This week, MPs and peers from across the political spectrum announced plans to form a new all-party parliamentary group on ‘wholesale’ Lords reform. The trigger was the very real sight of unelected peers using obscure procedures to block legislation, and the continuing fallout from the Peter Mandelson affair.

With members from all the main parties, and both the house of Lord and the Commons, the group will be co-chaired by Labour’s Simon Opher MP and the Conservative’s Kit Malthouse MP. Kit Malthouse said “When arcane procedures can be used to defy the will not only of the elected chamber, but also the clearly expressed views of a large majority of the public, it is a crisis confronting our democracy that can’t be ignored.”

The House of Lords is a chamber without consequences

The Mandelson case exposes a problem that has long been hiding in plain sight. As we revealed last week, even when a peer resigns the House, they do not lose the trappings of their title. At present, the only way for a peer to lose their lofty stylings is an act of parliament.

Peers who bring parliament into disrepute can simply step back, while continuing to benefit from the status that comes with a title.

That is why so many cases end in quiet resignation, rather than meaningful consequence. No longer attending the House for parliamentary business, they have more time to focus on their own business interests. “Need a Lord on the board?” as Mandelson asked of Epstein in one email. Public office is treated less like a position of trust, and more like a private members club.

Powerful peers without a public mandate

It’s not just individual bad behaviour that has inspired the new group to form. The House of Lords is meant to revise and scrutinise legislation. It is not meant to veto the will of the Commons through procedural games. Yet, in recent months, several government bills have been facing extended scrutiny in the House of Lords. While careful examination of legislation is an important part of parliamentary work, some of these delays look to campaigners less like careful scrutiny and more like deliberate obstruction.

Peers have also been in the headlines in the past few months for their interventions and amendments to hugely significant legislation such as the government’s Employment Rights Bill and the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

We don’t have a view on whether the House of Lords is doing the right thing in delaying these bills. But we firmly think that the public should be able to hold legislators accountable for their decisions. They have even been holding up their own reform in the two-page House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill.

The limits of voluntary standards

Rather than public accountability, we have a system based on trust and goodwill.

Appointments are scrutinised by a commission that exists by convention, not statute – and can simply be ignored. Behaviour is regulated by fellow peers who punish breaches by barring miscreants from the chamber, and the subsidised bars and restaurants. Resignations are voluntary. Sanctions are rare. This creates a system where the rules look firm, but feel optional.

When standards depend on people choosing to follow them, they stop being standards at all.

Lords should be held accountable by the British public

It should be no surprise that members of the House of Lords act as they please. At the moment, the House of Lords combines significant influence with weak accountability. Most members are appointed by the Prime Minister. They serve for life. And removing peers is harder than it should ever be.

If we want a second chamber that focuses on the job in hand, not the one they might get in future, they need to know that they will be held accountable by the public for their decisions. We need regular elections, so the public are in the driving seat. Anything less invites repeat crises.

So, it’s good to see the formation of this APPG, as the government need to realise how important their commitments to House of Lords reform are.

The question is no longer whether reform is needed. It is whether parliament is willing to move beyond half-measures and voluntary restraint. The fact that the House of Lords is dragging their heels on the simple and popular removal of the remaining hereditary peers, makes the case for why the government can’t allow them to win.

Add your name to our call for an elected House of Lords

Add your name

In our increasingly fragmented and volatile political environment, the case for electoral reform becomes clearer every day. And as the political landscape changes, so too will the route to our objective of a fairly elected parliament. So how should the government take the next step in addressing the distortions of our political system?

MPs in the All Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Elections have set out one approach this week: a National Commission on Electoral Reform.

I was pleased to provide advice and feedback on the proposals before they were published, which tackle some of the important questions about how to create a process that builds consensus and inspires public trust, and crucially, builds the pressure for change.

