New Era for the UK House of Lords? Labour's Removal of the Hereditary Peers and Possible Future Reforms

On 15 October 2024, the UK House of Commons debated a government bill to remove the remaining “hereditary peers” from the second chamber, the House of Lords. This followed a manifesto commitment made by the Labour Party before winning July’s general election. The hereditary peers, who inherit the right to sit in the legislature, have been part of the UK parliament for hundreds of years. Labour sought unsuccessfully to remove all of them 25 years ago, and this reform now seems very likely to finally be completed. Debates will nonetheless continue about other important aspects of House of Lords reform – writes Professor Meg Russell

The United Kingdom (UK) general election held on 4 July 2024 resulted in a landslide victory for the Labour Party, ending 14 years of Conservative-led government. Labour is committed to a series of constitutional reforms, not least to the UK’s second chamber of parliament—the over 800-member House of Lords.

The history of hereditary peers in the House of Lords

As a wholly unelected institution, the House of Lords has long been controversial. It is a body with ancient roots, which can be traced to assemblies comprising the most powerful in the land that used to gather to advise the monarch. It was in the fourteenth century that a two-chamber arrangement developed, when these figures began to meet separately to the representatives of the people in what was to become the House of Commons. For centuries afterwards most members of the House of Lords were hereditary peers—that is, members of the nobility who passed on both their titles (e.g., Duke, Earl or Baron), together with their seats in the legislature, down the family line. The other members were representatives of the Church of England.

Concerns about the appropriateness of hereditary legislators also have long roots. Attempts to introduce “life peerages”, so that people could be appointed to the second chamber without passing on their seats and titles, began in the nineteenth century. But it was not until 1958 that life peerages were introduced. Subsequently, most new members appointed to the House of Lords were life peers; but those who had inherited hereditary titles still remained. The Labour government of Tony Blair, elected in 1997, then pledged to remove those members. It introduced a bill to do so, but came under pressure from its political opponents in the House of Lords. Fearing disruption and delay to its overall legislative programme, it agreed to a compromise whereby 92 hereditary peers could remain (and be replaced by a different hereditary peer if they departed). That continued to be the position until the general election in 2024.

The Labour government’s plans

The Labour Party’s 2024 manifesto promised ‘an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords’. This was swiftly followed by the introduction of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which was debated for the first time by the House of Commons on 15 October. The bill must pass through all stages in that chamber, before being passed to the House of Lords itself for consideration and approval. The UK, thanks to its lack of a codified constitution and its core principle of parliamentary sovereignty, has no special process for constitutional change—which can be pursued simply through normal statute law. Hence, although the removal of hereditary peers would be a notable and historic reform, parliament alone will take the decision.

The bill itself is short and simple, straightforwardly removing the rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords at the end of the current parliamentary session (which will likely be sometime in 2025). This would result in a House of Lords made up almost entirely of life peers, alongside 26 Church of England bishops and archbishops, who continue to have rights to sit in the chamber.

Will these plans succeed?

The removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords can easily be seen as long overdue, and as “unfinished business” from the late 1990s. At the election of July 2024, Labour won a huge majority in the House of Commons—412 seats out of 650. The traditional third party, the centrist Liberal Democrats, also supports this change and holds 72 additional seats. The reform is also supported by members of various smaller parties. The main opposition to the bill when it was debated in the House of Commons came from the Conservative Party. This was perhaps unsurprising since the largest group among the remaining hereditary peers comprises members aligned with the Conservative Party, who take the Conservative whip. But the bill passed its Commons second reading easily, with the Conservatives’ “reasoned amendment”—which would in effect reject the bill—defeated by 453 votes to 105.

Those complaining about the bill in the House of Commons made a combination of arguments—that it either went too far, or not far enough.

Debate will no doubt be interesting at subsequent stages. Those complaining about the bill in the House of Commons made a combination of arguments—that it either went too far, or not far enough. Some Conservatives raised questions about whether the Church of England bishops should also be removed from the House of Lords, while others expressed concern that this change could lead to doubts about the hereditary principle applied to the British monarchy. But, while amendments are likely to be proposed, the bill will almost certainly pass the House of Commons unamended.

