
Table of contents
Approximate read time: 20 minutes
1. Overview: Background information
The Library’s briefing on the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill provides information on its background, provisions and passage through the House of Commons. For ease, shortened overviews of what the bill would do and what happened to it in the House of Commons are provided below.
1.1 What would the bill do?
Under the provisions of the House of Lords Act 1999, 92 ‘excepted’ hereditary peers can sit in the House of Lords. Initially, the plan was for all hereditary peers to be removed by the legislation. However, a compromise agreement made at the time, known as the ‘Weatherill amendment’, allowed for 92 to remain while long-term reforms were decided.[1] In its 2024 general election manifesto, the Labour Party said that it would remove the right of these excepted hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords as part of reforms to modernise the House.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill would take forward this commitment by repealing section 2 of the 1999 act and removing the exemption under which hereditary peers currently have membership of the House. It would also abolish the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in hereditary peerage claims.
1.2 What happened in the House of Commons?
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill completed its passage through the House of Commons unamended. Opposition MPs tabled a number of amendments at committee stage, four of which were put to a division; however, none were successful. These amendments related to the:
- creation of a joint committee on wider reform
- removal of bishops
- introduction of elected members
- stated purpose of the act
Due to the lack of successful amendments at committee stage, the bill progressed straight to third reading where it was agreed to on division. The bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 13 November 2024.
2. Second reading in the House of Lords
The bill’s second reading took place in the House of Lords on 11 December 2024.[2]
2.1 Government position: Opening remarks
Introducing the bill, Baroness Smith of Basildon, leader of the House of Lords and lord privy seal, said that the reform contained within the legislation was “long overdue”.[3] She argued that the removal of hereditary peers was agreed in principle in 1999 and that she did not believe anyone had envisaged the by-election system created would still be in place a quarter of a century later. Baroness Smith highlighted previous private members’ bills which would have ended by-elections and gradually reduced the number of hereditary peers. She argued that her party had offered its support to previous governments to pass such legislation. Baroness Smith said these bills represented a “missed opportunity” and argued that the “time for more limited measures” had passed. She therefore said the government would be acting decisively to “complete this phase of reform” which it had committed to in its manifesto.
On the bill itself, Baroness Smith argued it had a clearly defined purpose, aim and objective: “to finally remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords”.[4] She said that while the government was clear about what the bill does, she also wanted to be clear about what it does not do:
This bill is not about disrespecting any individual peer, and it is not about eroding the scrutinising function at which this House excels. It is about completing the work of the 1999 act, which defined the principle that seats should no longer be reserved purely because of the family a peer was born into.[5]
On the scope of the bill, Baroness Smith referred to her party’s general election manifesto.[6] She argued the government had been “crystal clear” in its intention to end the hereditary element of the Lords before embarking on further changes. Related to this, she said that the argument that no reform should take place until everything else has been agreed had previously meant that “nothing gets done”.
Baroness Smith also addressed “misconceptions and perhaps misunderstandings about the bill”.[7] Focusing on arguments that the bill is “partisan and would erode the scrutiny functions” of the Lords, Baroness Smith reassured members that it “is not the intention of the bill, nor its effect”. She also addressed concerns about the political balance of the Lords, stating that after the bill had been implemented the Conservative Party would remain the largest party and no party would have an overall majority. Responding to suggestions the bill had been “sprung” upon the House, Baroness Smith repeated that the principle it would legislate for had been established in 1999, highlighted in her party’s manifesto, and the government’s plan for the bill had then been set out in its recent King’s Speech. Lastly, on the roles of the earl marshal and lord great chamberlain, Baroness Smith said that the bill would “not affect the offices themselves or the ability to fulfil their important functions”.
Concluding, Baroness Smith said that while she understood the strength of feeling about seeing colleagues depart, the bill was “reasonable and well-trailed” and commanded “the support of not only this House but the public”.[8]
2.2 Conservative Party
Lord True, shadow leader of the House of Lords, was critical of the bill. He argued that the bill was “defective not just for what is in it but for what it fails to address”.[9]
Lord True said that Baroness Smith had given three main reasons in support of the bill.[10] The first was the bill’s inclusion in the Labour Party’s 2024 manifesto. Lord True argued that the government’s focus on hereditary peers above other reforms was due to its popularity within the Labour Party and demonstrated “that it is all about party expedient and not principle”.
