Join 350,000+ subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of
The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
Want to add more newsletters?
An account already exists for this email address, please log in.
Hereditary peers left their red leather benches in the House of Lords for the final time this week as a 700-year-old system was abolished.
Most hereditary peers, who inherit their titles through their ancestors, lost the right to sit in the Lords in 1999, but 92 stayed on after a compromise deal with the Conservatives.
Now “the bell has tolled” for those “doomed” peers too, said the BBC, as a law to remove their seats took effect with the end of the current session of Parliament.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
However, in another compromise deal, 15 Conservative hereditary peers, two Labour and nine crossbenchers have been handed life peerages, “enabling their return to the red benches”, said The Guardian.
1. Pro: peers bring experience
Amid calls for the House of Lords to become an elected chamber in 2014, Peter Oborne argued that it actually worked remarkably well, throwing out what he called “populist measures introduced by governments determined to bolster their right-wing credentials”.
Writing for The Telegraph at the time, he said an elected House of Lords would never have the will or the courage to stand up against public opinion, and would deprive the public of the judgement of “very valuable” peers, such as retired generals, trade union leaders, academics and judges.
2. Con: undemocratic and no diversity
The UK has the world’s second largest decision-making body after China’s National People’s Congress. Campaigners such as the Electoral Reform Society argue that it is undemocratic that unelected peers should hold such sway in British politics.
Sign up for The Week’s Politics Recap newsletter
Making sense of the week's political news, delivered every Wednesday
Former Labour leader Ed Miliband previously proposed a wholly elected senate, with roughly proportionate numbers from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions, instead of MP-style constituencies.
During the coalition years, the Lib Dems put forward proposals to halve the number of members and ensure that at least 80% of peers were elected, but the plans were abandoned after an agreement with Tory opponents failed to be reached.
3. Pro: constitutional check
The House of Lords acts as a constitutional check by scrutinising, revising, and sometimes delaying legislation proposed by the House of Commons and the government.
In turn, this has led to “somewhat greater checks and balances constitutionally and a little more scrutiny in the policy-making process”, they argued.
4. Con: accusations of cronyism
The current system makes it very hard to get rid of politicians from the Cabinet. In 2019, Downing Street announced that Nicky Morgan, who didn’t contest her seat in the general election and was therefore no longer an MP, was to be made a Conservative peer in order to remain a member of Johnson’s top team. And Zac Goldsmith, who lost his Richmond seat the same year, also entered the House of Lords so that he could continue to attend Cabinet as environment minister.
In 2022, Johnson’s nomination of Evgeny Lebedev for a peerage was also questioned, with Labour urging the government to release the advice given to the prime minister by security services before the Russian businessman’s elevation to the Lords.
In 2025, Keir Starmer nominated 25 new Labour peers to the House of Lords to counteract Tory dominance and advance Labour’s legislative agenda. This led to fresh accusations of cronyism.
5. Pro: improves legislation
Members meet in Westminster and are expected to scrutinise bills approved by the House of Commons. While they cannot normally prevent laws from being passed, they can delay bills and add amendments that are then sent back for consideration in the Commons.
Supporters say that this forces reflection, improves legislation, and safeguards constitutional standards.
6. Con: stipend concerns
Peers are not paid a salary but can claim a flat daily allowance of £180, or £361 if they attend a sitting. They can also choose not to make a claim.
One notorious anecdote reported in 2017 told of a peer who “left the taxi running” outside the chamber while he dashed in to claim his £300, according to The Telegraph.
Lady D’Souza, who stepped down as speaker of the upper chamber in 2016, told BBC documentary “Meet the Lords” that many of her colleagues did nothing to justify their stipend.
“There is a core of peers who work incredibly hard, who do that work, and there are, sad to say, many, many, many peers who contribute absolutely nothing but who claim the full allowance.” Members who already receive a ministerial or office holders’ salary cannot claim the flat rate.
