Reform and reform attempts before 1997 The Liberal Government elected in 1910 included a preamble in the Parliament Act 1911: The
Parliament Act 1911 removed the ability of the House of Lords to veto money bills; with any other bills, the House of Commons was given powers to overrule the Lords' veto after two changes of parliamentary session and two years. In 1917 the
Bryce Commission was set up to consider House of Lords reform proposals. The commission's recommendations were rejected by a vote in the House of Lords. The
Parliament Act 1949, however, amended the 1911 act reducing the time the Lords could delay a bill from two sessions and two years to one session and one year. The
Salisbury Convention is an unwritten
constitutional convention that the Commons, as the elected chamber, has a mandate to pass anything in the government party's manifesto without the Lords' veto. This was necessary as the Conservative Party had an absolute majority in the House of Lords, and it was seen as inappropriate for them to use this to block the Labour government's policies following their landslide victory in 1945. The
Life Peerages Act 1958 enabled the appointment of a new class of peers, who could sit and vote in the House of Lords, but the honour and rights would not be hereditary. These were intended to be merit-based, letting in "the great and the good" from various backgrounds of expertise and experience and ending the exclusively hereditary (and exclusively male) composition. Since 1965, almost all peerages appointed have been life peerages. However, the system has come under criticism in 'cash for honours' scandals in which those who donate significant sums to political parties may be able to gain membership of the
House of Lords, undermining its credibility as a revising chamber. The
Peerage Act 1963 allowed hereditary peers to disclaim their peerage, allowing them to vote and stand for elections to the House of Commons. It also permitted hereditary peers in the
Peerage of Scotland and female hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords without the election of
Scottish representative peers as had been the procedure in Scotland prior to the Act.
Parliament (No. 2) Bill 1968–69 In 1968,
Harold Wilson's Labour Government published a white paper on reform of the House of Lords. The main proposals made in the white paper were: • Life peers, created hereditary peers and 16 bishops would have been able to be voting members of the House, if they attended at least one third of the sittings and were under 72 years old at the start of a new parliament. The number of bishops would have been decreased from 26 to 16 through retirements. • Hereditary peers by succession sitting at the time would have remained as non-voting members with all other rights of a member. Their heirs would have been excluded from future membership. • The sitting government would have got a right to a majority of those voting members of the House who have a party affiliation, but not an overall majority of all voting members. • The right of the House to delay a bill would have been reduced from one year to six months. The Parliament (No. 2) Bill, which embodied proposals of the white paper, was introduced in December 1968. The Prime Minister announced in April 1969 that the Government would not proceed with the bill.
Powers as of the 1997 general election Originally, the two Houses of Parliament had equal legislative powers. The agreement of both was necessary before a bill could be submitted to the Monarch for
royal assent, which if granted made the bill an
Act of Parliament. After the
English Restoration, a
constitutional convention arose that the House of Lords would defer to the
House of Commons on measures to raise and spend money. The
Parliament Act 1911 divided Bills into three classes. • Money bills which, failing consent from the Lords within one month, could receive royal assent without it. • Other bills on which the House of Lords could exercise a suspensory veto. • On any bill extending the maximum term of Parliament beyond five years, the House of Lords retained equal legislative powers. Together with the
Parliament Act 1949, these two acts enable the Commons (in exceptional circumstance) to pass legislation without approval from the Lords but subject to certain time delays. In effect, they give the House of Lords the power to delay legislation but not to prevent it. Since 1911 there have been various attempts to reform the Lords, but none tackled the powers of the House except the
Parliament Act 1949 which reduced the suspensory veto to one change of session and one year. By the time of the
1997 general election there was still no consensus on comprehensive reform of the upper chamber of Parliaments.