He also noted that the reforms would see the removal of 88 non-Labour peers and four Labour peers.
The second argument Lord True addressed was Baroness Smith’s assertion that the hereditary principle is indefensible.[11] He claimed that “no one inherits a seat in this House as a hereditary peer anymore”, referring to the reforms made in 1999 and the creation of the by-election system. He also argued that the removal of hereditary peers would not improve the House. In addition, Lord True said that it was not too late to return to the plans previously proposed by Lord Grocott (Labour) to end the system of by-elections and thereby end the arrival of new hereditary peers, while keeping “our colleagues who serve us all well”. Lord True said that the House should test this proposition at later stages of the bill as it “might bring an early and honourable peace where long conflict looms”.
Lord True said the third argument Baroness Smith had made was about numbers.[12] He argued that membership of the Lords should not be reduced by removing “the best and hardest working among us” while “clinging to the laggards and the no-shows”. Instead, he suggested that the bill be used to explore other approaches to reducing membership of the House, focus on potential participation requirements and consider the disparity in party numbers.
Commenting further, Lord True argued that “refreshment and renewal” of conventions governing relations between the House of Lords and House of Commons was needed, but that he opposed this proposed reform. He said constitutional change should only take place where there was consensus across party lines.[13]
Lord True also warned that the bill risked “destabilising the House”.[14] He argued it would have far-reaching consequences, some of which would be unintended and unavoidable. He noted that debates on the bill in the Commons had included calls for the removal of bishops and argued their membership was at risk. Lord True also said the bill would “snap” the historic thread within the House and leave it vulnerable to the power of the executive:
[…] the upshot [of the bill] will be a House in which the power and prerogative of the executive to stock it and direct how it is stocked will run ever wider. The untrammelled power to create new peers will be matched by the power to use a majority in the other place to purge members of parliament, with 369 marked down to go in Labour’s manifesto.[15]
He also suggested that further legislation to alter the composition of the Lords in the government’s favour would follow the bill.[16]
Concluding, Lord True said the bill was the best opportunity to scrutinise the reforms mentioned by the government in its manifesto.[17] These included the introduction of a participation requirement, reform of the appointments process and the creation of mandatory age limits. He said that if others did not lay amendments to enable consideration of these ideas, his party would:
Scrutiny of such matters is what committee in your Lordships’ House is for, and if others do not lay amendments to enable consideration of these ideas, we on this side will—and let no one call it delay if members of this House bring their wisdom and experience to bear to seek to improve the bill and so improve this House.[18]
Baroness Finn, shadow minister for the Cabinet Office, spoke for the Conservatives at the end of the debate.[19] Stating that reform of the Lords should require “consensus, respect for precedent and an understanding of what makes this House effective”, Baroness Finn argued the bill did not meet these standards. Instead, she said it was “piecemeal, short-sighted and damaging to the institutional integrity” of the Lords. She asserted that it represented a breach of the 1999 agreement and asked the government to give certainty that further reforms, as set out in its manifesto, would come before the hereditary peers are removed.
Baroness Finn also argued that the bill would remove “some of the most active, knowledgeable and experienced members” and thereby diminish the effectiveness of the Lords.[20] She said that if the size of the House was the government’s concern, it should target those who rarely attend and contribute. In addition, Baroness Finn said the bill raised “serious constitutional concerns” by weakening the Crossbenchers and Conservatives disproportionately, while “leaving the government benches untouched”. She called on the government to offer life peerages to all those hereditary members who want one.[21]
2.3 Liberal Democrats
Lord Newby, Liberal Democrat leader in the House of Lords, gave his party’s support to the bill arguing that it was “long overdue”.[22] He explained that he had set out his party’s position on Lords reform in a debate on 12 November 2024.[23] During this debate, Lord Newby gave his support to the removal of hereditary peers and called for a move towards an elected second chamber. He said he would not repeat his arguments from that earlier debate but would instead focus on responding to the points that had been made against the bill.[24] He said he had found no fewer than 30 arguments against the bill, some of which Lord True had already repeated. Lord Newby said they fell into two broad categories:
- First, a focus on procedure: “basically, that it was the wrong bill at the wrong time”.
