House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill: HL Bill 49 of 2024–25

Approximate read time: 40 minutes

Download the briefing in PDF

Download the large print briefing in PDF

Summary

Under the provisions of the House of Lords Act 1999, 92 ‘excepted’ hereditary peers can sit in the House of Lords. 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 House of Lords Act 1999 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.

The bill has completed its passage through the House of Commons. Opposition MPs tabled a number of amendments at committee stage, four of which were put to a division; however, none were successful. The bill therefore progressed to report stage unamended where it was agreed to on division.

The Conservative Party objected to the bill and set out several arguments against it during these Commons stages. This included that the government should not enact piecemeal reform of the Lords. The SNP expressed disappointment with the scope of the bill and were critical of the House of Lords in its current form, arguing that it needs wider reform. The Liberal Democrats gave their support to the bill. However, they also called for it to contain further reforms to the House of Lords.

The bill is scheduled to receive its second reading in the House of Lords on 11 December 2024.

This briefing provides an overview of the provisions of the bill as well as background information. It will be updated as the bill progresses through its parliamentary stages in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

1. What is the background to the bill?

1.1 Current situation: ‘Excepted’ hereditary peers

Until 1999, the majority of those who held a hereditary peerage had an automatic right to membership of the House of Lords. In its 1997 manifesto, the Labour Party, led by Tony Blair, said it would remove the hereditary principle from the House of Lords.^[1] In its Queen’s Speech at the beginning of the 1998–99 parliamentary session, Mr Blair’s government set out plans to legislate to remove hereditary peers and to establish a royal commission to bring forward proposals for further reform of the House.^[2]

The House of Lords Act 1999 ended the automatic right of hereditary peers to 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 agreement’, allowed for some to remain while further long-term reforms were decided. As a result, the 1999 act excepted 90 hereditary peers from removal. The act additionally excepted those who hold the offices of earl marshal and lord great chamberlain. These two exemptions do not count towards the 90 excepted members. The 90 excepted hereditary peers have maintained their number through a by-election system.^[3]

When the current agreement on hereditary peers was reached in 1999, it was intended as a precursor to further reform of the House. However, no such large-scale reform has taken place. This fact has featured extensively in the debate about the continued presence of hereditary peers. Some have argued that they should not be removed until further reform takes place. Others have contended that the compromise was intended to be a short-term solution and hereditary peers should therefore be removed.

Further information on the passing of the 1999 act and the ‘Weatherill amendment’ can be found in the House of Lords Library briefing, ‘Hereditary peers in the House of Lords since 1999’ (27 March 2014).

1.2 Previous proposed reforms

Since the 1999 act, there have been a number of legislative proposals put forward that sought to remove or further reduce the number of excepted hereditary peers in the House of Lords. This has included both government legislation and private members’ bills. The majority looked to end the hereditary by-election process and thereby gradually reduce the number of hereditary peers. None of these proposed reforms have been successful.

A brief overview of the bills which received a second reading in either House is set out in the timeline below:

• House of Lords (Amendment) Bill 2006–07

Introduced by Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat), who was an excepted hereditary peer, this bill sought to stop hereditary by-elections. The bill did not progress beyond second reading. Lord Avebury reintroduced it in the 2007–08 parliamentary session, where it met the same fate.

• Lord Steel’s bills (2006–07 to 2013–14)

Lord Steel of Aikwood (Liberal Democrat) introduced a number of bills which looked to reform the House of Lords. His first bill, the House of Lords Bill in the 2006–07 session, would have ended the hereditary by-elections but would have also introduced wider reforms, including establishing a statutory appointments commission, allowing for permanent leave of absence from the House and enabling the expulsion of members convicted of serious offences. The bill did not progress past second reading.

Lord Steel introduced a substantially similar bill in the 2007–08 session which reached committee stage but did not progress further. A third bill, with broadly the same measures, was introduced in the 2008–09 session, but again did not progress past day one of its committee stage.

Lord Steel introduced the House of Lords Reform Bill in the 2010–12 session which contained similar provisions to his previous bills. It completed its stages in the House of Lords. However, some provisions were removed during its passage, including those relating to ending hereditary by-elections. The bill did not progress beyond first reading in the House of Commons.

In the 2012–13 and 2013–14 parliamentary sessions, Lord Steel introduced further bills relating to House of Lords reform. However, neither contained provisions which aimed to remove or reduce the hereditary peerage element of the Lords.

• Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010

As introduced by the then Labour government, this legislation contained a clause which would have ended by-elections to replace excepted hereditary peers who had vacated their seat in the Lords. At this time, members could only vacate a seat through death. The provisions relating to hereditary peers were removed from the bill during ‘wash up’ after the 2010 general election was called. The bill was therefore passed without any changes to the membership of excepted hereditary peers.

• House of Lords Reform Bill 2012–13

Introduced by the coalition government, the bill would have provided for a three-stage transition to a fully reformed House of Lords which would have consisted of 360 elected members, 90 appointed members, up to 12 lords spiritual and a number of ministerial members. It would also have introduced a three-parliament term limit for most members. The bill failed to progress beyond second reading due to political disagreement, time available and the potential impact it could have had on the primacy of the House of Commons.

