Proposed legislation to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords: 1999–2024

Approximate read time: 15 minutes

1. Introduction

The House of Lords Act 1999 ended the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. It removed the majority of hereditary peers from the House of Lords in November 1999. Legislating to remove all hereditary peers was a manifesto commitment by Tony Blair’s Labour government. It was intended to be a precursor for further reform of the House.^[1]

However, under a compromise arrangement, the act allows 92 of their number, known as ‘excepted’ hereditary peers, to still sit in the House today. Of these, two places are automatically reserved for those holding the positions of earl marshal and lord great chamberlain. The hereditary peers to fill the other 90 places were chosen by an election process. If an individual in one of these 90 seats leaves the House of Lords, a replacement is selected through a by-election process.^[2]

This compromise was reached by what is often termed as the ‘Weatherill amendment’. In brief:

During consideration of the bill in the House of Lords, Lord Weatherill, then convenor of the Crossbench peers, moved an amendment to allow 92 hereditary peers to remain members of the House. Although the ‘Weatherill amendment’, as it became known, derives its name from the peer who moved it, it should be noted that the origins of the amendment lie in negotiations involving a range of individuals across the political spectrum. The amendment was agreed by both Houses and became part of the House of Lords Act 1999. In response to concerns about maintaining the number of hereditary peers, should the second stage of Lords reform be delayed, a separate government amendment was moved during consideration of the bill to allow any vacancies arising on the death of an excepted hereditary peer to be filled through by-elections. The amendment was agreed at third reading without division.^[3]

Speaking about this compromise at the time, Lord Irvine of Lairg, then lord chancellor in Tony Blair’s Labour government, stated:

[A] compromise in these terms would guarantee that stage two would take place, because the government with their great popular majority and their manifesto pledge would not tolerate 10 percent of the hereditary peerage remaining for long. But the 10 percent will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place. Secondly, the hereditary peers who remain will have greater authority because they will have been elected by the whole of the hereditary peerage within the party, Conservative, Labour, or Liberal Democrat, from which they come, or, if they are Crossbenchers, by all the hereditary Crossbench peers.^[4]

Since the 1999 Act, there have been numerous legislative proposals put forward that sought to remove or reduce the number of excepted hereditary peers sitting in the House. This includes the current House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill introduced by the government in the House of Commons on 5 September 2024.

This article highlights some of the previous legislative attempts to remove or reduce the number of excepted hereditary peers. It focuses on government legislation and private members’ bills that had second reading. 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. Government legislation

Both the Labour government (in office from 1997 to 2010) and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government (in office from 2010 to 2015) put forward legislative proposals that would have ended by-elections or removed the places reserved for excepted hereditary peers in the House.

2.1 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010

In 2009 the Labour government introduced the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill 2008–09.^[5] This followed a number of consultations, white papers and votes on the composition and role of the House of Lords. As introduced, the bill included a clause that would have ended by-elections to replace excepted hereditary peers upon an individual vacating their seat in the House. At this point members could only vacate a seat in the House through death. Therefore, the bill specified that each time a relevant excepted hereditary peer died, the number of reserved places (starting at 90) set out in the House of Lords Act 1999 would decrease by one.

Speaking about this proposal at the time, Labour’s Jack Straw, the then lord chancellor and secretary of state for justice, argued that the retention of excepted hereditary peers after the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999 had only been intended to be a transitional compromise.^[6] He also argued that by-elections had now reached “a risible position” since “we are now electing people to the House of Lords who were not hereditary peers at the time that the House of Lords Act was passed”.

The then shadow justice secretary, Dominic Grieve, outlined the Conservative Party’s objection to the change.^[7] He said it should not be made unless it was alongside wider reform of the House of Lords (for example, formal changes in its composition). He viewed it as a politically motivated move to reduce the number of Conservative peers (who make up the majority of excepted hereditary members).

The bill was carried over to the 2009–10 session. At committee stage in the House of Commons in January 2010, it was agreed that the clause on hereditary by-elections should stand part of the bill by 318 votes to 142.^[8]

However, due to the calling of the 2010 general election, the provisions relating to hereditary peers (and provisions allowing members to be suspended or voluntarily resign from the House) were removed from the bill during ‘wash-up’.^[9] The government stated that this followed discussions with the “main parties” to ensure other elements of the bill could pass and were the result of “difficult but inevitable choices”.

Despite the Liberal Democrats objecting to the removal of these provisions, the House of Lords agreed to their removal by 98 votes to 42 on 7 April 2010.^[10] The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 was therefore passed without any changes to the membership of excepted hereditary peers.

