Table of contents

Approximate read time: 28 minutes

The House of Lords is scheduled to debate the following government-sponsored motion on 12 November 2024:

Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour) to move that this House takes note of the reform of the House of Lords.

Baroness Smith is leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal.

1. Government proposals for reform of the House of Lords

1.1 Labour’s manifesto proposals for reform

Labour’s manifesto described House of Lords reform as “long overdue and essential”.[1] Although the party recognised that many members of the House did “good work” in scrutinising the government and improving legislation, it added:

Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big.

The manifesto committed a Labour government to a number of House of Lords reforms, the first of which would be the removal of the remaining hereditary peers from continued membership of the House. It described this as an “immediate modernisation”, suggesting that legislation to make this change to the House’s composition would be a priority in the first session of the new parliament. The party also undertook to:

  • introduce a mandatory retirement age, with members required to retire from the House at the end of the parliament in which they reached 80 years of age
  • introduce a new participation requirement
  • strengthen the circumstances in which “disgraced” members could be removed
  • reform the appointments process to ensure the “quality of new appointments”
  • improve the national and regional balance of the second chamber

The manifesto added that, longer-term, Labour was committed to replacing the House of Lords with an “alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”. It said the party would “consult on proposals, seeking the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them”.

1.2 Legislation announced in the King’s Speech

The King’s Speech delivered on 17 July 2024 included two measures relating to the House of Lords.[2] The first would be a bill to “remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the Lords”. A second bill would aim to extend an existing time-limited statutory measure to increase the number of female bishops in the House. This second measure was requested by the Church of England.[3] These bills are considered in sections 2 and 3 below. Other proposals are expected to be subject to consultation later in the parliament.

2. House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

2.1 Background on hereditary peers

The House of Lords Act 1999 ended the centuries-old linkage between the hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords.[4] Section 1 of the act provided that “no-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage”. Most hereditary peers who had been members of the House up until the act came into force left in November 1999.

However, under a compromise agreement reached at the time, 90 hereditary peers (plus any hereditary peer holding the office of Earl Marshal or performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain) were ‘excepted’ from removal under arrangements provided for in section 2 of the act. Section 2, together with standing order 9, has since provided for the system of by-elections that have been held to maintain the number of hereditary peers following deaths and retirements in the years since the 1999 act was passed.[5] Under standing order 9, these by-elections maintain the relative strength of the parties and groups among the excepted hereditary peers as follows: Conservative (42); Crossbench (28); Liberal Democrat (3); Labour (2). A further 15 are elected by the whole House. Including the affiliations of those elected by the whole House, and any changes in affiliation since election, the current standings of the parties/groups among the excepted hereditary peers are as follows: Conservative (45); Crossbench (33); Liberal Democrat (4); Labour (4); Non-affiliated (2); leave of absence (1).

Section 2(3) of the 1999 act provides that once excepted from section 1, a person continues to be so throughout their life “until an Act of Parliament provides to the contrary”. A number of government and private members’ bills introduced over the past quarter century sought to remove excepted hereditary peers from the House of Lords, either gradually by ending by-elections or as a category of member, although none became law.[6]

2.2 Government policy and bill introduced

In a briefing document published to accompany the July 2024 King’s Speech, the government reiterated its view that the “continued presence of hereditary peers in the House of Lords is outdated and indefensible”.[7] It said a “short and narrowly focused bill” would be introduced to deliver on its manifesto commitment to “bring about modernisation by removing the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords”. The document added that the bill would be the “first step in wider reform to the second chamber”.

The government outlined its reasoning for the measure as follows:

The original intention of the House of Lords Act 1999 was to remove all hereditary peers from the House. The act provides an exception so that 90 hereditary peers and the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain could remain. This was agreed as a compromise that would only last for a short period before more substantial reforms were made to the House of Lords. Consensus could not be reached on those wider reforms and so these hereditary peers have remained in the House by accident rather than by design.[8]

The briefing document argued that no other comparable western democracy allowed individuals to be a member of the legislature by right of birth; removing hereditary peers would improve the gender balance of the House; and unlike life peers, hereditary peers were not subject to any propriety checks.

