People power

On 19 January, the Sunday Times ran a highly critical editorial on the House of Lords. “The British second chamber is absurdly large,” it read. It noted the much smaller size of other second chambers around the world, and argued that with reform on the horizon, peers “must not close their eyes to the trend of public opinion.”

The article was not wrong. The Lords is the largest legislative chamber outside China and, other than Iran, the only one with religious leaders. But perhaps the editors were guilty of pushing at an open door: after all, Labour’s 2024 manifesto committed to making the Lords representative of the country, and the first step – a bill to remove the remaining hereditary peers – is on its way to becoming law.

Not so fast. Sunday Times readers can be forgiven for not remembering that editorial – for it dates from 19 January 1925.A full century later, the House of Lords is still bloated, anachronistic and elitist. The experience of the past 100 years isa sobering tale of reform failing time and again. And there are already signs that this is our fate once more, keeping us stuck in the company of Iran and China.

The persistent problem is deciding what a reformed second chamber should look like. Ideas regularly floated include an elected body, perhaps chosen via proportional representation, or one with members selected on a regional basis.

These approaches stall because they cannot work. British governments of all stripes have tried to create an elected second chamber. They have always failed. The Commons will never accept a rival threatening its primacy. This leaves the regional approach, exemplified by Germany. However, the UK has a unique structural barrier: England is significantly bigger than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

 The solution proposed is to allocate English representation by regions – northeast, southwest, etc. But while people may identify as ‘Mancunians’, ‘Londoners’, or ‘Geordies’, no one identifies with these larger administrative regions. I’ve never called myself a ‘Northwesterner’. This reality is starkly illustrated by the largely forgotten northeast regional assembly referendum in 2004.

Despite strong support from politicians and public figures, the proposal was soundly defeated by a ‘no’ campaign arguing that the money should instead go to the NHS.—So, with voters having no appetite for more politicians, the Commons likely to see off any chance of a democratic rival, and political identity around England’s nine regions a non-starter, is Lords reform doomed to fail? At the Sortition Foundation, we categorically reject this position. We see the solution hiding in plain sight: our fellow citizens.

You may have heard of citizens ‘assemblies, which bring together people who reflect their communities in characteristics such as gender, age, socio-economic status, disability, and ethnicity. Sortition is the method used to select participants, a service we provide for citizens ‘assemblies worldwide.

This is how we can break the cycle of failed Lords reform: trust the people. The concept has deeper roots in our constitution than many realise. In 1166, King Henry Introduced juries, giving ordinary people a meaningful say in legal decisions. After more than eight centuries of juries deliberating on serious matters, it is time to finish the job by replacing the House of Lords with a House of Citizens.

This second chamber would be a permanent citizens’ assembly, with members selected by democratic lottery to serve a single term. It would have the powers and responsibilities of the current Lords. Genuine experts among the political donors and retired MPs in the Lords could still be consulted in their specialist areas, but no one would hold legislative power for life. Last year, the Sortition Foundation launched the 858 Project to campaign for a House of Citizens. The campaign name was chosen because 2024 marked 858 years since Henry II’s transformative move in 1166.

A House of Citizens is the only way to break the cycle of failed Lords reform. It would be genuinely representative of the UK population across every region and nation. It would have legitimacy without rivalling the Commons, and would avoid creating more politicians – which we know the public doesn’t want. Polling by YouGov for Sortition Foundation found that a House of Citizens outperforms every other proposal for Lords reform by a considerable margin. So, the question is not why we should have a House of Citizens instead of a House of Lords –it’s why we shouldn’t.

Image credit: 3.0 via Creative Commons