2.2 House of Lords Reform Bill 2012–13

The House of Lords Reform Bill 2012–13 was introduced by the coalition government in the House of Commons on 27 June 2012. The bill 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 twelve lords spiritual and a number of ministerial members.^[11] It would also have introduced three-parliament term limits for members (apart from the lords spiritual). The bill was preceded by a white paper, draft bill and committee consideration. In addition, the three main parties had included commitments to reform the House of Lords in their 2010 general election manifestos.

The bill specified that membership of the House of Lords would not be linked to peerages and that it would repeal the 1999 act. On this, the bill’s explanatory notes stated: “The bill supersedes the act by removing the link between hereditary peerages and a seat in the House of Lords entirely […]”.^[12]

However, the bill would have provided for a proportion of existing members to stay on a transitional basis in the initial periods following the passing of the legislation. It would have been for the House to decide how these members would be selected and, therefore, whether it would have included a place for excepted hereditary peers.

Although most of the debate on the bill focused on the wider proposed changes to the House’s composition, particularly the intent that the majority of members would be elected, during second reading in the House of Commons many MPs did speak in support of the removal of hereditary peers.^[13] Various Labour MPs described the current arrangements as “indefensible” and “risible”. Conservative MPs such as Sir Malcolm Rifkind (then MP for Kensington) and Nadim Zahawi (then MP for Stratford-on-Avon) also spoke in favour of removing the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

Ultimately, political disagreement over the bill, the time available to debate it, and the impact it could have on the primacy of the House of Commons resulted in it failing to progress beyond second reading. This was confirmed by Nick Clegg, then deputy prime minister, on 6 August 2012.^[14] He said that despite his “painstaking efforts” to deliver cross-party consensus on House of Lords reform, “the Labour Party and Conservative backbenchers united to block any further progress, preventing the government from securing a timetable motion, without which the bill effectively becomes impossible to deliver”.

3. Private members’ bills

3.1 Lord Grocott’s private member’s bills

Since 2015 the most prominent private member’s bills looking to end hereditary peer by-elections have been the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) bills.^[15] Except for the current session and the short 2019 session, Lord Grocott has introduced a version of this bill in each session since the 2016–17 session. (Lord Grocott’s version of the bill introduced in the 2016–17 session was called the House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL], but it had a similar aim to his later bills.)

The bills progressed beyond first reading in four sessions, but none were sent to the House of Commons or went on to receive royal assent. Second reading, and beyond, for these bills can be found at the following links:

• 2021–22 version of the bill: passed second reading, fell awaiting committee stage
• 2019–21 version of the bill: passed second reading, fell awaiting committee stage
• 2017–19 version of the bill: fell during report stage
• 2016–17 version of the bill (entitled House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL]): passed second reading, fell awaiting committee stage

The most recent version of the bill, introduced in the 2023–24 session, was identical to the version introduced in 2021–22.^[16] However, this bill did not have second reading. The bill contained one substantive clause, which would have prevented any future vacancy among hereditary members of the House being filled through the current system of by-elections. Instead, such vacancies would lapse, and the departing hereditary member would not be replaced. The provisions in the bill would have applied to all the hereditary peers in the House, except for the earl marshal and the lord great chamberlain.^[17]

Speaking about the 2021–22 version of his bill at second reading in December 2021, Lord Grocott criticised the hereditary by-election system and stressed that it was only intended to be introduced as a “temporary measure” to enable the 1999 act to pass.^[18] He also claimed his legislation had the support of the majority of members across the House.

Speaking for Labour, Lord Collins of Highbury, then shadow deputy leader of the House of Lords, welcomed the bill and agreed it was supported by the majority of the House.^[19] He hoped it would be allowed to continue to the House of Commons for consideration. A similar tone was struck by Lord Wallace of Saltaire, the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, who stated:

It is clear that this debate has been quite different from that of some years ago. Even in this House, the mood is changing. We will come towards taking this step within the next five to 10 years […]^[20]

The bill was supported by a variety of members across the House, including the Conservative peers Lord Cormack and Lord Young of Cookham, Crossbench hereditary peer Viscount Waverley, former Lord Speaker Baroness D’Souza (Crossbench), and Labour and Liberal Democrat peers.^[21] Arguments in favour focused on the point that by-elections were only meant to be a temporary measure and that the system was discriminatory against women and minority groups.^[22] Many also stressed that it would not have an immediate impact as it would not be directly removing hereditary peers, rather stopping their replacement.