When it gets to the House of Lords, debates are certain to be lively. The House of Lords cannot permanently block legislation approved by the House of Commons, but can delay it or suggest amendments. Notably, many in the House of Lords itself do not support continuation of the hereditary peers, and indeed there have been various unsuccessful attempts by peers to end their membership via private members’ bills. But not all members of the chamber agree, and such bills can easily be blocked by a few members. The same does not apply to a government bill. Furthermore, there is a strong convention that the chamber does not block government bills implementing manifesto commitments. So, notwithstanding the fact that the government does not have a majority in the House of Lords, it is almost certain that the bill will pass—and probably without amendment.

The likely effects of removing the hereditary peers

The House of Lords has no fixed size, and currently stands at over 800 members. There are now 88 remaining hereditary peers (as some recent vacancies have not been filled), so the change will immediately make the House of Lords smaller. But it will still remain by far the largest second chamber in the world, and indeed the only one to be larger than its respective first chamber.

A very important factor is the party political balance among the hereditary peers. Currently 45 of these members sit as Conservatives, while only four are Labour and four are Liberal Democrats, and the remainder sit as independents. In addition to the principled argument about removing hereditary legislators, this is an important motivation for Labour’s reform. However, even after the hereditary peers are removed, the Conservatives will remain the largest party in the House of Lords.

Another crucial factor is that the remaining hereditary peers are all men, because most such titles are passed down purely through the male family line. Their removal will slightly improve the gender balance in the House of Lords, but women are likely still only to make up 33 per cent of members.

Finally, the removal of the hereditary peers may make the House of Lords feel somewhat more legitimate, and therefore make its members more confident to challenge the government and make policy interventions. This occurred when most hereditary peers departed the chamber in 1999, and may happen to a certain extent again. Bicameralism in the UK may therefore become slightly “stronger”.

What next for House of Lords reform?

Removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords is seen only as a small first step towards reforming the chamber. Other reforms have been under discussion for decades, and reaching agreement has been difficult. Labour’s 2024 manifesto noted that the House of Lords ‘has become too big’, and opinion polls show that there is strong public support for it to be no larger than the House of Commons. The same polling also shows that the public believes there is too much patronage in the hands of the Prime Minister, who decides how many life peers are appointed and who they are. The Labour manifesto promised to ‘reform the appointments process’, but didn’t state how. It also suggested the introduction of a retirement age of 80, so that members of the House of Lords no longer serve for life, but this has proved controversial given that many expert members are appointed at the end of their careers. A sensible way forward would be to strengthen independent oversight of the quality of appointments, introduce a maximum size cap (of the kind that applies to most parliamentary chambers), and alongside it a fair formula for sharing seats between parties. The government has kept the hereditary peers bill deliberately narrow, but there will be considerable pressure—including during the passage of the bill—to implement these kinds of additional small-scale reforms either immediately, or as a next step.

In the longer term, debate continues in the UK over whether the House of Lords should be replaced by an elected or at least part-elected second chamber . . . 

In the longer term, debate continues in the UK over whether the House of Lords should be replaced by an elected or at least part-elected second chamber. Labour’s manifesto promised public consultation on this matter, and in 2022 a commission chaired by the former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown recommended moving to an “Assembly of the Nations and Regions”. However, the detail was sparse, and achieving this reform is likely to be politically difficult. So while some further change is possible, wholesale replacement of the House of Lords remains unlikely—at least in the next few years.

Meg Russell is Professor of British and Comparative Politics at University College London, and Director of the research centre the Constitution Unit. She is the author of several books, including The Contemporary House of Lords: Westminster Bicameralism Revived (Oxford University Press, 2013) and has frequently advised policymakers on parliamentary reform.

♦ ♦ ♦ 

Suggested citation: Meg Russell, ‘New Era for the UK House of Lords? Labour's Removal of the Hereditary Peers and Possible Future Reforms’, ConstitutionNet, International IDEA, 31 October 2024, https://constitutionnet.org/news/voices/new-era-uk-house-lords-labours-removal-hereditary-peers

Click here for updates on constitutional developments in the United Kingdom.