In July 2024 the House of Lords amended standing order 9 to pause hereditary by-elections for a period of 18 months.[9] The practical effect of this amendment would be to pause by-elections while the proposed bill was considered, including two due to replace a vacancy in each of the Conservative and Crossbench groups.[10]

The government subsequently introduced the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill in the House of Commons on 5 September 2024.[11] The bill as introduced would repeal section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999, thereby ending the statutory exception from section 1 for those members who continue to sit in the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage. It would also abolish the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to claims to hereditary peerages. If passed, the bill would come into effect at the end of the session in which it received royal assent.

The bill received its second reading in the House of Commons on 15 October 2024 and is expected to complete its remaining House of Commons stages on 12 November 2024.[12] In October 2024 the Times reported that ministers would ultimately use the Parliament Acts if attempts were made to block the bill in the House of Lords.[13]

For further information on the bill’s passage through the House of Commons so far, including a summary of the second reading debate, see:

2.3 Reaction to the proposals in Parliament

The House of Lords considered the government’s proposal to remove the remaining hereditary peers during its debate on the King’s Speech.[14] Several members were critical of the plans. For example, speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party, 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”.[15] Lord Strathclyde (Conservative), a former leader of the House of Lords, also spoke against the plans. He argued against “bungled piecemeal reform” and called on the government to set out plans for “proper reform”.[16]

However, other members welcomed the government’s plans. For example, Lord Fowler (Crossbench), a former Lord Speaker, gave his support for the proposed bill.[17] He argued that appointment to the House on the basis of heredity was not the “right solution for the 21st century”, adding that the measure was not a “question of personalities”. He said he hoped there would be an “opportunity for those hereditary peers who have given service to be appointed life peers” instead. Lord Grocott (Labour), who was the sponsor of several private member’s bills in previous sessions to end the system of hereditary by-elections, also voiced his support for the bill and welcomed the government’s “incremental” approach to Lords reform.[18] In addition, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, Lord Wallace of Saltaire noted his party’s long-standing support for the removal of hereditary peers. However, he questioned why other manifesto commitments relating to standards and wider constitutional reform had not yet been brought forward.[19]

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.[20] Lord Strathclyde repeated his opposition to the plans, arguing the bill would remove “some of our most senior and experienced peers” and highlighting that the measure would not address those who did not regularly attend. He also criticised the government for a perceived lack of discussion and consultation on the issue.[21] There was a mixture of support and criticism from other members. Speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party, Lord True, shadow leader of the House, criticised that the government had given a statement to the press about its plans prior to a statement being made in Parliament.[22] Speaking for the government, Baroness Smith of Basildon noted that the plans had featured in the Labour Party’s manifesto and had been debated as part of the debate on the King’s Speech.[23] She further argued the bill would “complete the process started a quarter of a century ago to remove hereditary peers from Parliament”.[24]

During the bill’s second reading debate in the House of Commons, Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office Nick Thomas-Symonds explained the bill was an “immediate first step” towards House of Lords reform that had been brought forward within the government’s first 100 days in office.[25] He added:

It is a change that is long overdue. In the 21st century, there should not be places in our Parliament, making our laws, reserved for those who were born into certain families. In fact, we are one of only two countries that still retain a hereditary element in our legislature, which is a clear sign that the time has come to see through this long-overdue change. It is a matter of principle for this government, who are committed to fairness and equality. It is not personal or a comment on the contribution or service of any individual hereditary peer, past or present. We are grateful to all peers who commit their time to valuable public service. However, what we do not accept is that, in this era, as a matter of principle, anyone should have a position in either House on the basis of their ancestry.[26]

Speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party, Sir Oliver Dowden moved an amendment to decline to give the bill a second reading on the basis, among other issues, that it represented a “significant alteration to the composition of the House of Lords which should not be considered in isolation from other changes” and did not “reflect the lack of political consensus on House of Lords reform”.[27] In particular, he argued “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 pursued as incremental steps:

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.

2.4 Change in the House’s composition if the bill were to become law

There are currently 89 members of the House of Lords who sit by virtue of a hereditary peerage, 88 of whom are eligible to attend proceedings.[28] This represents 10.9% of the total eligible membership of 804 as at 4 November 2024, with the remainder comprising life peers and archbishops and bishops of the Church of England known as the lords spiritual.[29]

Table 1 shows the total number of members eligible to attend the House by peerage type and by party/group affiliation as at 4 November 2024, together with the proportion of each party/group comprising hereditary peers.

