Serving the country

Why > Labour’s commitment to replacing the House of Lords with a more representative body would align the UK with other democratic systems, like the US Senate or Germany’s Bundesrat, where the second chamber has direct accountability to citizens or regions. Between April 2019 and March 2020, £17.7 million was spent on Lords’ allowances and expenses, with the average peer claiming £30,687. What Success Means > Success would mean a more democratic and effective legislative process, where all regions and nations of the UK are fairly represented, leading to more balanced and considered laws.

Why > Labour aims to improve the national and regional balance in the House of Lords, ensuring it better represents the UK’s diversity. This would make the second chamber more like the German Bundesrat, which represents the country’s regions. The report “Reducing Corruption Risks in a Reformed House of Lords” reveals that 50 sitting peers have participated in House proceedings fewer than five times. Among these, only 6 percent (3 peers) were nominated by HOLAC, while party leaders nominated 74 percent (37 peers). What Success Means > Success would result in more balanced representation, better legislation that considers regional needs, and a second chamber that better reflects the whole of the UK.

Why > The recent years have seen numerous scandals involving public officials, leading to a decline in public trust in government. An independent Ethics and Integrity Commission, similar to New Zealand’s Integrity and Standards Body, would help restore public confidence by overseeing the conduct of politicians and ensuring accountability. Canada appointed its first Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in 2007. The idea is gaining momentum globally, with U.S. President Joe Biden proposing a Federal Ethics Commission and Australia’s new Labor government committing to establish a National Anti-Corruption Commission by the end of 2022. What Success Means > Success would result in higher standards of governance, reduced corruption, and increased public trust in government institutions. It would also deter unethical behavior by creating real consequences for misconduct.

Why > Setting a mandatory retirement age for Lords members would ensure that the second chamber is more dynamic and reflective of contemporary society. Countries like Canada have implemented similar policies, requiring senators to retire at 75. Currently, the average age of all eligible members of the Lords is 71, with males comprising more than two-thirds of this group (71%). What Success Means > Success would mean a more diverse and effective House of Lords, with members who are more in touch with current societal needs and perspectives.

Why > The UK Parliament’s procedures are often seen as outdated and inefficient. A Modernisation Committee would focus on reforming these procedures to enhance effectiveness and standards, drawing inspiration from other countries, such as Germany’s Bundestag, which regularly updates its procedures to reflect contemporary needs. The new committee is anticipated to address issues such as restoring public trust in politics and parliament, as well as enhancing parliamentary processes. What Success Means > Success would mean a more efficient, transparent, and modern legislative process, allowing for better governance and improved public confidence in parliamentary proceedings.

Why > Strengthening participation requirements and removal mechanisms for disgraced members would ensure that the House of Lords operates with high standards of conduct. This mirrors similar reforms in the Australian Senate, where attendance and conduct rules are strictly enforced. Of the 966 memebrs eligible to attend, only 28 members did not attend the House at all. 116 attended less than 10%. In contrast, 48 memebrs attended at least 90% of the days they were elegible to do so. On average, memebrs attended 46% of the days they were elegible to attend. What Success Means > Success would lead to a more accountable and effective second chamber, with members who are actively committed to their roles and responsibilities.

Why > The continued presence of hereditary peers in the House of Lords is seen as undemocratic and outdated. Labour’s proposal would align the UK more closely with other democracies, where all members of legislative bodies are elected. Hereditary peers currently account for around 11 percent of the House’s membership. The bill aims to eliminate the seats of 89 hereditary peers who are presently part of the House. What Success Means > Success would mean a more democratic and legitimate second chamber, improving the quality of legislation and public trust in government institutions.