The National Commission on Electoral Reform

The group have launched a report setting out the terms of reference for how an independent National Commission could build consensus on a new voting system for Westminster through broad consultation, deliberation and evidence gathering.

While very much a technical document, you can read the terms of reference on the All Party Group’s website.

The Commission is a proposal for a time-limited independent review, informed by the evidence of experts and the values of the voting public.

As history has taught us, it is crucial that the National Commission process is just the beginning, and that it builds support and pressure for change. It is important, too, to bring people with you – with public trust at record lows, there is a strong case for an independent process that inspires confidence in its outcomes.

This report sets out a way to bring both expertise and the voters’ perspectives to the issue of the electoral system for Westminster and to begin to create a consensus on moving forward.

As we move fully into a multi-party world, and First Past the Post throws out even more warped results, the realisation that First Past the Post isn’t fit for purpose will grow. Ideas like the National Commission give us another way to win the case for fair elections.

Find out more about the need for a National Commission on Electoral Reform

Today sees the launch of a new parliamentary group on electoral reform, which is upping the pressure on the government to take action on the UK’s failing electoral system. The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Fair Elections has seen over 100 MPs join, more than half of which are from Labour. The APPG has launched with a new report, Free but not Fair, on how changing the county’s distorting First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system would be a vital step in restoring the public’s trust in politics, which has slumped to historic lows. The report also calls for a “national commission” to be set up to help decide which system of proportional representation (PR) should replace the current system.

Polling commissioned by the APPG also shows that 64% of the public think the problems with the current electoral system need to be addressed before the next election.

This comes after the UK has just witnessed the most disproportional election in its history, with Labour winning 63% of seats with just 34% of the vote. Meanwhile, the Greens and Reform received just over 1% of the seats in the Commons on a combined vote share of over 20%.

The fact so many MPs have joined the APPG is a real show of strength for cause of electoral reform in Parliament.

It is also significant that so many Labour MPs have joined as it shows that there is robust support in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) for PR even though the party benefited disproportionally from FPTP at the last election. This further displays the now significant support for PR at all levels of the party, after Labour members and affiliated trade unions combined to vote through a motion at the 2022 Labour party conference committing the party to supporting electoral reform for Westminster.

‘Even an extreme party can win a thumping majority under FPTP’

Following the launch, one supportive Labour MP on the APPG, Alex Sobel, a former shadow minister, was quoted in the Guardian arguing to scrap FPTP as it is handing parties massive parliamentary majorities on increasingly small shares of the vote.

He said: “The popular vote a party needs to win a majority has been steadily falling for decades, and now first past the post has delivered a landslide on just a third of the vote. Are we really comfortable with a situation where a party – even an extreme party – can win a thumping majority with, say, just three out of 10 votes? Because if things continue, that’s where we’re heading.”

APPGs play an important role at Westminster

APPGs play an important role in Westminster politics as they allow groups of MPs and peers to come together to examine specific topics, from nuclear energy to Scotch whisky and golf to woods and trees. Only parliamentarians can sit on APPGs, but members of the public can attend their meetings. While smaller APPGs can be run by MPs, larger ones tend to be assisted by outside groups with expertise in the area under consideration. For more on how APPGs work, see our previous blog here.

In the last parliament, the ERS supported the APPG on Electoral Reform, which we co-organised with Make Votes Matter. That APPG wound up at the end of the last parliament, so we are now supporting colleagues at Fair Vote to pick up the mantel of electoral reform in parliament.

Read about the new APPG in the Guardian

One of the lesser-known institutions of Westminster is the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG). Here’s a quick overview on some of the key features of an APPG:

An APPG is a group of MPs and Peers who have an interest in the same topic. As the name suggests APPGs welcome members from any party. Topics of an APPG can range from issues impacting civil society to niche political interests.

For example, there is an APPG for Electoral Reform and there is also one for Zoos and Aquariums. There is also an APPG for every country in the world, including many territories such as the Falkland Islands. Overall there are more than 750 different APPGs.