Table 1: Current eligible membership by party/group and peerage type

Party or group Bishops (lords spiritual) Excepted hereditary peers Life peers (including judicial life peers) Total number of members Percentage of which comprise hereditary peers
Bishops 25 0 0 25 0%
Conservative 0 45 227 272 16.5%
Crossbench 0 33 151 184 17.9%
Labour 0 4 182 186 2.2%
Liberal Democrat 0 4 74 78 5.1%
Non-affiliated 0 2 43 45 4.4%
Other parties 0 0 14 14 0%
Total 25 88 691 804 10.9%

The table shows that the Crossbench group and Conservatives would lose proportionally more of their members should the bill become law, with hereditary peers comprising almost 18% and 16.5% of their memberships respectively. The Liberal Democrats would lose just over 5% of their members and Labour just over 2%. The non-affiliated group would be reduced by 4.4%.[30]

Table 2 shows how the balance of the parties and groups would change should the bill become law and with the membership as at 4 November 2024 otherwise remaining static.

Table 2: Party/group totals before and after hereditary peers removed

Party or group Total number of current members Percentage of total membership Total, excluding hereditary peers Percentage of total membership
Bishops 25 3.1% 25 3.5%
Conservative 272 33.8% 227 31.7%
Crossbench 184 22.9% 151 21.1%
Labour 186 23.1% 182 25.4%
Liberal Democrat 78 9.7% 74 10.3%
Non-affiliated 45 5.6% 43 6.0%
Other parties 14 1.7% 14 2.0%
Total 804 100% 716 100%

The relative standings of the parties and groups would not change, with the Conservatives remaining the largest party, followed by Labour and then the Crossbench group. However, the difference in the relative strength of the Conservative and Labour groups would narrow, while Labour would increase in size relative to the Crossbench group from a position of almost parity.

For further information on attendance, voting and participation data for the 2019–24 parliament by peerage type, see:

3. Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [HL]

3.1 Government policy and bill introduced

The briefing document published to accompany the July 2024 King’s Speech also committed the Labour government to extending an existing time-limited statutory measure to increase the number of female bishops in the House.[31] It said that letting the current time-limited measure expire would take longer for more female bishops to enter the House of Lords.

Under the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015, vacancies among the 21 seats reserved for non-ex-officio diocesan bishops have been filled by a female diocesan bishop if one is available. Previously, vacancies were filled according to length of service alone. The measure was time-limited for 10 years and has helped increase the number of women bishops in the House. Women now comprise seven of the 25 bishops currently sitting in the House.[32]

The government introduced the ‘Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [HL]’ in the House of Lords on 30 July 2024.[33] The bill as introduced consisted of a single substantive clause to extend the provisions of the 2015 act by five years, with the Cabinet Office explaining at the time that the Church of England itself had requested the extension.[34] The bill received its second reading in the House of Lords on 10 September 2024 and was passed unamended on 22 October 2024.[35] It was introduced in the House of Commons the following day and is expected to be debated at second reading on 14 November 2024.[36]

For further information on the bill, see:

3.2 Reaction to the proposal and calls for further reform of the lords spiritual

There was support for the bill as introduced from the Labour and Conservative frontbenches at second reading in the House of Lords, although the Liberal Democrats expressed concern that an extension was needed and questioned whether removal of the lords spiritual should be considered instead.[37] Several members speaking in that debate also questioned the continued presence of the lords spiritual in Parliament. Their arguments have been shared by a number of others in recent years.

For example, the National Secular Society has argued that, in its view, the right of 26 lords spiritual to seats in the House of Lords is “just as unjustifiable” as the presence of hereditary peers given the UK is “less religious and more diverse than ever before”.[38] In addition, some parliamentarians have criticised interventions by the lords spiritual in politics. Most recently, for example, criticisms was made during the second reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill in the House of Commons. Sir Gavin Williamson, Conservative MP for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, was among MPs to call for the lords spiritual to be removed, calling their presence in the second chamber an “injustice”.[39] Others, such as Simon Hoare, Conservative MP for North Dorset, called instead for a “faith bench or faith benches”, though he added these should be “of mixed faiths and truly representative of the faith groups doing so much good in our country”.[40]