Why > Labour’s proposal to lower the voting age to 16 reflects a growing trend in democracies worldwide, such as Austria and Scotland, where younger citizens are allowed to vote. Engaging young people in the democratic process can foster lifelong civic participation. Researchers found that lowering the voting age has boosted long-term turnout. In the 2021 Scottish Parliament Election, more 16-17 year olds voted compared to 18-19 year olds. The same trend appeared in those who first voted in the 2014 Independence Referendum, with more 22-24 year olds (who voted first at 16-17) participating than 24-26 year olds (who first voted at 18-19). What Success Means > Success would mean greater youth engagement in politics, policies that better reflect young people’s interests, and a more inclusive democratic process that reflects the whole population’s needs.

Why > Giving the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests the power to initiate investigations would prevent delays and ensure accountability in cases of misconduct. This mirrors practices in Canada, where the Ethics Commissioner has the authority to investigate breaches independently. Historical data on the number of ministerial breaches of the Ministerial Code could illustrate trends over time, demonstrating whether the Independent Adviser’s oversight is effective in reducing such incidents. What Success Means > Success would lead to faster and more effective investigations into misconduct, ensuring ministers are held accountable without delay. This would foster a more transparent and ethical political culture.

Why > To prevent conflicts of interest, Labour proposes an immediate ban on MPs taking up paid advisory or consultancy roles. This policy aligns with similar restrictions in countries like Sweden, where MPs are not allowed to engage in external paid activities that conflict with their duties. In 2018, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that MPs should be prohibited from engaging in paid work as “parliamentary strategists, advisers, or consultants.” Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, a barrister by profession, has earned over £100,000 from legal work, writing, and speaking engagements since becoming an MP in 2015. There is no indication that he has violated any rules, and Sir Keir asserts that all of this work was completed prior to his appointment as leader last year. What Success Means > Success would result in more focused and accountable MPs, leading to better representation and policy-making. It would also help rebuild public trust by ensuring that MPs serve their constituents’ interests rather than personal financial gain.

Why > To prevent undue influence in politics, Labour aims to tighten rules around political donations. Countries like Canada have strict limits on political donations, enhancing transparency and fairness in politics. What Success Means > Success would mean greater transparency and reduced corruption risks, leading to a political environment where policy decisions are made in the public interest rather than catering to wealthy donors. Companies connected to Conservative donors have been awarded a total of £8.4bn in public funds since 2016, according to analysis, an amount over 150 times greater than the party’s received donations.

Why > to restore public trust after corruption cases such as the case when Boris Johnson appointed Peter Cruddas to the House of Lords despite objections from the Lords appointments commission due to Cruddas’s past involvement in a cash-for-access scandal. Shortly after his appointment, Cruddas donated £500,000 to the Conservative Party, raising concerns about the influence of money in politics and the integrity of the appointment process. What Success Me ans > the strengthening the removal of disgraced members would ensure accountability and integrity withing Parliament, in turn, restoring ethical standards among elected officials and avoiding corruption.

Why > Labour aims to prevent the revolving door phenomenon, where ministers take up roles in sectors they used to regulate. The current lack of stringent rules has led to perceived conflicts of interest. By enforcing stricter rules, the UK could align more closely with the US, where former officials face significant restrictions on lobbying activities. Such calls have increased following scandals involving prominent politicians, especially David Cameron, who faced criticism for lobbying on behalf of Greensill Capital after leaving his position as Prime Minister. What Success Means > Success would mean a reduction in conflicts of interest and greater public trust in the integrity of government decisions. It would also ensure that government officials serve the public interest rather than preparing for lucrative private-sector careers.

Why > Improving voter registration and addressing inconsistencies in voter ID rules would enhance the fairness and accessibility of elections. Countries like Canada have successfully implemented more accessible voter registration systems, ensuring higher turnout rates. The UK’s electoral registers are 86% complete, meaning up to 8 million people may not be properly registered at their current address, and some may be registered twice. The accuracy of the registers stands at 88%. If a general election were held today, around 14% of eligible voters could be unable to vote. What Success Means > Success would mean higher voter participation, a more representative electorate, and fewer cases of legitimate voters being turned away, enhancing democracy and fairness in elections.