• House of Lords Reform Bill [HL] 2016–17

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party) introduced a bill which sought to remove the right of excepted hereditary peers to sit in the House. It would have also made wider changes to the composition of the House, including the introduction of elected members. The bill received its second reading, but did not progress any further.

• House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) bills

Since 2015, Lord Grocott (Labour) has introduced several private member’s bills which looked to end hereditary by-elections. However, the provisions of these bills would not have applied to the earl marshal or lord great chamberlain. Lord Grocott introduced these bills in every parliamentary session since 2016–17, apart from the current session and the short 2019 session.^[4] Some of these bills progressed beyond first reading in the House of Lords. However, none were passed to the House of Commons or went on to receive royal assent.

More detailed information on these proposed reforms can be found in the House of Lords Library briefings:

• ‘Proposed legislation to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords: 1999–2024’, 10 September 2024
• ‘Hereditary peers in the House of Lords since 1999’, 26 March 2014

Since the 1999 act, there have been some legislative reform of the House. The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 allowed members to retire or resign. It also provides that members who do not attend and those convicted of serious offences should cease to be members. In addition, the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 enabled the House to make standing orders to allow a suspension imposed on a member to run beyond the end of a Parliament. It also allowed the House of Lords to expel members for reasons other than non-attendance or being sentenced to over a year in prison.

1.3 Current plans for reform

In its 2024 general election manifesto, the Labour Party committed to removing the right of excepted hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.^[5] It argued that the House requires modernisation and that the presence of “hereditary peers remains indefensible”. This commitment was made alongside other proposals to reform the House of Lords. The party said that it would:

• introduce a mandatory retirement age that would require members to retire from the House of Lords at the end of the Parliament in which they reach the age of 80
• establish a new participation requirement
• strengthen the circumstances in which “disgraced members” can be removed
• reform the appointments process to “ensure the quality of new appointments” and seek to improve the national and regional balance

Labour argued that these changes “to modernise the House of Lords” would be an improvement.^[6] However, it said that it is also committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is “more representative of the regions and nations”. The party committed to consulting on these proposals.

Following the general election, the government announced that it would introduce legislation to take forward plans to “modernise the constitution”.^[7] It said that the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill is a “short and narrowly focused bill” that would deliver on its manifesto commitment to remove the right of remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.^[8] It also explained that this would be the first step in wider reform of the Lords.

On its rationale for the bill, the government argued that:

In the 21st century, there should not be almost 100 places reserved for individuals who were born into certain families, nor should there be seats effectively reserved only for men.^[9]

Currently, all of the excepted hereditary peers are men. Five of the excepted hereditary peers chosen to remain in the House in 1999 were women, but they have all since died or retired. No women have ever joined the House through a hereditary by-election. Only a small number of hereditary peerages can be inherited by a woman in her own right.^[10]

The government also said that reform to remove hereditary peers from the Lords is “now long overdue and essential” referring to the lack of progress made since the House of Lords Act 1999.^[11] It argued that the 1999 act was “only intended to create interim arrangement to retain some hereditary peers for a short period”. Therefore, their continued presence 25 years later was “more by accident than by design”. In addition, the government said that while the composition of the rest of the House can evolve as appointments are made and members retire, “the party balance of hereditary peers remains static, providing an advantage to one party regardless of the wider context”. The government has noted that of the hereditary peers, 42 seats are ring-fenced for Conservative hereditary peers, 28 for crossbenchers, three for Liberal Democrats and two for Labour, while 15 are elected by the whole House.^[12]

On 5 September 2024, the bill received its first reading in the House of Commons.^[13] It received its second reading in the House of Commons on 15 October 2024.

In July 2024, the House of Lords passed an amendment to the standing orders that changed the requirement to hold a by-election to replace a hereditary vacancy within three months of one arising to 18 months.^[14] This paused by-elections during the period when the House of Lords is expected to be debating the bill. As a result, currently there are 88 excepted hereditary peers able to sit and vote in the House of Lords.^[15] Both the Crossbench and Conservative groups have vacancies that would normally be filled by a by-election.^[16]

1.3.1 Reaction to the proposals

The House of Lords considered the government’s proposals during its debate on the King’s Speech.^[17] Several members were critical of the plans. Speaking from the opposition front bench, Lord Keen of Elie argued that the previous Labour government in 2003 had said that the removal of the remaining hereditary peers could only take place as part of wider reform. He therefore questioned why the current government had reverted to “piecemeal tinkering rather than robust constitutional reform”.^[18] Lord Strathclyde (Conservative), a former leader of the House of Lords, also spoke against the plans.^[19] Similarly, he argued against “bungled piecemeal reform” and called on the government to set out plans for “proper reform”.

