Tories total. Therefore, to make the Lords proportional to the Commons, Labour would only be allowed sit 174 voting peers. For the Liberal Democrats, their 8 MPs only constitute 2% of the Conservative MPS in Commons. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats would only be allowed to sit 2% of the Tories total number of peers, meaning they could sit 6 peers. (As a side note, the Democrat Unionist would be entitled to two additional peers because they have 4 peers and 8 MPs currently). Thus, Labour and the Liberal Democrats would be forced to choose their most able and competent peers to be voting peers.

For Crossbench peers, I would reduce their number from 176 to 92; 92 being the number of hereditary peers sitting in the House of Lords because of the House of Lords Act of 1999. (More on hereditary peers in the next section). Thus, under my proposal, the current House of Lords would have 249 Conservatives, 174 Labour, 6 Liberal Democrats, 6 Democratic Unionists, no SNP because they refuse to sit in the Lords, 92 Cross-Benchers and 26 Bishops. I would keep the Cross-Benchers and Bishops because they are (supposedly) non-partisan and bring wisdom and experience to the chamber. The number of partisan peers would be set for the term of each government and would change after the result of each general election.

Secondly, each party’s Lords will choose among themselves which peers they want to have voting rights in the House of Lords. I would abolish the distinction between life and hereditary peers, because under this new system the distinction made in the 1999 House of Lords act to reduce the hereditary peers number is unnecessary. Under this system, it would be up to each party’s peers to choose who among them whom they think would make the best decisions in Lords.

For the Conservatives, people like Viscount Ridley (a hereditary peer), Baroness Brady, and the former chancellors Tebbit and Lawson seem like obvious choices to be elected. Lords Ridley, Brady, Tebbit and Lawson are examples of people who come from esteemed intellectual, business, and government experience backgrounds that would prove invaluable to the reviewing, revising and perfecting of legislation.

For Labour and the Lib Dems, if they want to abolish hereditary peers once and for all from their side of the chamber, and elevate people based purely off checking politically correct boxes, this would be an opportunity for them to do so in their own parties. This system allows each party’s lords to choose who among their peers who is truly the best among them. Any vacancies in the Lords would also be filled by the party’s peers.

Finally, those peers not chosen by their parliamentary colleagues to vote in Lords, or who decide to not be unaffiliated from a party, will still keep their title and other “perks.” Those peers chosen to vote will receive a salary so that they can better financially afford to participate in the parliamentary process.

My system creates two classes of Lords: the active members of the House of Lords and non-active peers. This helps solve the issue of peers who are basically retired and non-participating without stripping them of their title. It also allows an “out” for those peers which are not politically inclined.

The idea behind this two-tiered system of voting and non-voting Lords is to set up a system that more accurately reflects the will of the people, creates stability in Lords, and avoids the prospect of Prime Ministers having to appoint party hacks and generally unqualified people to “pack” the Lords to get their way. A good House of Lords is stable, contemplative, and meritocratic. Hopefully a proposal like this one will be adopted to avoid the prospect of future constitutional crises.

Photography by Terry Moore.


Ted Yarbrough is co-founder of the @

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty

  • John Moss

    I agree the current model is deeply flawed, but the demand for democracy probably means some form of elected second house is inevitable. I think a Senate could be elected, but only with a high age limit (50?) and a single term for those elected of between 7-12 years. That way you only get people putting themselves forward who are at the end of a political career or who have done well in their field outside of politics, so they have the time to be Senators.

    Elections could be via a de Hondt system with large regions each sending 20-30 people so giving independent candidates a good chance of getting elected. These elections could be done in “thirds” after the initial one so keeping the Senate refreshed.

    Once their term was up, they would get their Peerage and be barred from seeking election to any national or regional assembly. (You could at that stage make then Lords, Baronesses etc so keeping the name “House of Lords”). Legislation could also codify the conventions you refer to around finance bills and manifesto commitments.

    In addition though, each party represented in the Commons should be able to appoint a “Front Bench” team of Advocates. This would allow the Parties to exercise some degree of patronage, as this would no longer be possible in the appointment of Peers, but also allow talented politicians to be involved in the legislative process on the way up, or remain involved on the way out.