- Second, “arguments of substance” which said that the qualities hereditary peers brought to the House were unique and substantial and, as a result, their removal would weaken the House and the constitution more generally.
On procedural issues, Lord Newby focused on the argument that in 1999 the then Labour government said it would not remove the remaining hereditary peers before wider fundamental reform was brought forward.[25] In response to this view, Lord Newby highlighted the convention that no Parliament can bind its successor:
The acceptance that Parliament and parties can change their minds is particularly relevant on the issue of Lords reform, because there has been no consistency from the largest parties on what they propose to do on the matter from Parliament to Parliament.[26]
Addressing the argument that reforms to the Lords set out in Labour’s manifesto should be implemented together, Lord Newby said that it was for the government to decide on “which order and at what pace to implement their manifesto”.[27] On calls for a constitutional convention or conference on the topic, Lord Newby said that “there have been umpteen reports on the size and composition” of the Lords. He also argued that “the doctrine of unripe time is typically a cover for basic opposition to the proposal under debate” and that was what was happening with this bill. Lord Newby also rejected claims the bill would break the constitution, stating the bill was “far too modest for that”.
Turning to the “substantive arguments”, Lord Newby noted claims that hereditary peers have made unique contributions and that their removal would have harmful consequences.[28] He said that central to this argument were the unique qualities hereditary peers have been said to possess:
It was variously claimed that the hereditaries worked harder, had a higher sense of public duty, were able to follow their conscience and be independent, had more in common with the country than the remainder of the House because they supported Brexit, have unique knowledge and insight, were not self-assertive and represented the whole of the UK.[29]
Lord Newby said that while he had great respect for hereditary peers, who were often “model public servants”, he argued that these qualities were not unique to them and that it was unfair to life peers to claim that they were.
On the assertion that hereditary peers represent the country as a whole, Lord Newby highlighted that “all hereditaries are male, all are white and virtually all come from similar backgrounds”. He also referred to public polling which he said showed that a majority (79%) believed that hereditary peers should not continue to have a place in the House of Lords. He said the same poll also found that 71% of those who had a view thought that the House should be fully elected.[30] In addition, Lord Newby dismissed the argument that the removal of hereditary peers would leave the King “isolated and vulnerable to republican attack”.
Concluding, Lord Newby argued against attempted amendment of the bill, stating that it should not be used as a “Christmas tree on which to dangle every other possible reform”.[31]
Lord Wallace of Saltaire, Liberal Democrat Lords spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, also spoke on the bill.[32] He said his party was “disappointed at the modesty of the bill” and called on the government to set out plans for further reform within the current Parliament. He called for the government to consult on these plans, and said that discussion should include:
- the creation of term limits or age limits
- a separation of appointments to the Lords from the honours system
- greater powers for the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC) to disapprove of nominations
- an agreement on the political balance of new appointments
- a focus on improving regional and national balance
Lord Wallace also highlighted that trust in politics in the UK was at a low and that the House’s actions in relation to the bill must take this into account.[33] He therefore argued that the Lords should pursue reform in a “constructive context, with constructive opposition on all sides”.
2.4 Convenor of the Crossbench peers
The Earl of Kinnoull, convenor of the Crossbench peers and deputy speaker, said the bill represented “a rare opportunity for this House not just to talk about our reform, but to engage in it”.[34] He argued that although the subject matter of the bill was small, the “available scope is much larger” and that the House would therefore want to consider other potential reforms as the bill progressed. Lord Kinnoull also cautioned that any major change to the constitution should be “undertaken with great care”, and consideration should be given to the smooth running of the Salisbury convention following any reform.[35]
Referencing the 2017 Burns report on the size of the House, which recommended reducing the membership of the House of Lords to 600, Lord Kinnoull argued that the bill was the first “suitable vehicle” brought before the House which would help it to reach that target.[36] He said that the removal of hereditary peers alongside the implementation of two of the other proposed reforms set out in Labour’s manifesto would achieve a membership of about or below the 600 target. The other reforms he highlighted were a retirement age for new members and an increased participation requirement.