However, other members welcomed the government’s plans. Former lord speaker Lord Fowler (Crossbench) gave his support for the bill.^[20] He argued that the appointment of hereditary peers is not the “right solution for the 21st century”. Lord Grocott (Labour) also voiced his support for the bill and welcomed the government’s “incremental” approach to Lords reform.^[21] In addition, Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat) noted his party’s support for the removal of hereditary peers but questioned why other commitments made by the government in its manifesto relating to constitutional reform had not been brought forward.^[22]

In September 2024, the House of Lords considered a private notice question asked by Lord Strathclyde on the government’s plans to remove excepted hereditary peers.^[23] Lord Strathclyde repeated his opposition to the plans, arguing that it would remove “some of our most senior and experienced peers”, but not address those who do not regularly attend. He also criticised the government for a lack of discussion and consultation on the issue.^[24] There was a mixture of support and criticism from other members. Shadow Leader of the House of Lords Lord True criticised that a statement was given to the press about the government’s plans prior to a statement being made in Parliament.^[25] Speaking for the government, Baroness Smith of Basildon noted that the plans had featured in the Labour Party’s recent manifesto.^[26] She argued that they would “complete the process started a quarter of a century ago to remove hereditary peers from Parliament”.^[27]

YouGov polling has suggested that there is popular support among the British public for the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords.^[28] Following a poll conducted in early September 2024, it reported that 62% of those polled thought that hereditary peers should not continue to have a place in the Lords, with 16% saying they should have a place. YouGov suggested these figures showed that the presence of hereditary peers is what “the public most object to” about the House’s composition. However, on alternatives to the current composition of the Lords, the poll showed that the only alternative which “commands majority support from the public is an entirely elected upper house”. In addition, YouGov included a caveat to its findings which noted that only 4% of the public said they have a lot of knowledge about how the Lords operates, with 64% saying they have not very much or no knowledge at all.

2. What would the bill do?

2.1 Overview of the bill

The explanatory notes to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, produced by the Cabinet Office, state that the main purpose of the bill is to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.^[29]. Under the proposals, the earl marshal and lord great chamberlain would be able to continue their ceremonial functions but would no longer be members of the Lords.

The bill would also abolish the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in hereditary peerage claims. At present, the House of Lords has a role in helping to decide complex or disputed hereditary peerage claims. Erskine May explains that the lord chancellor, on behalf of the crown, maintains a roll of the peerage, which is the official register in which those inheriting peerages “seek inclusion as evidence of their dignity and rank”.^[30] An individual succeeding to or claiming a peerage should apply to the lord chancellor, through the Crown Office, to be included in the roll. If the claim is complex, or the lord chancellor is not satisfied that the claimant has established a right to succession, they refer the matter to the House of Lords. The case is then passed to a committee made up of three current holders of high judicial office and four Lords members for determination. This committee then reports its findings to the House, and the House usually resolves the claim as per the committee’s decision, with this resolution reported to the crown.

The bill would reform this system and mean that:

• Any complex or disputed peerage claims that would have been referred to the House of Lords would be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by way of section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833.
• Claimants to a peerage of Ireland would no longer be able to petition the House of Lords to confirm their succession.

2.2 Provisions of the bill

The bill contains 5 clauses.

Clause 1 would repeal section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999 and thereby remove the exception to section 1 of that act, which currently allows certain excepted hereditary peers to have membership of the House. It would therefore remove all excepted hereditary peers from the House of Lords and would mean that no present or future holders of a hereditary peerage would have the right to sit and vote in the House by virtue of that peerage.

Clause 2 would abolish the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to hereditary peerage claims.

Clause 3 would make consequential amendments to several pieces of legislation to reflect the changes made by clauses 1 and 2 and more widely the position that there would no longer be any hereditary members of the House of Lords. The legislation affected would include:

• Peerage Act 1963
• House of Lords Act 1999
• Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010
• House of Lords Reform Act 2014

Clause 4 would provide for the bill’s territorial extent and commencement. On its territorial extent, an amendment or repeal made by the bill would have the same extent as the provision amended or repealed.^[31] The bill would extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Clause 5 would provide for the bill’s short title.

3. What happened in the House of Commons?

3.1 Second reading

3.1.1 Front bench positions

The bill’s second reading took place on 15 October 2024.^[32] Introducing the bill, Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office Nick Thomas-Symonds explained that the government was taking forward its manifesto commitment to reform the House of Lords.^[33] Mr Thomas-Symonds said the bill was an “immediate first step” which would remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. He argued that the removal of hereditary peers was “long overdue” and that:

In the 21st century, there should not be places in our Parliament, making our laws, reserved for those who were born into certain families.^[34]

Mr Thomas-Symonds said that for the government, the bill was a matter of principle and not “a comment on the contribution or service of any individual hereditary peer, past or present”.^[35] He also argued that for the public to trust democratic institutions, “it is important that our second chamber reflects modern Britain”.^[36]

Responding, then shadow deputy prime minister Sir Oliver Dowden set out his party’s opposition to the bill. He argued that the government’s plans were at best “cosmetic” and at worst risked “irreversible change”.^[37] He warned that “rushed constitutional change leads to unintended consequences” and urged the government to “proceed with caution”. In addition, he argued that reforms to the Lords should be presented as one package rather than as step-by-step reform:

The argument that I am making is that this House should have the opportunity to consider all the changes together in the round before we rush ahead with constitutional change for the sake of virtue signalling and optics rather than what suits the needs of the nation.^[38]

By focusing only on the removal of hereditary peers and not looking at wider reform, Sir Oliver argued that the government was breaching what Labour had agreed to in 1999.^[39] He also criticised the government, stating that the bill had received “no pre-legislative scrutiny, no joint committee and no cross-party engagement”.^[40] Additionally, Sir Oliver said that the bill would enable the government to:

[…] remove the independent and experienced voices of excepted peers so that it can parachute in a wave of new Labour cronies. It is change in the name of an executive power grab, not change to serve the British people.^[41]

To demonstrate the Conservative Party’s objections to the bill, Sir Oliver moved the following amendment:

That this House declines to give a second reading to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill because it is not an acceptable or effective method of enacting major constitutional change, because it proposes a significant alteration to the composition of the House of Lords which should not be considered in isolation from other changes, having regard to the undertakings given by the then government in 1999, because it drip-feeds changes that hinder proper scrutiny of measures that could change the relationship between the two Houses, because it risks unintended consequences, does not reflect the lack of political consensus on House of Lords reform and does not provide for full consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny which would give the opportunity to consider the case for overall reform, seek cross-party engagement on proposals, and review the implications of all proposals.^[42]

This amendment was put to a vote but was unsuccessful by 453 votes to 105.^[43] Commenting on the amendment for the government, Ellie Reeves, minister without portfolio at the Cabinet Office, argued that the Conservative Party was confused in its response to the proposals and that as the bill had been included in Labour’s manifesto it would be taken forward.^[44] Ms Reeves also said that the agreement made 25 years ago which allowed excepted hereditary peers to remain in the Lords would not stop the government bringing forward its legislation: “to the extent that it was ever binding, [the agreement] was not entered into and does not bind this government”.^[45]

Sarah Olney, Liberal Democrat spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, welcomed the bill.^[46] Ms Olney explained that her party “does not believe that there is space in a modern democracy for hereditary privilege”. She also argued that the bill would make the gender imbalance in the Lords “slightly less severe” and help to address concerns about the size of the House found in the 2017 Burns report.^[47] In addition, she noted that reform of the Lords to make it a fully elected second chamber had been a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy. Ms Olney therefore said that while the measures were “long overdue”, the bill was “a very welcome first step to modernise the upper House” which would help restore public trust in politics.^[48]

While giving her party’s support to the bill, Ms Olney also said that the Liberal Democrats wanted to see broader reform as soon as possible.^[49] She asked the government to set out a timeline for the other reforms in its manifesto relating to a mandatory retirement age, a participation requirement, the appointment process and addressing the national and regional composition of the House. In addition, Ms Olney asked the government to confirm reported plans to require any nomination for a peerage to be accompanied by an explanation of the nominee’s suitability.^[50]

Pete Wishart, the SNP’s deputy leader at Westminster, was critical of both the bill and the House of Lords in its current form.^[51] Mr Wishart argued that the bill was too narrow in scope and questioned how long it would be before the government brought forward wider reform. The SNP tabled an amendment which would have declined to give the bill a second reading as it failed to abolish the House of Lords. However, this was not selected by the speaker.^[52]

3.1.2 Issues raised by MPs

During the debate, MPs from across the chamber gave their views on the bill with a mixture of support and opposition that did not always divide along party lines. Several themes, which are outlined below, emerged from these speeches.

Scope of the bill

Various members called for the scope of the bill to be widened to include further reform of the House of Lords. Removal of the bishops and the introduction of a mandatory retirement age were the main proposals raised. The idea of a participation requirement as a condition of membership also featured in the debate. In addition, some MPs called for the abolition of the House of Lords and the creation of a new elected chamber.

Sir Gavin Williamson (Conservative MP for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) called for the bill’s scope to be widened to include the removal of the bishops from the House of Lords.^[53] Sir Gavin argued that it was unfair that other denominations and religions were not represented and highlighted that more people declared they had no religion than attended a church. He also noted a geographical element, with only English bishops allowed to sit in the Lords. Referring to the situation as an “injustice”, Sir Gavin called on the government to table an amendment to remove the bishops. He said that if it did not, he would.

Other members called for other faiths to be given a dedicated place in the Lords to improve representation. For example, Simon Hoare (Conservative MP for North Dorset) called for “a faith bench or faith benches” where there would be a mix of faiths.^[54] Sir Edward Leigh (Conservative MP for Gainsborough) also questioned why other denominations and faiths could not be represented in the Lords.^[55] Responding to Sir Edward, Mr Thomas-Symonds said:

I am certainly in favour of the representation of different faiths in the upper House, but the government set out a step-by-step process in our manifesto.^[56]