Members of the lords spiritual have publicly defended their parliamentary role in response to such suggestions. For example, members of the bishops’ bench have previously argued that their work was an extension of their service to the nation in parishes, schools, chaplaincy and charitable work.[41] For further information on this debate, see:

4. Remaining manifesto proposals

4.1 Mandatory retirement age

Labour’s manifesto committed the party to introduce a mandatory retirement age for members of the House of Lords, with members required to retire at the end of the parliament in which they reached 80 years of age.[42] The proposal would not apply to bishops, who currently have a retirement age of 70. Keir Starmer said in July 2024 that the “massive” size of the House was the “primary driver” for the party’s ambition to bring in a retirement age.[43]

Since the election the government has said that it is committed to the introduction of a mandatory retirement age and that it will engage with members ahead of implementing the measure.[44]

As at 4 November 2024, 189 of the total membership of 829 were aged 80 or over. Of these, 177 were life peers. These 177 members represented almost a quarter (24.8%) of the 715 life peers currently included in the House’s total membership.[45]

Under section 4 of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, a parliament dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met if it has not been dissolved earlier. The current parliament first met on 9 July 2024.[46] If it were to last for a full five years with no early general election, this would mean that dissolution would automatically take place on 9 July 2029. Assuming no changes in the current complement of life peers, including that no current life peers leave the House and no further life peers join the House, 301 (42.1%) of the House’s 715 life peers would be aged 80 or over at dissolution in 2029. Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Crossbenchers and the combined other parties would all lose roughly half their life peers, whereas the Conservatives would lose only around one third and only a quarter of non-affiliated peers would depart.

Table 3 shows the impact on the size of different parties and groups within the House of the removal at the end of the current parliament of all life peers aged 80 or over, assuming the current number and distribution of life peers remained static.

Table 3: Current composition of life peers as at 4 November 2024 by party/group and projected effect of a mandatory retirement age of 80 and above as at dissolution in July 2029

Party or group Number of life peers as at 4 November 2024 Of whom aged 80 or over as at 4 November 2024 Number of life peers aged 80 or over as at dissolution in July 2029 Number of life peers remaining Reduction in party/group size compared to sizes as at 4 November 2024
Conservative 237 45 74 163 31.2%
Crossbench 157 44 79 78 50.3%
Labour 184 57 92 92 50.0%
Liberal Democrat 75 19 36 39 48.0%
Non-affiliated 47 8 12 35 25.5%
Other parties 15 4 8 7 53.3%
Total 715 177 301 414 42.1%

The cumulative effect of removing the excepted hereditary peers and the 301 life peers who would be aged 80 or over in July 2029 would mean the House’s membership would be reduced to 440 in five years’ time. This total would comprise the 414 current life peers who would be aged under 80 and 26 Church of England bishops. However, this projection is unrealistic in that it does not take account of changes that are almost certain to take place, including changes of affiliation and departures among the current membership and new members joining the House.

The Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House considered the merits of a compulsory retirement age in 2017.[47] It concluded the advantages would include:

  • bringing members closer in line with judges and bishops, who have retirement ages of 75 and 70 respectively (which in the case of bishops applies to both their ecclesiastical and parliamentary roles)
  • allowing members to plan their futures with certainty; and
  • making a positive impact upon any public or media perception that the age profile of the House is too high

However, it also observed that “society as a whole is moving away from retirement ages”, at least in part because they are “somewhat arbitrary”. It suggested a compulsory retirement age would have an “uneven impact” on different parties/groups within the House depending on their age profile and could create a “perverse incentive” for new members to be appointed at a young age. The committee recommended a fixed-term membership system rather than a compulsory retirement age for reducing the size of the House’s membership.[48]

Various commentators on Labour’s manifesto also referenced the point that an age cap could be potentially arbitrary or ageist and could lead to the exclusion of members who actively contribute to the House.[49] However, the Times is among outlets to support a mandatory retirement age, arguing in favour of members having to retire at 75 instead of 80.[50]

The proposal for a mandatory retirement age has been questioned in both Houses since the start of the current session. For example, during the debate on the King’s Speech, Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench), a former convenor of the Crossbench group, questioned whether a “hard-edged, mandatory retirement age of 80 is the right approach”.[51] However, Lord Fowler and Lord Wallace of Saltaire were among members to speak in support of the proposal.[52]

