House of Lords Reform What’s the future of the UK’s 14th Century Constitutional Institution?

Introduction

As the government’s proposed legislation to revoke the right of the 92 remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords passes through its second stage of reading, we reflect on the UK’s upper chamber of Parliament and the constitutional significance of the reform.

Background

In 1999, the last Labour government reformed the House of Lords, revoking the 700-year old right of hereditary peers to sit in the UK’s Upper Chamber of Parliament, leaving 92 peers, as a “temporary” compromise.

Hereditary peers are traditionally members of the British aristocracy with landed interests. These peers inherited their titles through, in most cases, a male lineage. The 1999 reform reduced the number of hereditary peers to 92, introducing an electoral system such that one of these 92 hereditary peers dies or retires, a by-election is held among the larger pool of all hereditary peers to elect a new member from their ranks

Two decades later, in its election manifesto, the recently elected Labour government in its election manifesto promised further reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It further promised a mandatory retirement age, participation requirements and appointments reform that ‘will seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second chamber.’ Now in its second reading, the government is expected to soon introduce a bill to abolish the right of the remaining hereditary peers. 1

The Lords was reformed in the 19th century to include industrialists, former diplomats, military personnel and civil servants, beyond the landed interests that most peers then represented. This helped build a reputation for expertise. 2  The Life Peerages Act 1958, paved the way for more such appointments without the need for the peerage to be passed down the holder’s lineage. This reputation for expertise is what several commentators who oppose larger reform, such as an elected upper chamber, refer to. The House of Lords currently consists of 151 crossbench life peers, many of whom have had stellar careers in different industries as well as expertise on specific subjects.

Representation

However, despite the 1958 Act, many if not most peers appointed tend to include former politicians, close associates of former governments, former Prime Ministers, making peerages a way for a government to reward its most important supporters. Currently, 227 life peers are Conservative, 182 are Labour and 74 Liberal Democrats.3 That means a majority of life peers are political appointees and that the Lords is also politically disproportionate. Further, the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the house in its fifth report notes a need to reassert the primary role of House Appointments Committee in appointing crossbench peers over that of the Prime Minister in addition to tackling political underrepresentation.4

While the House of Lords, particularly its hereditary peers, are often criticised for their lack of democratic legitimacy, they also face questions over representation. Currently, none of the 92 hereditary peers and less than a third of all peers are female, with the first women peers being appointed only in 1963.5 In 2018, only 6% of peers came from an ethnic minority background.6 

Upper Chambers around the world tend to be bodies that represent different regions or states. In the 100 member US Senate, senators represent the 50 US states, the French Senate is indirectly elected by local councillors and citizens living abroad. This means they face less severe concerns over representation and democratic legitimacy than the Lords. In India members of the Rajya Sabha are indirectly elected by state legislatures while 12 members are nominated for their contributions towards arts, literature, sciences and social services. This ensures that regions are represented at a national level and are complemented by “expert” voices as well. 

While the Labour government is likely to succeed in passing legislation to reform the Lords with its huge majority in the Commons,7 the future of the UK’s over 700 member upper chamber remains uncertain, marred with complexity and a failure in reflecting the country’s demography.

Reform

The bill will result in the 92 elected hereditary peers in the House of Lords losing their right to sit in the Lords and vote on bills. This would mean that members of the aristocracy, predominantly with landed interests and mostly male previously eligible, would no longer sit in the Lords, leaving Life Peers and Lords Spiritual, certain archbishops and bishops of the Church of England as the only constituent members of the Lords.

Currently, members are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister after they have been vetted by the Appointments Commission while the Commission also recommends individuals for appointment as non-political party members, with a said focus on “expertise”. If the primary focus of the Lords is to include experts on a variety of fields, the appointments process must become fairer, reducing undue political influence over it. Secondly, in addition, the House of Lords can be envisioned as a body focused on representing the interests of the UK’s four constituent countries and the regions that are impacted by the laws created by Parliament The Lords can be a binding force of the Union and a medium for diverse voices that remain unheard in the traditional democratic process.

Conclusion

The House of Lords has historically played a significant role in debating some of the most pressing issues faced by the country, fine-tuning legislation by recommending amendments to the Commons and bringing the government of the day to account. Perhaps the question of the upper chamber’s existence is not as relevant as a need for it to be more politically balanced and proportionate, and reflective of the regions and communities of the UK in the 21st century. 

Notes

1 ‘Labour Party Manifesto 2024’ (Labour) <https://labour.org.uk/change/serving-the-country/#constitutional-reform> accessed 4 November 2024;

2 Meg Russell, ‘Britain is finally abolishing hereditary peers from the House of Lords’ (The Conversation, 23 September 2024) <https://theconversation.com/britain-is-finally-abolishing-hereditary-peers-from-the-house-of-lords-a-constitutional-expert-on-the-historical-reforms-that-built-up-to-this-moment-239073> accessed 4 November 2024; 

3 UK Parliament, ‘Lords membership’ (UK Parliament) <https://members.parliament.uk/parties/lords> accessed 4 November 2024; 

4 Lord Speaker, ‘Fifth Report of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House’ (UK Parliament, 17 July 2023) <https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/369/lord-speakers-committee-on-the-size-of-the-house/news/196464/lord-speakers-committee-on-size-of-the-house-publish-fifth-report/> accessed 4 November 2024; 

5 Heather Evennett, ‘Women hereditary peerages and gender inequality in the line of succession’ (UK Parliament, 3 October 2022) <https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/women-hereditary-peerages-and-gender-inequality-in-the-line-of-succession> accessed 4 November 2024;

6 Mathew Purvis, ‘How ethnically and religiously diverse is the House of Lords?’ (UK Parliament, 1 August 2024) <https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/how-ethnically-and-religiously-diverse-is-the-house-of-lords> accessed 4 November 2024;

7 Meg Russell, ‘New Era for the UK House of Lords? Labour's Removal of the Hereditary Peers and Possible Future Reforms’ (Constitutionnet, 31 October 2024) <https://constitutionnet.org/news/voices/new-era-uk-house-lords-labours-removal-hereditary-peers> accessed 4 November 2024;