Several MPs asked the government why it had not included its other manifesto plans to reform the Lords in the bill. For example, Richard Holden (Conservative MP for Basildon and Billericay) said he was concerned that the government was not looking to legislate on its plans to introduce a mandatory retirement age.^[57] Sir Gavin also called for further reforms, including a mandatory retirement age and a participation requirement, to be added to the bill.^[58] Similarly, Dr Ben Spencer (Conservative MP for Runnymede and Weybridge) suggested that various changes to the Lords, including a retirement age and the role of religious representation, should be considered.^[59] The Liberal Democrats also called for a timetable for such reforms to be taken forward as soon as possible.^[60]

On these calls, Ms Reeves said that her party’s manifesto committed to abolishing the hereditary peers as an “immediate” first step.^[61] She argued that the bill would deliver this. She also stated that it was right for the government to take time to consider “how best to implement our other manifesto commitments” and that this would involve engaging with peers and the public “where appropriate”.^[62]

Other MPs called for the total reform of the House of Lords. Richard Tice (Reform MP for Boston and Skegness) called for a nationwide debate on what the Lords should look like and called on the government to progress reform at a faster pace.^[63] Mr Holden agreed, arguing that the government should not go for piecemeal reform but a full package instead.^[64] However, Gareth Snell (Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent Central) argued that there was a risk that the removal of the hereditary peers could be lost in a larger package of reforms as there would be “more for us to fall out over and disagree on”.^[65] Jonathan Brash (Labour MP for Hartlepool) agreed, stating that “it is much better to get done what we all agree on than to present a package of reform that ends up dying at the hands of those who disagree with it”.^[66]

Ms Reeves said that the government was committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber.^[67] However, she argued that such a major change would need to be preceded by “a significant period of detailed consideration and consultation”. This would “prevent progress” on other initial reforms to “help deliver a smaller and more active second chamber”.

Life peerages for excepted hereditary peers

Several members raised the idea that the hereditary peers facing removal by the bill should receive life peerages.^[68] Commenting on this, John Glen (Conservative MP for Salisbury) said it was a “very reasonable point” that “merits further consideration”.^[69]

In 1999, hereditary peers of first creation, and those hereditary peers who served as leader of the House, were awarded life peerages.^[70]

For the government, Mr Thomas-Symonds said that there was no bar on parties nominating hereditary peers for life peerages.^[71] Ms Reeves addressed calls for a separate list for hereditary peers by stating that it would be for the new leader of the opposition to nominate individuals for peerages in the normal way.^[72] For example, in 2000 Lord Ponsonby, Lord Chandos and the Earl of Mar and Kellie returned to the House as life peers.^[73]

Role of the monarchy

Several members argued that removing the hereditary principle from the House of Lords would lead to questions about the role of the monarchy. Sir John Hayes (Conservative MP for South Holland and the Deepings) was one such member:

The truth of the matter is that at the apex of our constitution is, of course, His Majesty the King. He is there because, in the minister’s words, he belongs to a certain family and therefore derives a certain authority from that antecedence. Is that wrong too?^[74]

Responding, Mr Thomas-Symonds answered no and said that the monarchy was “a completely different part of our constitution”.^[75] He highlighted that no monarch since Queen Anne (who reigned between 1702 and 1714) had refused royal assent to a bill and that the constitutional monarchy “enjoys popular support”. Confirming this, Ellie Reeves argued that the government’s reforms would have no effect on the role of the sovereign and that seeking to make a comparison between the two issues was “not credible”.^[76]

After the vote to reject the Conservative’s reasoned amendment, the bill received its second reading without division and was committed to a committee of the whole House.^[77]

3.2 Committee stage

The bill was considered by a committee of the whole House on 12 November 2024.^[78] Opposition MPs tabled a number of amendments, four of which were put to a division; however, none were successful. As a result, the bill progressed to third reading unamended.

3.2.1 Issues MPs voted on

Opposition MPs tabled the following amendments which were divided upon during committee stage. As noted above, none of these were agreed.

Joint committee on wider reform

Alex Burghart, shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, tabled amendment 25, which would have seen the creation of a joint committee on wider reforms of the composition of the House of Lords. This committee would have considered and reported on the government’s plans for reform of the Lords, including the removal of hereditary peers, the introduction of a mandatory retirement age, a new participation threshold to enable continuing membership, changes to circumstances in which “disgraced members” can have their membership removed, and changes to the appointments process. The amendment would have prevented the government’s bill from coming into force until after the House of Commons had approved a report by the committee on these issues.

Speaking to his amendment, Mr Burghart said that it sought to ensure there is “proper scrutiny of the changes to the composition of our legislature”.^[79] He also argued that his amendment was led by the Conservative principle that constitutional change “should not be rushed but carefully considered, and implemented only if the House is confident that it will work”.

Responding for the government, Ellie Reeves, minister without portfolio at the Cabinet Office, argued that delaying the bill would go against the government’s manifesto commitments.^[80]

SNP deputy Westminster leader, Pete Wishart, also said he would not support the amendment. He explained that he would not be supporting amendments tabled by the Conservative front bench, stating that he had had difficulty following what the party was trying to achieve.^[81]

During the debate, the Liberal Democrats expressed support for wider reform of the Lords.^[82] However, its members did not take part in the division on Mr Burghart’s amendment.