4.2 Other manifesto proposals

There has been limited information on what form further proposals may take at this stage, for example the criteria applying to any participation requirement or what changes to the appointments process may entail. However, these are expected to be subject to consultation. For example, opening a day of debate on the constitution and devolution as part of the debate on the King’s Speech in July 2024, Attorney General Lord Hermer added after comment on the bill to remove excepted hereditary peers:

For democratic institutions to flourish, they must be capable of change, and must reflect changes in society and evolving constitutional demands. In that same spirit, our manifesto also set out a number of other commitments, including changes to the appointments process, on which we will engage with your Lordships’ House. This includes the introduction of a participation requirement and a mandatory retirement age of 80, as well as a longer-term commitment to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. As our manifesto set out, we will consult on proposals, seeking not least the input of the public on how politics can best serve them.[53]

Lord Khan of Burnley, a parliamentary under secretary of state at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, added later during the same debate:

We are in particular looking at introducing changes to the appointments process and at a mandatory retirement age, as well as a long-term commitment to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Given the nature and potential scale of these reforms, the government will conduct engagement and consult on proposals for an alternative second chamber, seeking the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them […] The government have committed to improving the appointments process to ensure the quality of new appointments and to seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second chamber. We are actively considering how this can best be achieved.[54]

In response to a question in the House of Commons on House of Lords reform in October 2024, Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office Nick Thomas-Symonds reiterated that the bill to remove excepted hereditary peers from the House was the government’s “immediate first step” in its reform programme.[55] He added:

Clearly, we want to see the current bill on the statute book as soon as possible. We will then move on to the second stage of our reforms, looking carefully to build a consensus to have that smaller, better value, active House of Lords that we all want to see providing more considered scrutiny of this House.

He had earlier said that the government believed it was “right to take the time to consider how best to implement the other manifesto commitments over the course of this parliament”.[56]

Also in October 2024, the Times reported that the government was considering a requirement for all future nominations to be accompanied by a public citation “setting out the experience the candidate would bring to the role”.[57] A government source was cited as suggesting this would be an extended version of the citation requirement for honours such as knighthoods.

For further background information on Labour’s remaining manifesto proposals, see:

4.3 An alternative second chamber

On longer-term reform in particular, Leader of the House of Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon has said:

As outlined in our manifesto, in the longer term the government will consult on further reforms to ensure that an alternative second chamber is more representative of the nation and regions.[58]

Labour’s manifesto said that while the listed measures to modernise the House of Lords would be an improvement, the party was “committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”.[59]

Some commentators have suggested that the manifesto’s focus on plans for smaller-scale immediate reforms represents a watering down of earlier pledges to replace the House of Lords within the first term of a Labour government.[60]

In December 2022 a Labour Party commission chaired by former prime minister Gordon Brown recommended replacing the House of Lords with a new second chamber. It said an ‘Assembly of the Nations and Regions’ would “give voice explicitly to the different nations and regions of the UK”.[61] The commission added that the new second chamber should have “electoral legitimacy”, be “markedly smaller” than the current House of Lords and be chosen on a different electoral cycle to the House of Commons, with the precise composition and method of election to be subject to consultation. At the report’s launch, Keir Starmer spoke of rebuilding trust with the country by, among other things, “replacing the unelected House of Lords with a new, smaller, democratically elected second chamber”.[62] He said he was keen to carry out the report’s recommendations “as quickly as possible”, having asked Gordon Brown to come up with proposals that could be delivered within the first five years of a Labour government.