However, a number of Conservative members, both hereditary and life peers, spoke out against the proposals. This included Lord Mancroft, Viscount Trenchard, Lord Lilley, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, Lord Trefgarne, Lord Northbrook and Lord Moylan.^[23] A key point in their argument was that it was a commitment made when the 1999 act was passed that the 92 excepted hereditary peers would be retained until a second stage of Lords reform was achieved. Expanding upon this point, members suggested that there were more important reforms to the House of Lords that should be prioritised, for example reducing the size of the House (which they suggested would not be altered significantly by the bill) and reforming the appointments system.

Speaking for the then Conservative government, Lord True, then minister of state at the Cabinet Office, outlined reservations the government had with the legislation, namely:^[24]

• It considered the change to be larger than simply “incremental or piecemeal”, noting that it would alter the composition to a “de facto” appointed House.
• The changes would impact party composition.
• The commitment to maintain the by-elections until a second stage of larger House of Lords reform still stood.

As with a number of other members across the House, he also stressed the contribution of excepted hereditary peers, stating:

No one would deny, and actually no one has denied—and to go back to my opening remarks, I welcome that—the great contribution of excepted hereditary peers to the work of your Lordships’ House through their committee memberships and during debates in the Chamber. We all of us, wherever we sit in the House, feel that to be true.^[25]

Lord True concluded:

While we have listened to debates on this topic, and will listen attentively and respectfully, if the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, moves that the bill should be committed to a committee, the government’s reservations on his proposals remain.^[26]

The bill passed second reading without a vote but fell at the end of the session without reaching committee stage.

3.1 Other private members’ bills

A number of private members’ bills that would have removed the excepted hereditary peers or ended the by-elections for excepted hereditary peers were introduced and debated between 1999 and 2014. These are covered in detail in the House of Lords Library briefing, ‘Hereditary peers in the House of Lords since 1999’, 26 March 2014 on pp 32–5. They included bills introduced by Lord Weatherill (former Crossbench member who brokered the amendment to the 1999 act allowing a number of excepted hereditary peers to remain in the House), Lord Avebury (former hereditary Liberal Democrat), Baroness Hayman (the first lord speaker, who served in that role from 2006 to 2011) and Lord Steel of Aikwood (former Liberal Democrat peer).

None of these private members’ bills containing provisions to end hereditary by-elections obtained royal assent, with all falling at the end of a session having not made enough parliamentary progress. Again, arguments for and against these bills tended to focus on the initial compromise made when retaining 92 excepted hereditary peers that it would be a transitional measure lasting until a second stage of major Lords reform took place. Some, such as Lord Steel, reasoned that this compromise had been made with the assumption that this second stage of reform would be happening in the next few years and that—in the absence of that second stage of reform—the gradual removal of hereditary peers was now overdue.^[27] Those arguing against, such as Lord De Mauley and Lord Strathclyde (both Conservative hereditary peers), claimed that the compromise represented a commitment to members that the 92 places for excepted hereditary peers would remain until a second stage of reform was undertaken.^[28] During the 2010­–12 session, Lord Steel agreed to remove the hereditary by-election provisions from his House of Lords Reform Bill [HL] (subsequently renamed the House of Lords (Amendment) Bill [HL]), which sought to make a number of changes affecting Lords appointments and membership, after acknowledging the strength of feeling among some in the House on the matter.^[29] However, he said he still believed the by-elections were “farcical”.

Although Lord Steel’s provisions to end hereditary by-elections never gained royal assent, a reworked version of one of his bills was passed to become the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. This act allows members to retire or be removed due to non-attendance or the conviction of a serious offence. The successful version of the bill was introduced in the House of Commons by Dan Byles (former Conservative MP for North Warwickshire) during the 2013–14 session. Speaking specifically about how the practice of by-elections to replace excepted hereditary peers would continue under the new provisions, he explained:

Because I propose a new statutory mechanism for peers to resign and/or be disqualified, the bill needs to stipulate how such vacancies will be filled in the case of hereditary peers. That is due to the requirement under the 1999 act that there be 90 excepted peers and the fact that it allows a by-election only in the event of a peer’s death. Some people have been a little confused about why we appear to be amending the 1999 act, but when members consider the situation, they will see that it is straightforward.^[30]

In addition, in the 2016–17 session Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party) introduced the House of Lords Reform Bill [HL] 2016–17. This sought to remove the right of excepted hereditary peers to sit in the House, along with making wider changes to the composition of the House (including the introduction of elected members). The bill had second reading on 3 February 2017, but did not progress any further.

Cover image: House of Lords 2023. Photography by Roger Harris on Flickr.