Mr Burghart’s amendment was defeated on division by 376 votes to 98.^[83]

Removal of bishops

Sir Gavin Williamson (Conservative MP for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) tabled new clause 1 which would have removed the entitlement to membership of the Lords by virtue of being a bishop or archbishop of the Church of England. However, it would not have prevented a bishop or archbishop, current or retired, from receiving a life peerage or prevent them from entering the House of Lords to lead prayers. New clause 2 and amendments 1 and 2, also tabled by Sir Gavin, would have made consequential amendments relating to new clause 1.

On these amendments, Sir Gavin argued that it is “fundamentally unfair” that a group of clerics have “a right and a say over our legislation”.^[84] Commenting further, he said that he did not believe that as an Anglican he had the right to greater representation than those of other faiths and denominations. In addition, Sir Gavin noted that the bishops with membership of the House of Lords are not geographically representative, as they only come from England, not from the whole of the UK.

Liberal Democrat spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Sarah Olney, said that while she supported the ambition to remove the bishops, she did not believe the bill was the correct vehicle for the change.^[85] She believed that adding new clause 1 would “threaten” the passage of the bill in the Lords. Due to this and her preference that the bill be passed as quickly as possible, Ms Olney said that her party would not support Sir Gavin’s amendment.

The SNP’s Pete Wishart gave his backing to the removal of the bishops, stating that the amendment was only in Sir Gavin’s name “because he beat me to the Table Office”.^[86]

The government did not give its support to the amendment. Ms Reeves explained that while she had made note of the number of signatures attached to it, the bill was focused on delivering a manifesto commitment to bring about immediate reform and was not a vehicle for wider changes.^[87]

The amendment was defeated on division by 378 votes to 41.^[88]

For more information on the bishops, see House of Lords Library briefing, ‘Lords spiritual in the House of Lords explained’ (5 January 2024).

Introduction of elected members

Sarah Olney tabled new clause 7 which would have imposed a duty on ministers to take forward proposals to introduce elected members to the House of Lords. The amendment set out a number of steps leading to a draft bill of legislative proposals being laid before both Houses of Parliament. The steps would have included a consultation on methods for introducing directly elected members to the Lords. The four Green Party MP’s also put their name to the amendment. Amendments 8 and 9, again tabled by Ms Olney, would have been consequential to new clause 7.

Ms Olney explained that she had tabled new clause 7 to call on the government to commit to future legislation, so that the Commons could “debate and support broader and further reforms to ensure the democratic legitimacy of the House of Lords”.^[89] Ms Olney argued that the introduction of a democratic mandate for members of the House of Lords would ensure that trust in politics is strengthened, stating that this trust had been damaged in recent years.^[90] She also said that her amendment would push the government to bring forward such proposals in “a timely fashion”.

Pete Wishart said that he would support the Liberal Democrat’s amendments, but also encouraged the party to stop appointing people to the Lords, asserting that they were over represented in the House of Lords compared to other parties.^[91]

However, Alex Burghart said that the idea of a democratically elected House of Lords was “bad” and would impose on the primacy of the Commons.^[92]

Ms Reeves said that while the government agreed with Ms Olney that the Lords needed reforming, it could not accept new clause 7.^[93] She explained that the bill was focused on delivering Labour’s manifesto commitment to remove hereditary peers. However, she also said the government would consult on further reform, with details of this process to be set out in due course.

Ms Olney’s amendment was defeated on division by 355 votes to 93.^[94]

Purpose of the act

Alex Burghart also tabled new clause 20. This new clause would have set out the purpose of the act as reforming the House of Lords to provide that Lords temporal (all members that are not Lords spiritual (Bishops)) would be appointed on the recommendation of the prime minister. Explaining this, Mr Burghart said that his party would like the “bill’s true purpose—to enable, for the first time, all Lords temporal to be appointed by the prime minister” to be placed on the face of the bill.^[95] He argued this would highlight the government’s “failure to bring forward a proper plan for House of Lords reform” by allowing it to be “recorded in black and white as part of the bill”. Mr Burghart also argued that by removing hereditary peers, the government was looking to remove those “who happen not to take the Labour whip”.^[96]

Responding to new clause 20, Ms Reeves said she was happy to clarify the purpose of the bill, saying it would remove the “outdated and indefensible right for hereditary peers to sit and vote in the upper chamber”.^[97] She also argued that his new clause failed to take into account the presence of the law Lords.

The amendment was defeated on division by 375 votes to 98.^[98]

3.2.2 Other issues debated

MPs discussed a number of other amendments which were not divided on during committee stage. These included the following areas of debate.

Mandatory retirement age

New clause 3, tabled by Sir Gavin Williamson, would have introduced a mandatory retirement age in the House of Lords. Amendments 3 and 7 were consequential to this new clause. Arguing for this measure, Sir Gavin said that it would have “a significant impact on reducing the size of the House of Lords”, as well as the cost of it.^[99] He also highlighted that this measure had featured in the government’s most recent manifesto.