For further information on the Brown Commission proposals, see:

Large-scale reform of the House of Lords was considered by both the previous Labour and coalition governments, although attempts at major changes were ultimately unsuccessful. Instead, incremental reforms were pursued that allowed members to retire, be removed for non-attendance, or be expelled or suspended. For further information on attempts at reform since the turn of the century, see:

5. Read more

Cover image: House of Lords 2024 / photography by Annabel Moeller

References

  1. Labour Party, ‘Labour Party manifesto 2024’, June 2024, p 108. Return to text
  2. Prime Minister’s Office, ‘King’s Speech 2024: Background briefing notes’, 17 July 2024, pp 92–3 and 98–99. Return to text
  3. Cabinet Office, ‘New legislation will increase representation of female bishops in the House of Lords’, 30 July 2024. Return to text
  4. For further information, see: House of Lords Library, ‘Hereditary peers in the House of Lords’, accessed 4 November 2024; and ‘Hereditary peers in the House of Lords since 1999’, 27 March 2014. Return to text
  5. For further information, see: House of Lords Library, ‘Hereditary by-elections: Results’, 26 July 2024. See also: House of Lords, ‘Standing orders of the House of Lords relating to public business’, accessed 4 November 2024. Return to text
  6. For further information, see: House of Lords Library, ‘Proposed legislation to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords: 1999–2024’, 10 September 2024. Return to text
  7. Prime Minister’s Office, ‘King’s Speech 2024: Background briefing notes’, 17 July 2024, p 92. Return to text
  8. As above, pp 92–3. Return to text
  9. HL Hansard, 25 July 2024, cols 625–7. Return to text
  10. For further information, see: House of Lords Library, ‘Hereditary by-elections: Results’, 26 July 2024, section 4. Return to text
  11. HC Hansard, 5 September 2024, col 454. Return to text
  12. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, cols 719–800. See also: UK Parliament, ‘House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill: Stages’, accessed 4 November 2024. Return to text
  13. Caroline Wheeler, ‘Ministers ready to force through abolition of hereditary peers’, Times (£), 13 October 2024. Return to text
  14. HL Hansard, 23 July 2024, cols 370–418 and 431–88. Return to text
  15. HL Hansard, 23 July 2024, col 375. Return to text
  16. HL Hansard, 23 July 2024, col 385. Return to text
  17. HL Hansard, 23 July 2024, col 388. Return to text
  18. HL Hansard, 23 July 2024, cols 393–4. Return to text
  19. HL Hansard, 23 July 2024, cols 379–80. Return to text
  20. HL Hansard, 5 September 2024, cols 1246–51. Return to text
  21. HL Hansard, 5 September 2024, col 1247. Return to text
  22. HL Hansard, 5 September 2024, col 1250. Return to text
  23. HL Hansard, 5 September 2024, col 1251. Return to text
  24. HL Hansard, 5 September 2024, col 1246. Return to text
  25. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, cols 719–800. Return to text
  26. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 719. Pete Wishart (SNP MP for Perth and Kinross-shire) listed the other country as Lesotho. Return to text
  27. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, cols 726–33. Return to text
  28. The eligible membership excludes 22 members who are on leave of absence, two members disqualified as senior members of the judiciary and one member suspended from the service of the House. The total membership, including all who could attend should their leave of absence, disqualification or suspension end, is 829 as at 4 November 2024. The Duke of Montrose is currently on leave of absence. Note there are other members who hold hereditary titles but who sit by virtue of a life peerage, such as Viscount Chandos (Labour) and Viscount Hailsham (Conservative), who would be unaffected by the bill. For further information, see: House of Lords Library, ‘House of Lords data dashboard: Current membership of the House’, accessed 4 November 2024. Return to text
  29. For further information on these categories of members, see: House of Lords Library, ‘Life Peerages Act 1958: 65th anniversary’, 27 June 2023; ‘Could a life peerage be created without a seat in the Lords?’, 1 August 2024; and ‘Lords spiritual in the House of Lords explained’, 5 January 2024. Return to text
  30. The non-affiliated group figure includes the Lord Speaker and Senior Deputy Speaker. Return to text
  31. Prime Minister’s Office, ‘King’s Speech 2024: Background briefing notes’, 17 July 2024, pp 98–99. Return to text