Lord Kinnoull also spoke about the Salisbury convention, which is the understanding that the House of Lords does not vote down government bills which were mentioned in an election manifesto.[37] He argued that the convention is at the core of the successful relationship between the Lords and the executive, and that the modern version of the convention had worked well. However, he said that the convention should be renewed due to the upward trend in the ping-pong of bills, which he argued was happening more and lasting longer. He said:
[A renewed convention] would benefit relations between Parliament and the executive so that the government could have confidence that their manifesto bills would move through our House at reasonable pace.[38]
Alongside this, Lord Kinnoull contended that to preserve constitutional balance the prime minister’s power of appointment to the Lords needed to be addressed. He argued that there should be a new convention whereby 600 members was the conventional limit and the prime minister agreed to take advice on propriety and suitability from the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC).
2.5 Other members
The contributions made by some of the members who have previously been involved in Lords reform proposals and discussions are outlined below.
Lord Strathclyde (Conservative) was heavily critical of the proposed legislation, describing it as “a nasty little bill” that had been rushed through the Commons and brought before the Lords “with little thought about the future”.[39] He argued that the bill would break “a fundamental and solemn agreement” that the remaining hereditary peers would only leave the House when a plan for a fully reformed House was brought forward. He also questioned why the government had introduced the bill, arguing that “a more serious justification” was needed.
Other issues raised by Lord Strathclyde included that the bill would create a wholly appointed House and that it offered no continuity due to uncertainty about whether current hereditary peers would be offered a life peerage.[40] He also said that if the bill was about reducing membership the government should remove those who rarely participate rather than hereditary members, who he argued are “generally committed, younger and harder working”. Lord Strathclyde labelled the government’s approach as “nakedly partisan” and said its key aim was to “reduce the number of the government’s opponents”. He argued that it would lead to the prime minister having as much control of the House of Lords as he does the House of Commons.
Lord Burns (Crossbench peer and chair of the lord speaker’s committee on the size of the House) gave his support to the bill, stating “I cannot accept that there should be a fast-track, reserved route into this House because of a person’s parentage”.[41] However, he set out two reservations he had about the bill.
The first reservation was about the potential “cliff edge” nature of the legislation, with all excepted hereditary peers required to retire once the bill becomes law.[42] However, he said that “the blame” for this was “clearly with the previous government”, referring to Lord Grocott’s private members’ bills which it had not supported. He also argued that the previous government had made disproportionate appointments to the Lords in favour of its own party.
Addressing the argument that the bill would leave the House in a position where the number, affiliation and timing of future appointments are at the behest of the prime minister, Lord Burns said he accepted the criticism.[43] However, he argued that “there is a better answer to this criticism than the continuation of the hereditary principle”. Referring to the work of the lord speaker’s committee on the size of the House, Lord Burns said that the situation could be avoided by having a limit on the size of the House and having a “fair allocation” of appointments to political parties with reference to their performance at previous general elections. He also said that appointments could be approved by HOLAC and that he supported the government’s proposal that future nominations should be accompanied by a statement setting out the reasons for the nomination. He suggested this could be taken further by requiring the individuals concerned to make a statement to HOLAC about the time they would devote to the House and the ways in which they would contribute.
The second reservation outlined by Lord Burns was that the bill would not impose a ceiling on the size of the House.[44] He expressed concerns that without such a provision the space created by the removal of the hereditary peers would be filled by “appointments at the whim of the prime minister”.
Lord Grocott (Labour) gave his support to the bill, which he argued was “long overdue”.[45] He focused his speech on challenging the arguments made against the bill. For example, he said that those who argued that hereditary peers cannot be removed due to an agreement made 25 years ago do not understand the most fundamental principle of the British constitution “that no Parliament can bind its successor”. Lord Grocott also argued that the bill would not undermine the constitutional monarchy and was not unfair to the Conservative Party, who he said would remain the largest party after the hereditary peers had been removed. Lastly, while he agreed that the reform would see some valued members having to leave, Lord Grocott said this would be true of any group of people selected with a certain characteristic.
2.6 Government position: Closing remarks
Baroness Smith spoke again at the conclusion of the debate and responded to a variety of the points made.[46] As a general point, she expressed disappointment about some of the language used, stating that the House needed to approach discussions “in the tone that the public expect of us”.
Addressing the argument raised by some members that the Salisbury convention would not apply to the bill because it is a constitutional issue, Baroness Smith said that it had no credibility.[47] She noted that the argument had not been raised during debates about the UK leaving the EU, despite that also being a constitutional issue. Baroness Smith also disagreed with the idea that hereditary peers are better able to hold the government to account than life peers.
