I spoke in the House of Lords [House] on Monday about the irony of raising issues of democracy in what is now an entirely unelected chamber. My expectation when I entered the House in 1999, as a nominee of Paddy Ashdown, was that I would serve for a few years only before contesting elections for membership of the House in the promised, but never delivered, phase two of the reform that was supposed to happen after Tony Blair and Labour won the 1997 general election.
Hereditary peers finally lost the right to sit in the House of Lords
I never thought that it would take nearly 29 years to complete phase one, with the removal of the right to sit and vote for hereditary peers. This was only 115 years since the preamble to the Parliament Act of 1911, introduced by Asquith’s Liberal Government, referred to pending reforms to the powers of the House as a change into a body ‘constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis’.
Of course, democracy is not perfect. A line commonly misattributed to Winston Churchill saiys that “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” I quoted his words from 1947 in my speech: “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Now let’s get a system where voters choose the second chamber
I argued that letting people use ballot papers to choose at least the majority of those of us who sit in the second chamber of Parliament, rather than relying so heavily on Prime Ministers and party Lladers, would strengthen the role of an elected second chamber and help to improve what it does.
It would reduce the accusations of cronyism that damage the reputation of the House, reduce the scope for party-finance controversies to undermine confidence in appointments, and reduce the suspicion that peerages may be linked, rightly or wrongly, to political loyalty, party advantage or financial support.
Too many appointments have been made to enable people to serve as Ministers, after which some have left office while remaining members of this place for life. Others appear more attracted by the title than by the daily work of scrutinising legislation, complaining about having to do things such as vote on legislation, and quickly disappearing after a maiden speech.
Block the filibuster, strengthen private bill submissions
An immediate reform I argued for would be to block filibustering in relation to Private Members’ Bills. A central reason it took so long to end the temporary gentlemen’s agreement allowing by-elections to replace departing hereditary peers was repeated procedural delay by a small number of opponents, including debates on large numbers of similar amendments.
I sat through many of the debates on this in recent years, leading for the Lib Dems on the Bills to bring an end to those by-elections. In my view, the clear will of the House on that issue was blocked.
The Assisted Dying Bill also ran out of time in the Lords before it could return to the Commons. More broadly, I believe Parliament gives members too little reliable opportunity to propose legislation and see it agreed and enacted unless it has substantial government support and government time.
I want to see a strengthening of the powers of members in both Chambers to propose legislation. In the House of Lords, the absence of a government majority would make it far harder for any Government to control the timetable agreed by members. I am strongly opposed, however, to introducing timetables for government legislation.
Timetables are another problem in getting bills through Parliament
Many people would be shocked if they understood how the use of timetables in the Commons can prevent much of the meaningful scrutiny that should be applied to legislation taking place in the elected chamber. MPs who object are often reassured that concerns can be dealt with in the House of Lords.
I think that the second chamber should be prepared to use the powers provided to it in the Parliament Acts. We need to use them to seek to strengthen legislation designed to safeguard democratic principles.
We need a cap on donations, especially from abroad
The biggest failures in the current Representation of the People Bill, as I see them, are that it does not provide for a general cap on the size of donations to a political party, except for the Government’s proposed cap on overseas electors, nor does it bring back down the spending limits for political parties in a general election.
Very large donations can raise concerns about disproportionate influence and public confidence in democracy. That is not a personal allegation against any individual donor. It is a criticism of a system that allows sums so large that public confidence is inevitably tested.
Cap donations and put voters before pounds
We need to do three things. First, we need to put a cap on the size of any one donation in any one year. I suggest that the limit should be proposed by the Electoral Commission. Electoral Commission records checked for this piece show at least £11 million in declared cash donations from The Phoenix Partnership (Leeds) Ltd to the Conservative and Unionist Party, and substantial declared cash donations by Christopher Harborne to Reform UK, including two 2025 entries of £9 million and £3 million. Donations on this scale should not be acceptable if millions of voters are to matter more than millions of pounds.
Secondly, we need to reverse the 80% increase in party expenditure limits introduced by the last Government before the 2024 general election. The last general election saw record regulated campaign spending, and we need to ensure that millions of voters matter more than millions of pounds.
And thirdly, we need a much lower cap on donations from overseas electors than is proposed. Under the Government’s proposed £100,000 annual cap per overseas voter, two overseas voters could together give £200,000 in a year, or £1 million over five years if the same cap remained in force.
It can be more difficult to check the original source of funds when money comes from abroad. The annual limit for such donations should, in my view, be much lower, perhaps £10,000 in a year.
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