Sarah Olney said that the Liberal Democrats were looking for the government to uphold its manifesto commitment to introduce a retirement age.^[100] She said that this would help reduce the size of the Lords and aid the subsequent management of the size and membership of the House.

However, Sir Edward Leigh (Conservative MP for Gainsborough and father of the House of Commons) questioned whether the proposal was ageist.^[101]

Commenting on the introduction of a mandatory retirement age, Ms Reeves said that it was not the purpose of the bill.^[102] She acknowledged that a mandatory retirement age, along with the introduction of a participation requirement, had featured in her party’s manifesto and said the government would consult on their implementation.

For further information about the age profile of the House, see the House of Lords Library data dashboard, ‘House of Lords data dashboard: Current membership of the House—age’ (10 July 2024).

Minimum attendance requirement

Sir Gavin also raised the issue of attendance, saying that he was shocked at some of the attendance records in the House of Lords. He argued that there were peers who have “continuously failed to make a significant contribution” and have chosen to not take one of the exit routes available to them. He said that he had tabled new clause 4 to address this issue. The clause would have introduced a minimum participation requirement of one contribution every eight weeks for members of the Lords. He highlighted that Labour’s manifesto had also contained a commitment to introduce a new participation requirement for members of the Lords.^[103]

Gareth Snell (Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent Central) gave his support to the idea. He  suggested that, in a future bill, such a measure could be made retrospective to target those members who have not attended in recent years.^[104] Sir Gavin welcomed Mr Snell’s “little radicalism” and said he would be happy to work on a cross-party basis on legislation in this area.

Sir Edward Leigh argued that the one point of consensus in the debate was that the Lords is too large.^[105] Linking this to the issue of attendance, he suggested that those members who “are not particularly interested in turning up very often” could leave. He also questioned whether all groups could reduce their membership by a similar percentage. He said that a reduction in membership by these means, alongside an increase in the powers of the appointments commission to reject nominees on grounds of suitability, could solve the issue of the size of the House.

For more information about member activity, see the House of Lords Library briefing, ‘Lords reform: Membership, attendance, voting and participation data (2019–2024 parliament)’ (16 September 2024).

Appointments to the Lords

Both the SNP and Liberal Democrats tabled amendments focusing on how people are appointed to the Lords and who is eligible for appointment. At present, the House of Lords Appointments Commission recommends individuals for appointment as non-party-political life peers and vets nominations for life peers, including those nominated by political parties which make up the majority of appointments.^[106] However, the commission is not a statutory body, and the prime minister can choose to disregard its advice.

New clause 8, tabled by Sarah Olney, looked to change this arrangement. It would have prevented a life peerage being conferred upon an individual if the House of Lords Appointments Commission had recommended against it.^[107] Ms Olney argued that the current system “ingrains patronage, reinforces the elitism in British politics and contributes to so many people losing faith in the system”. She said that her amendment would ensure that recommendations made by the appointments commission could no longer be bypassed by a prime minister and would therefore improve the “integrity and democratic powers” of the Lords.

The SNP’s Pete Wishart tabled new clauses 9 to 14 which would have introduced new rules on who can be appointed to the House of Lords. Mr Wishart said that he had tabled these amendments in an attempt to be “creative and try and abolish its membership”.^[108] He also claimed that his amendments would have abolished “prime ministerial donors, appointees and cronies”, as well as “the idea that former MPs can assume they will get a place in the House of Lords”. Mr Wishart spoke to some of his amendments in greater detail:

• New clause 11 would have provided for members of the Lords who have made political donations over a certain amount to be expelled unless their donations were paid back.
• New clause 12 would have meant that an individual could not receive a life peerage unless they had declared that they had not made a donation or loan to a political party of over £10,000.
• New clause 13 would have meant that no-one who had been an MP in the current or previous Parliament could be appointed to or remain as a member of the Lords.
• New clause 14 would have given the House of Lords Appointments Commission sole responsibility for recommending new peers.

Mr Wishart said that these measures would mean that there would be “no more cash for honours”.^[109] He also argued that if people want a place in the legislature, they should stand for election.^[110]

On the amendments tabled by both Ms Olney and Mr Wishart, Ms Reeves said that the government agreed that “it is vital that peers meet the high standard that the public expect of them”.^[111] She also said that the prime minister respects and values the advice of the appointments commission and would “place great weight on it when making decisions on peerage recommendations”. In addition, Ms Reeves highlighted the government’s manifesto commitments to improving both the appointments process, to ensure the quality of new appointments, as well as the national and regional balance of the Lords. She said that the government was actively considering how this could be achieved.

On new clause 14, which would have removed the prime minister’s role in advising the sovereign on new appointments to the Lords and given it to the appointments commission, Ms Reeves argued that it would be a significant change and therefore required careful consideration.^[112]

On the proposed new clauses which would have prevented both political donors and former MPs from joining the Lords in certain circumstances, Ms Reeves said the government could not accept the amendments.^[113] She explained that the government believed in the inclusion of individuals from all backgrounds and said that the Lords is enriched by members who bring diverse experience. She argued that denying eligibility would be “unnecessary and prevent valuable contributions being made”.

