Keir Starmer’s government regards reform of the House of Lords as ‘long overdue and essential’
What’s wrong with the Lords?
It is, in many respects, an anomaly. Most mature democracies have a second parliamentary chamber. But relatively few of these are, like the House of Lords, unelected (though Canada and Jamaica, for instance, have appointed second houses). It is by far the world’s largest second chamber: the Lords has around 844 sitting members; the French senate, the next largest, has around 348. With its 24 Lords Spiritual (bishops of the Church of England), it is, with Iran, one of two legislatures in the world that reserves seats for religious leaders. There are also the 85 remaining hereditary peers; only Lesotho, Tonga, Zimbabwe and a few other nations have hereditary legislators.
Why does the UK have this system?
Though its origins lie further back, the division of Parliament into two houses, Commons and Lords, dates from Edward III’s time, in the 14th century. Originally, the Lords were more powerful, but the balance of power shifted under the Tudors. After the execution of Charles I, Oliver Cromwell abolished the Lords; Charles II restored it. As the franchise expanded in the 19th century, the primacy of the Commons became accepted in principle. But legally, until the early 20th century, the two houses had equal powers of legislation. Then, in 1911, after a long struggle between David Lloyd George and his Liberal Party and a Conservative-dominated Lords over his “People’s Budget”, the Parliament Act was passed. It stopped Lords having any powers over bills (draft laws) concerning money, and replaced its right of veto over other bills with the ability to delay them for a maximum of two years.
What reforms have been made since?
After the Second World War, the Marquess of Salisbury helped to develop a set of conventions designed to help the Labour government pass its programme, despite having only 16 Labour peers in a house of 761. The Salisbury Convention commits the Lords not to oppose the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto. Another major change came in 1958, when the Life Peerage Act allowed peers to be appointed on the basis of legislative expertise – including women, for the first time. The next major reform came in 1999, when Tony Blair’s Labour government excluded 667 hereditary peers. Although it had pledged to eradicate them, it had to make a deal allowing some to stay. When one of these dies or leaves, a by-election is held among hereditary peers of their party to select a replacement. Oddly, these are now the Lords’ only elected members.
How does the Lords work now?
Its main role is to scrutinise legislation passed by the Commons. It spends more than half its time considering bills. Peers examine each bill over several stages and suggest revisions, before it becomes an Act of Parliament. Between November 2023 and May 2024, for instance, the House of Lords considered 2,377 changes to 67 bills, debating for more than 780 hours. Much of this scrutiny takes place in select committees – appointed to consider specific policy areas. Other committees monitor the affairs of government departments, or specific policy issues. Recent changes made to laws by the Lords include making both non-fatal strangulation or suffocation and threats to release intimate images specific offences.
And does it work well?
In many respects, yes. Its supporters argue that an unelected – and less-politicised – upper house functions as a useful brake on under-debated or kneejerk legislation; it is a vital constitutional check, opposing poor law-making. Some suggest the quality of debate in the Lords is higher than that of the Commons, since peers, unlike MPs, do not also have to make time to perform constituency duties, and few serve in government departments. Moreover, the Lords is an “expert house” comprising many who have excelled in a wide range of disciplines, unlike the Commons, which is dominated by career politicians. Peers, some say, feel the weight of responsibility bestowed upon them by a lifetime peerage, making them more measured policymakers than MPs. Some even defend the hereditary principle, as part of Britain’s historical fabric.
What are the arguments against it?
That it is an unelected body with great power to undermine democratic mandates. Bills the Commons has passed but which the Lords is currently opposing include the assisted dying bill, which has wide public support, and the Crime and Policing Bill. Even if you accept the principle of an appointed expert house, the way Lords are selected is opaque and politicised. Prime ministers have effectively unlimited power to appoint; most peerages are handed to former MPs, party officials and donors. Notorious recent examples include Boris Johnson’s ennobling of Charlotte Owen, then 29, who had worked briefly as his special adviser. There are regular lobbying scandals: two Lords were suspended late last year. And it is unrepresentative: around a third of peers are women; just 6% come from a minority ethnic background; at least 50% attended private schools; over 40% are from the Southeast.
What are Labour’s reform plans?
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill proposes to remove all remaining hereditary peers, though amendments allow current hereditary peers to remain until they leave the House. This is a “first step” in a series of proposed reforms, including a mandatory retirement age of 80; and establishing a new participation requirement to ensure active membership. It also wants to strengthen rules for removing disgraced peers and reform the appointments process, to “ensure the quality of new appointments” and improve the “national and regional balance” of the Upper House. Lords reform is notoriously slow and complex; but a Lords committee is due to report on the proposed reforms before 31 July this year.
The Lords by numbers
Of the 844 peers, 282 are Conservative, 230 are Labour, 75 are Liberal Democrats, one is from Reform UK, and 177 are crossbench (non-party political). Although the Tories are the largest group, no party has a majority. The House of Lords Appointments Commission recommends individuals for appointment as crossbench peers – and vets all nominations on the basis of “propriety”, meaning that a person should be in good standing generally and not have past conduct that could bring the House of Lords into disrepute. It can only make recommendations and cannot veto. From 2010 to 2025, 56% of life peers appointed were either ex-politicians, former advisers or major donors. The average age of members is around 71. In the last available accounts, for 2023/24, the House of Lords cost the taxpayer £143.8 million. Peers are not paid a salary, but can claim a tax-free daily attendance allowance of £371 (they can also claim £185, or nothing, if they think appropriate). In 2017, it was reported that one unnamed peer had “left the taxi running” while he popped in to record his attendance. Over the last Parliament, just 10% of all peers made more than half of all debate contributions; 28 Lords never attended at all.
