The House of Lords Fails the Diversity Test

In the wake of the controversial topics at the forefront of our lives, we must remind one another to never lose focus on the battle for diversity in representation. Diversity is essential to our government, and without it, our government will fail to act in the wishes of all citizens.

Without the rich tapestry of experiences that diversity brings, the government will lose valuable opportunities to serve the people. The House of Lords needs more people from different backgrounds involved in their discussions because they offer new perspectives. With new perspectives and insight the government becomes wiser, and it becomes more capable of identifying opportunities to act on the will of the people.

Having diversity also generates a greater trust in the democratic process. Diversity within government shows an administration's commitment to equality. A commitment of this kind is a signal that the government recognises people's differences in identity, and nurtures these differences. People who have faith in a process will deem the process as worthwhile to participate in. Someone who sees people who truly represent them in Parliament is going to feel far more invested in government affairs. If someone feels that they now have a voice in a conversation, they will want to be heard.

More people participating in democracy makes democracy stronger, and allows the government to serve its true purpose. In order to accomplish this goal we need a government willing to take steps to bridge the gap between the people and the government. New conversations with new people of different backgrounds are the ones that need to be had.

Until the House of Lords has been radically reformed, we should bring in life peers to represent those who have not had a voice for far too long.

If life peers are selected based on their achievements and contributions to society, it can only be assumed that the Lords will be representative of the United Kingdom. With this in mind, I have examined new peers created since 2019 to test if the new appointments meet these expectations.

The evidence is clear, the House of Lords still does not truly represent the people of the United Kingdom.

No recent major steps have been made to enrich the membership of the House of Lords. The peerages announced since 2019 demonstrate this lack of racial diversity, gender inclusivity, and an over abundance of the extremely wealthy.

While over half of the UK population are women, since 2019 only 31% of the peers appointed have been women.

Yet we need more female peers than men appointed, to offset the overwhelming majority of male Lords. Men should not be dominating the conversation over issues that affect everyone, especially on policies that affect women more prominently than men. Without valuable foresight that women have from their own experiences, the government will lack valuable awareness on the complex implications their actions will have on the lives of women. There needs to be a gender balance that reflects the UK as it truly is.

Since 2019 less than 12% of the peerages have been people of colour. Bringing the House of Lords membership to an underwhelming 6% of minority ethnic background.

These statistics have slightly improved over the years, but are nowhere close to where they should be. People of all backgrounds need to be present in the House of Lords. People of minority backgrounds have unique outlooks on topics frequently discussed in Parliament. We are lacking these unique perspectives in the House of Lords.

We need more peers who make people feel their voices matter. There are so many neighbourhoods, families, and people who feel too forgotten to trust the government. People need to feel that their voices have power, because that is what democracy depends upon.

If the government should be appointing those best suited to represent the people, then why do so many happen to be so wealthy?

Since 2019, around 1 in 5 new Life Peers have donated to political parties - with over 1 in 10 donating over £50,000.

How can a Life Peerage be taken seriously when it has an obvious price tag?

Our democracy can not be guided by a handful of wallets. This is a threat to democracy as a whole, and compromises the trust on which the Westminster system relies. We need peers who are representative of the people, not a rich and privileged elite. To ignore this issue is to give up on our democracy and forfeit our future.

Nathaniel Laprade, Intern at Unlock Democracy