  32. UK Parliament, ‘Find members of the House of Lords: Bishops’, accessed 4 November 2024. The act did not apply to vacancies for the post of archbishop of Canterbury or York, or bishop of London, Durham or Winchester. Six women have been appointed to under the terms of the 2015 act. The bishop of London joined automatically on appointment. Return to text
  33. HL Hansard, 30 July 2024, col 877. Return to text
  34. Cabinet Office, ‘New legislation will increase representation of female bishops in the House of Lords’, 30 July 2024. Return to text
  35. HL Hansard, 10 September 2024, cols 1520–38; and HL Hansard, 22 October 2024, cols 526–7. Return to text
  36. UK Parliament, ‘Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [HL]: Stages’, accessed 4 November 2024. Return to text
  37. HL Hansard, 10 September 2024, cols 1520–38. Return to text
  38. National Secular Society, ‘NSS: Labour plans to reform House of Lords must include bishops’, 13 June 2024. Return to text
  39. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, cols 755–9. Return to text
  40. HC Hansard, 15 October 2024, col 744. Return to text
  41. The House, ‘Bishops in the Lords: An unholy row’, 24 June 2021. Return to text
  42. Labour Party, ‘Labour Party manifesto 2024’, June 2024, p 108. Return to text
  43. Pippa Crerar, ‘Move to reduce Lords retirement age to 80 is not about Joe Biden, says Keir Starmer’, Guardian, 10 July 2024. Return to text
  44. See, for example: House of Commons, ‘Written question: Peers—Retirement (2315)’, 4 September 2024; and ‘Written question: Hereditary peers—By-elections (2754)’, 6 September 2024. Return to text
  45. This includes both life peers appointed under the Life Peerages Act 1958 and those appointed under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. The figures are for the total membership, including those currently on leave of absence, disqualified or suspended. Return to text
  46. HC Hansard, 9 July 2024, col 1; and HL Hansard, 9 July 2024, col 1. See also London Gazette, Proclamation (notice ID 4631909), 31 May 2024. Return to text
  47. Lord Speaker, ‘Report of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House’, 31 October 2017, p 30. Return to text
  48. As above, p 15. Return to text
  49. See for example: Electoral Reform Society, ‘Labour manifesto: Encouraging first steps—but we need to address rock bottom trust in politics’, 13 June 2024; Dominic Lawson, ‘Why octogenarian peers still enhance the Lords’, Times (£), 16 June 2024; Cameron Henderson and Nick Gutteridge, ‘Labour peers denounce Starmer’s plan for House of Lords as ‘ageist’’, Telegraph (£), 13 June 2024. The Library’s data dashboard on membership, attendance, voting and participation in the 2019–24 parliament includes age band data for selected parliamentary activity: House of Lords Library, Lords reform: Membership, attendance, voting and participation data (2019–24 parliament), 16 September 2024. Return to text
  50. Times (£), ‘The Times view on Lords reform: Peer pressure’, 15 October 2024. Return to text
  51. HL Hansard, 23 July 2024, col 392. Return to text
  52. HL Hansard, 23 July 2024, cols 388–89; and HL Hansard, 23 July 2024, cols 378–80. Return to text
  53. HL Hansard, 23 July 2024, col 373. Return to text
  54. HL Hansard, 23 July 2024, col 484. Return to text
  55. HC Hansard, 24 October 2024, col 397. Return to text
  56. House of Commons, ‘Written question: House of Lords—Reform (5897)’, 10 October 2024. Return to text
  57. Oliver Wright, ‘House of Lords appointments will be ‘justified’ to curb cronyism’, Times (£), 7 October 2024. Return to text
  58. House of Lords, ‘Written question: House of Lords—Reform (HL540)’, 12 September 2024. Return to text
  59. Labour Party, ‘Labour Party manifesto 2024’, June 2024, p 108. Library analysis of limited financial support claims data indicates that around 45% of members who specified an address location in 2022 resided in either London or the south east of England. For further information, see: House of Lords Library, ‘House of Lords data dashboard: Regional representation in the House of Lords’, 8 February 2023. Return to text
  60. BBC News, ‘What is the House of Lords and how does it work?’, 18 June 2024; Sally Dawson and Sienna Rodgers, ‘Labour’s ‘odd’ plans for Lords reform cast doubt over abolition’, Politics Home, 12 June 2024; and Rhiannon James, ‘Labour criticised for ‘U-turning’ on plans to abolish the House of Lords’, Standard, 8 June 2024. Return to text
  61. Labour Party, ‘A new Britain: Renewing our democracy and rebuilding our economy—Report of the Commission on the UK’s future’, December 2022, p 17. Return to text
  62. Labour List, ‘“Together we will forge something bold”—Keir Starmer’s speech’, 5 December 2022. Return to text