For more information about the House of Lords Appointments Commission, see the House of Lords Library briefing, ‘House of Lords Appointments Commission: Role and powers’ (12 November 2024).

Future reform of the Lords

Sir Ashley Fox (Conservative MP for Bridgwater) tabled amendments which focused on guaranteeing future reform of the House of Lords. New clause 19 would have required the government to publish a draft bill to remove bishops from the Lords and reduce the membership to 650 or less. Amendment 24 would have meant that the current bill would have only come into effect at the end of the parliamentary session in which the legislative proposals required by new clause 19 had been published. Sir Ashley said that he had tabled these amendments because he had a “genuine fear” that there would be no second stage of reform forthcoming.^[114]

Sir Ashley noted that his plans differed from those proposed by the Liberal Democrats as he wanted the House to remain appointed rather than elected.^[115] He argued that a parliamentary democracy could not function with a government majority in the House of Commons “permanently blocked by an elected upper house”. Several other Conservative MPs agreed. For example, Sir John Hayes (Conservative MP for South Holland and The Deepings) argued that bicameral systems which “pitch democratic chambers one against another are often less successful” than the UK’s current model.^[116] However, some other members, such as Brian Leishman (Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth), voiced their support for the Lords becoming an elected chamber.^[117] Mr Wishart also set out his party’s belief that people should have an electoral mandate to sit in the legislature.^[118]

Ms Reeves said that while the government agreed that the Lords needs reforming, it could not accept the amendments.^[119] She said the bill was focused on delivering the government’s manifesto commitment but that it had committed to more fundamental reform to make the second chamber more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. Ms Reeves explained that the government would consult on these proposals and set out details of the process in due course.

Hereditary peerage claims: Jurisdiction of the House of Lords

Focusing on clause 2 of the bill, which would abolish the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to hereditary peerage claims, Ms Reeves provided an explanation of the government’s proposals, noting that they were not discussed at second reading.^[120] She said that a hereditary peerage claim is when a person seeks to be formally recognised as the holder of the title of a hereditary peerage. Usually the claimant is an undisputed heir, however, there can be cases where the claim is disputed or complex. Ms Reeves explained that these cases are usually referred to the Lords who advise the crown on how to determine the claim. She said that these cases are very infrequent, with fewer than ten claims considered by the Lords in the past 50 years.

On the changes the bill would make, Ms Reeves said:

Given that the bill removes the final link between hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords, it is no longer appropriate for these issues to be dealt with by the other place. That is why the bill would abolish the jurisdiction of the other place in relation to peerage claims. The intention is that future complex or disputed peerage claims that would otherwise have been considered by the other place will instead be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833.^[121]

Alex Burghart tabled amendment 26 to clause 2 of the bill. In the explanatory statement accompanying this amendment, he said that the amendment would explicitly provide that the jurisdiction in relation to claims to hereditary peerages would pass to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.^[122]

In response to the amendment, Ms Reeves said that the government’s position is that it is “unnecessary to expressly state in the bill the transfer of the jurisdiction of peerage claims”.^[123] She explained this was because matters such as peerage claims can already be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by the crown under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833. Following this response, Mr Burghart acknowledged that existing mechanisms are in place and decided to not press his amendment to a vote.^[124]

3.3 Third reading

Third reading took place immediately after committee stage on 12 November 2024. Minister for the constitution and European Union relations, Nick Thomas-Symonds, said that the bill was a matter of principle and had been introduced to address an “outdated and indefensible feature of our legislature”.^[125] He also argued that the bill was clear and focused and would fulfil a manifesto commitment.

Alex Burghart, shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said that in its present form, the bill did not have the support of the opposition.^[126] He argued that the Labour Party had “reneged” on a promise made in 1998 to not remove the remaining hereditary peers until it had brought forward a comprehensive plan for reform of the Lords. He continued:

The remaining hereditary peers—who already sit in the Lords and scrutinise, night after night, the legislation introduced by this House—should not be treated in this way. Had the government respected their position and made provision for them in a reformed chamber, it would be very hard—not impossible, but very hard—to oppose this legislation. However, as it is, the government are seeking to remove established scrutineers in order to replace them with Labour appointees, and we cannot support that.^[127]

On the minister’s argument that the Conservative Party can nominate replacements, Mr Burghart said that it was “obviously not entirely genuine” as the opposition cannot guarantee that their nominees will be accepted to the Lords.

SNP deputy leader at Westminster, Pete Wishart, expressed disappointment at the scope of the bill and said he hoped the government would take forward its promise of further reforms.^[128]

Third reading was agreed to on division by 435 votes to 73.^[129]

4. Read more

• UCL Constitution Unit, ‘Labour’s removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords: 10 key questions answered’, 15 October 2024; and ‘Who are the last hereditary peers?’, 11 September 2024
• YouGov, ‘Most Britons would support making the House of Lords fully elected’, 14 October 2024

---

Cover image © House of Lords 2024 / photography by Roger Harris

This briefing was updated on 21 November 2024 ahead of its second reading in the House of Lords on 11 December 2024.