An MP or Peer may choose to be part of several APPGs or no APPGs. Only MPs and Peers can be members of an APPG although people who aren’t an MP or Peer often attend APPG meetings.

Smaller APPGs will typically be run by an MP who acts as an officer but the larger APPGs are usually run by an outside organisation, charity, think-tank, union etc. with a special interest in the subject matter of the APPG.

The purpose of an APPG is to raise awareness of the relevant issue, to provide a forum between MPs, Peers and external stakeholders. For example, the APPG for Electoral Reform that we support is a forum between MPs, Peers, academics and campaign groups who share evidence and support for proportional representation and wider democratic reform.

APPG’s do not have a legislative function but perform an important function of democracy. For example they can make useful recommendations to the government off the back of empirical research. The APPG on Coronavirus recommended that the government spent an extra £50 million on its ‘Living with Covid’ plan after the APPG had finished a report on Long Covid.

In summary APPG’s provide a crucial framework for MPs, Peers and interested parties to discuss a whole range of important issues that really matter.

Join the ERS to support our work

Members support our work in parliament, in the press and online – making the case, and backing it up – for how we can fix Westminster’s broken system.

Join the ERS

As we get closer to the European elections, here’s a worrying fact: our elections are currently wide open to foreign interference and dodgy campaigning.

Election rules in the UK haven’t been updated since the year 2000 – when most of us were still using dial-up internet (if indeed you were around then).

So this Wednesday (15th May), MPs from across the political divide will send a strong message to the government that it’s time to ‘close the loopholes’ at last.

And there are plenty of them. Lax finance laws mean ‘dark money’ could undermine the next General Election, while political disinformation can spread unchecked on social media by bots and foreign states.

We all heard about the Cambridge Analytica scandal – but similar scandals could be occurring right now. Indeed, the New York Times has just revealed that Russia is targeting the European elections.

The All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Electoral Campaign Transparency – being formed in Parliament now – is being set up to change that, and will launch an inquiry into Britain’s out-dated campaign rules. It will take evidence from a experts and civil society to feed into a Green Paper advising the government on how to better safeguard and strengthen our democracy.

It comes after increasing pressure on the government to act to safeguard elections from unscrupulous political donations, campaign advertising and foreign interference.

The government recently published its response to the consultation on ‘Protecting the Debate’, pledging some limited changes. But there is worryingly little detail so far.

The new all-party group will ‘look forwards, not backwards’, arguing the issue of electoral integrity is far bigger than Brexit.

MPs already set to be involved include Brexit select committee member Stephen Kinnock (Lab), Caroline Lucas (Green), Sir Nicholas Soames (Con), SNP frontbencher Deidre Brock, and Lib Dem spokesperson Wera Hobhouse (Lib Dem), with many more set to join.

As Stephen Kinnock MP said, “The fall-out from the 2016 referendum has exposed the fact that our democracy is in danger of being overwhelmed by a toxic combination of dodgy data and dirty money. Drip by drip we have seen how our legislative and regulatory frameworks are simply not fit for purpose.

“Our political system can only function effectively if the public is confident that our elections and referenda are being policed effectively and that the playing field is level. Yet we currently have analogue regulations governing a digital age.”

That’s why he’s working with FairVote and the Electoral Reform Society to tackle this issue head-on. If we don’t, future generations will pay a heavy price.

Political parties spent around £3.2 million on Facebook adverts during the 2017 general election – an increase of more than double since the 2015 election. When our primary election rules were created in 2000, the figure was £0: giants like Facebook and Twitter didn’t even exist.

The unregulated ‘wild west’ in campaign rules threatens the principles of transparency, fairness and the notion of a level playing field. This new Parliamentary campaign is a vital step forward in bringing these rules into the 21^st century at last.

Find out more about the APPG here.

 

Read the ERS’ recent report on the UK’s outdated campaign laws