It’s not easy being a Lord. No, really, it isn’t, judging by the latest poll of the Upper House. Mr S has obtained a copy of the most recent Members’ Survey – conducted in March of this year – and it shows that dissatisfaction in the House of Lords is at record levels. Responses from 355 peers reveal concerns over internal governance, working spaces and catering, with just half of peers under-65 giving it a ‘positive’ satisfaction rating.
Overall opinion of the facilities and services provided by the House of Lords Administration has slumped from 80 per cent reporting it as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ in 2008 to just 63 per cent now in 2022. Or, as the report prefers to note: ‘overall satisfaction levels remain positive but the downward trend shown over the past decade has increased sharply over time.’ Younger and more recently arrived Members (i.e those 64 and under) ‘trend much less positive on questions of general satisfaction’ with 10 per cent saying they are ‘poor or very poor’ and 39 per cent going for average. And, of those who have been a Member for less than five years, some 64 per cent think services provided by the House have ‘deteriorated’ or ‘stayed the same.’
Conservative peers seem particularly unimpressed. More than half (51 per cent) were critical of their working environment, compared with just 37 per cent of Labour peers who rated the facilities and services as between one to three stars on a scale up to five. Lord Forsyth cited discontent with the current direction of the House as a key factor last year in his unopposed election as chair of the Association of Conservative Peers, telling Mr S: ‘Decisions are taken without proper consultation.’ And his fellow Conservatives appear to share that assessment. A whopping 51 per cent of Tory peers complaining that the House of Lords Commission does not give enough information about their work, against 13 per cent who feel it does. Some 29 per cent feel that ‘the Commission does not deal with issues that matter to them’ against just 25 per cent who do.
It’s not just Tory peers though: the survey notes ‘a significant proportion feel disconnected from the decision-making processes’. Feedback cited in the report include comments such as ‘peers are usually the last to know about changes’ and ‘too often we seem to learn about decisions after they have been taken.’ One suggests that the Commission is run by ‘a small group of people who have little contact with reality’; another peer argues ‘too much happens without consultation. Committees are not the House and Members should be consulted before major change.’
Hungry peers also demanded ‘more options for vegetarian and vegan diets’ from the House’s heavily-subsidised canteens. When asked what needed to be improved, members ‘most frequently’ mentioned catering – ‘often just as a one-word response’. One response begged for ‘less reliance on unhealthy snacks’, with another reply calling for ‘a wider variety’ of food to be offered.
Another bun fight is over space within parliament: larger parliamentary offices in Millbank House were viewed more favourably than smaller, cramped offices inside the Palace of Westminster. Over three-quarters (77 per cent) of Lords with an office in Millbank approved of their facilities, whilst just 56 per cent inside parliament were fond of their smaller offices, with one calling them ‘not conducive’ to online meetings. Other office-related complaints included ‘I find a desk in a noisy room with four other peers impossible to work in’ and ‘Sharing an office is far from ideal and limits the attractions of its use’.
Still, at least there’s one bit of good news in the survey: PeerHub, the suggestively-named online portal for Upper House business is ‘very popular across all groups.’ Some 75 per cent think it is ‘useful’ or ‘very useful’ with one peer declaring ‘I hope that we can continue to develop it.’ Still, with all the other items on their plate, Lords’ bosses might have their work cut out on that one for a while…
This article is free to read
To unlock more articles, subscribe to get 3 months of unlimited access for just $5
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in