Approximate read time: 25 minutes

1. 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 government introduced the bill in the House of Commons on 5 September 2024. It received its second reading in the House of Commons on 15 October 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.

2. What is the background to the bill?

2.1 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).

2.2 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:

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.

2.3 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”.[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]

 2.3.1 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 (Conservative) 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.

3. What would the bill do?

3.1 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.

3.2 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:

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.

4. What happened in the House of Commons?

4.1 Second reading

4.1.1 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, 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]

4.1.2 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 peer/ages.[68] Commenting on this, John Glen (Conservative MP for Salisbury) said it was a “very reasonable point” that “merits further consideration”.[69]

For the government, Mr Thomas-Symonds said that there was no bar on parties nominating hereditary peers for life peerages.[70] 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.[71]

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?[72]

Responding, Mr Thomas-Symonds answered no and said that the monarchy was “a completely different part of our constitution”.[73] 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”.[74]

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.[75]

5. Read more


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

This briefing was updated on 22 October 2024 following the bill’s second reading in the House of Commons on 15 October 2024.

References

  1. House of Lords Privileges Committee, ‘First report from the Committee for Privilege’, 1st report of session 1998–99, 18 October 1999, appendix 4(5). Return to text
  2. HC Hansard, 24 November 1998, col 4. Return to text
  3. There are currently two vacancies among the 90 hereditary peers. In July 2024, the House paused by-elections for the period it is expected to debate the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. Further information on by-elections can be found in the House of Lords Library briefing, ‘Hereditary by-elections: Results’ (26 July 2024). Return to text
  4. The 2016–17 version of the bill was entitled the House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL]. Return to text
  5. Labour Party, ‘Labour Party manifesto 2024’, June 2024, p 108. Return to text
  6. As above. Return to text
  7. Prime Minister’s Office, ‘The King’s Speech 2024’, 17 July 2024. Return to text
  8. Prime Minister’s Office, ‘King’s Speech 2024: Background briefing notes’ 17 July 2024. Return to text
  9. As above. Return to text
  10. House of Lords Library, ‘Women, hereditary peerages and gender inequality in the line of succession’, 3 October 2022. Return to text
  11. Prime Minister’s Office, ‘King’s Speech 2024: Background briefing notes’ 17 July 2024. Return to text
  12. 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 (House of Lords Library, ‘Hereditary by-elections: Results’, 26 July 2024). Return to text
  13. UK Parliament, ‘House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill: Stages’, accessed 24 September 2024. Return to text
  14. HL Hansard, 25 July 2024, cols 625–7. Return to text
  15. UK Parliament, ‘Lords membership: By peerage’, accessed 1 October 2024. Of note, Lord Carrington initially held one of the excepted seats and then became lord great chamberlain. Return to text
  16. House of Lords Library, ‘Hereditary by-elections: Results’, 26 July 2024. Return to text
  17. HL Hansard, 23 July 2024, cols 370–418. Return to text
  18. HL Hansard, 23 July 2024, col 375. Return to text
  19. HL Hansard, 23 July 2024, col 384. Return to text
  20. HL Hansard, 23 July 2024, col 388. Return to text
  21. HL Hansard, 23 July 2024, cols 393–4 Return to text
  22. HL Hansard, 23 July 2024, col 379. Return to text
  23. HL Hansard, 5 September 2024, cols 1246–51. Return to text
  24. HL Hansard, 5 September 2024, col 1247. Return to text
  25. HL Hansard, 5 September 2024, col 1250. Return to text
  26. HL Hansard, 5 September 2024, col 1251. Return to text
  27. HL Hansard, 5 September 2024, col 1246. Return to text
  28. YouGov, ‘Most Britons would support making the House of Lords fully elected’, 14 October 2024. Return to text
  29. Explanatory notes, p 2 Return to text
  30. UK Parliament, ‘Erskine May: Peerage claims’, 25th edition, 2019. Return to text
  31. Explanatory notes, p 3. Return to text
  32. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, cols 719–800. Return to text
  33. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 719. Return to text
  34. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 719. Return to text
  35. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 719. Return to text
  36. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 724. Return to text
  37. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 727. Return to text
  38. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 727. Return to text
  39. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 729. Return to text
  40. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 728. Return to text
  41. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 730. Return to text
  42. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 726. Return to text
  43. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 799. Return to text
  44. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 796. Return to text
  45. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 797. Return to text
  46. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 734. Return to text
  47. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 736; and Lord Speaker, ‘Report of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House’, 31 October 2017. Return to text
  48. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 735. Return to text
  49. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 736. Return to text
  50. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 737. Return to text
  51. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, cols 766–9. Return to text
  52. UK Parliament, ‘Commons business papers: Order paper for Tuesday 15 October 2024’, 15 October 2024. Return to text
  53. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 756. Return to text
  54. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 744. Return to text
  55. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 720. Return to text
  56. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 720. Return to text
  57. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 776. Return to text
  58. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 759. Return to text
  59. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 771. Return to text
  60. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 736. Return to text
  61. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 797. Return to text
  62. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 796. Return to text
  63. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 773. Return to text
  64. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 774. Return to text
  65. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 776. Return to text
  66. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 776. Return to text
  67. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 798. Return to text
  68. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, cols 745 and 791. Return to text
  69. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 791. Return to text
  70. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 723. Return to text
  71. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 798. Return to text
  72. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 719. Return to text
  73. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 719. Return to text
  74. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 795. Return to text
  75. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 800. Return to text