In context: House of Lords reform

What is the House of Lords?

It is part of the UK Parliament but sits independently from the House of Commons. Members of the Lords, also known as peers, scrutinise legislation and hold the UK Government to account.

Peers are not elected and are usually members of a particular political party. They tend to be appointed by three means: on the prime minister’s advice, by inheriting the title from their parent, or due to their prior roles. For example, the Archbishop of Canterbury is entitled to a seat in the Lords.

Have there been attempts to change the Lords before?

Yes. There have been several attempts to reform the chamber since it was established in 1801.

In 1907 the Rosebery Report made recommendations on how peers should be selected, but no action was taken, and in 1978 a committee chaired by Lord Home of the Hirsel proposed a change whereby two-thirds of the chamber would be elected and one third appointed, but recommendations were not taken forward.  

It was not until 1999 when a proposal to reform the chamber was successful after the House of Lords Act cut the number of hereditary peers from more than 600 to 92.

What has Labour proposed?

In 2022, then leader of the opposition Keir Starmer had pledged to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected upper chamber in a bid to “restore trust in politics”.

And his promises were reflected in his party’s manifesto, which outlined that Labour would replace the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber more representative of the regions and nations, and that the change would be subject to consultation.

However, since then reform plans have been scaled back. In September, Labour introduced the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-2025. The legislation aims to phase out the remaining 92 hereditary peers and abolish the Lords’ jurisdiction in relation to claims to hereditary peerage.

Although the new proposals fell short of the initial plans, minister for local government Lord Khan of Burnley said the removal of heredity peers was “a first step” and confirmed the government was committed to a number of other reforms including changes to the appointment process as well as the introduction of a mandatory retirement age, which Labour had outlined as 80 years old in its manifesto.

The bill was passed in a UK Parliament vote last month by 435 ayes to 73 noes.

Who is against the bill?

Most of the Conservative Party is opposed to the plan. All the votes against the bill came from Tory MPs, and no member voted in favor of the law. 

Former secretary for the cabinet office Alex Burghart accused the government of "seeking to remove established scrutineers in order to replace them with Labour appointees”.

What is the row with the SNP?

Although all nine SNP MPs voted in favour of the bill, the party believes it does not go far enough. For the final reading of the legislation at the Commons, SNP MP Pete Wishart tabled a series of amendments, claiming the government’s proposals were “pathetic” and that Labour had introduced a change “that is most politically convenient for them”.

Wishart called for the reform of the Lords to deny the prime minister the power to appoint people to the chamber and proposed to force peers to pay income tax on their parliamentary allowance, which currently is worth up to £361 per day.

The MP for Perth and Kinross-shire said this “is the only chance” to reform the Lords, “regardless” of the claims by the government that there are more changes to come. He added: “There will not be further reform. All of us have seen this before.”

What about other parties?

Lib Dem MP Sarah Olney urged the government to be “bolder” and back her party’s plans for a democratic mandate for the Lords, but her proposals received 92 ayes to 355 noes.

What do citizens think?

According to a poll by YouGov, only one in six British people support how the Lords is currently set up.

A majority is opposed to the automatic peerage for some senior Church of England bishops, and more than 60 per cent believe hereditary peers shouldn’t continue to have places in the upper chamber.

However, most voters do not support Labour’s plan to have an entirely appointed chamber, with fewer than three in 10 voters from the four main political parties in favour of such a legislative chamber. 

What’s next?

Labour’s bill is now going through the Lords, where it is expected to face more opposition. Its second reading is set to take place on 11 December.

And as for Labour’s remaining proposals to reform the Lords, the party is yet to announce a timeline for when these will be introduced.