Baroness Smith challenged the argument that by-elections of hereditary peers had ended, explaining that they had been paused and would resume if the bill was not passed.[48] She also claimed that if one of Lord Grocott’s private members’ bills to abolish the system of by-elections had been passed in previous sessions, the current bill would not be before the House.
On the treatment of members who would leave the House under the bill, Baroness Smith said that she had already engaged with the Lord Speaker on agreeing appropriate access rights.[49] She also confirmed that nothing in the bill would impede the earl marshal and lord great chamberlain from carrying out their roles and that they would continue to have access to the parliamentary estate. Responding to calls for life peerages to be awarded to hereditary peers, Baroness Smith said there had been no offers made to members in return for their support of the bill. However, she confirmed that it would be possible for departing members to be nominated in future peerage lists.
Addressing future reforms of the House, Baroness Smith referred to her party’s manifesto and said that the “overall objective is to have a smaller chamber and one that is more active”.[50] She also noted disagreement amongst members about the timings of bringing forward such reforms. On the role of HOLAC, Baroness Smith said that it should perhaps have a role in seeking assurances from political parties around the suitability and participation of their nominees. In addition, noting concerns about the size of the House, Baroness Smith criticised the previous government’s number of appointments. She also spoke about future work she was keen to do to address issues with the participation of some members.
Finishing her speech, Baroness Smith addressed concerns about the piecemeal approach to reform being taken, stating that there was nothing in the bill which would mean that the House could not work as effectively as it currently does.[51] She referred to the bill as being a manifesto commitment and argued that it was “long overdue”. She recognised that it would result in the removal of “valued members” but said that progress was necessary.
3. Possible areas of future debate
Comments made by various members indicated that the following issues could feature in future debates on the bill as it progresses through its Lords stages (several of these featured in the Labour Party’s manifesto):
- removing hereditary peers gradually through the abolition of the by-election system
- changing the commencement provisions of the bill so that hereditary peers would be removed at the end of the Parliament rather than at the end of the session
- giving some or all of the hereditary peers life peerages on their removal
- reducing the size of the House
- removing the lords spiritual or rebalancing their number to include representatives from other faiths
- reforming the House of Lords to create an alternative and potentially elected chamber
- introducing a mandatory retirement age or time limit on membership
- creating a new participation requirement
- reforming the appointments process and HOLAC
- improving the national and regional balance of Lords membership
- separating the honours system from membership of the Lords
- establishing new standards for members
- strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed
4. Read more
- House of Lords Library, ‘Hereditary peers in the House of Lords’, accessed 13 January 2025
- House of Lords Library, ‘House of Lords Appointments Commission: Role and powers’, 10 January 2025
- House of Lords Library, ‘Data on House of Lords membership’, accessed 9 January 2025
- House of Lords Library, ‘House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]’, 24 November 2021
Cover image: © House of Lords 2024 / photography by Roger Harris
References
- For further information on the Weatherill amendment, see: House of Lords Library, ‘The Weatherill amendment: Elected hereditary peers’, 23 October 2009. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, cols 1722–864. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1721. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1722. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1722. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1722. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1723. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1724. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1725. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1725. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1726. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1726. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1727. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1727. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1727. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1727. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1727. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1728. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1855. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1856. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1858. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1728. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 12 November 2024, col 1710. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1728. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1728. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1728. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1729. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1729. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1729. Return to text
- YouGov polling published in October 2024 reported that 62% of those polled thought that hereditary peers should not continue to have a place in the House of Lords. It also found that 55% supported an entirely elected upper House. (YouGov, ‘Most Britons would support making the House of Lords fully elected’, 14 October 2024). Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1730. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, cols 1852–4. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1854. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1730. Return to text
- For further information on the Salisbury convention, see: House of Lords Library, ‘The evolution of the Salisbury convention’, 21 November 2022. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1731; and Lord Speaker, ‘Report of the lord speaker’s committee on the size of the House’, 31 October 2017. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1732. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1732. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1734. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, cols 1734–5. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1736. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1737. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1737. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1737. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, cols 1739–41. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1859. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1859. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1860. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1861. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1862. Return to text
- HL Hansard, 11 December 2024, col 1864. Return to text