Blair Labour government The Labour Party of
Tony Blair had in its
manifesto the promise to reform the
House of Lords: In 1999, the Government completed a deal with the Lords to remove most of the hereditary peers and passed the
House of Lords Act 1999, leaving amongst the majority of appointed peers a rump of 92 hereditary peers. Of these, two are
ex officio members due to their ceremonial functions in Parliament, and the other 90 are chosen from among those with qualifying hereditary peerages, in a procedure established by standing orders of the House. This arrangement was stated to be purely temporary until the second stage of reform was completed. This led to some claims (perhaps not all serious) that the elected hereditary peers were the only democratic members of the House.
Royal Commission In 1999 a Royal Commission was appointed, under
Lord Wakeham, to examine proposals for Lords reform and make recommendations. It published its
report in 2000 with 132 recommendations of which the main were: • It should have around 550 members of which 65, 87 or 195 should be elected. • There should be an
independent Appointments Commission responsible for all appointments. • The new second chamber should have the capacity to offer counsel from a range of sources. It should be broadly representative of society in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the 21st century. It should work with the House of Commons to provide an effective check upon the Government. It should give the United Kingdom's constituent nations and regions, for the first time, a formally constituted voice in the Westminster Parliament. • The Commons should be the principal political forum, should have the final say in respect of all major public policy issues, including those expressed in the form of proposed legislation. The second chamber should have sufficient power, and the associated authority, to require the Government and the House of Commons to reconsider proposed legislation and take account of any cogent objections to it. • The House of Lords should contain a substantial proportion of people who are not professional politicians, who have continuing experience in a range of different walks of life and who can bring a broad range of expertise to bear on issues of public concern. Representation of the reformed second chamber should match that of the country as expressed in votes cast at the most recent general election but it should not be capable of being dominated by any one political party and continue to include people who can help it to maintain a philosophical, moral or spiritual perspective on public policy issues. • Possession of a
peerage should no longer be a necessary qualification for membership. • Provisions should be in place to permit ministers to be drawn from the Upper House. • The upper House should ensure that changes to the constitution are not made without full and open debate and that there is increased scrutiny of secondary legislation. • The commission
could not recommend: a wholly or largely directly elected second chamber; indirect election from the devolved institutions (or local government electoral colleges) or from among British MEPs; random selection; or co-option. In a debate in the House of Lords on 7 March 2000,
Baroness Jay of Paddington expressed the government's broad acceptance of the commission's report: {{quote|The Government accept the principles underlying the main elements of the Royal Commission's proposals on the future role and structure of this House, and will act on them. That is, we agree that the Second Chamber should clearly be subordinate, largely nominated but with a minority elected element and with a particular responsibility to represent the regions. We agree there should be a statutory appointments commission ...
Votes of February 2003 On 11 December 2002, the Joint Committee published its first report, which set out "an inclusive range of seven options for the composition of a reformed House of Lords". In January 2003, the Houses of Lords and Commons debated the report. The debate in the Lords was dominated by contributors arguing for a fully appointed House, so much so that Lord Irvine of Lairg stated: On 29 January 2003, then Prime Minister Tony Blair added his own support to a fully appointed House by arguing against the creation of a hybrid House. On 4 February 2003, the Commons and House of Lords voted on the seven options proposed by the joint committee and the Commons also voted on an amendment to abolish the upper house completely: After this series of votes, where the Commons failed to back a single option and the Lords only a fully appointed House,
Robin Cook, the leader of the Commons, said: With widely differing views in the Joint Committee, its report on 9 May 2003 effectively passed the initiative back to the Government. But nine members of the Joint Committee issued a statement coinciding with the publication which stated:
Creation of the Department for Constitutional Affairs In June 2003, Tony Blair announced the creation of a new department to oversee constitutional change with
Lord Falconer of Thoroton as its first Secretary of State. The department was tasked with: • Establishment of an independent
Judicial Appointments Commission. • Creation of a new
Supreme Court to replace the existing system of Law Lords operating as a committee of the House of Lords. • Reform of the Speakership of the House of Lords. • New arrangements for the conduct of Scottish and Welsh business. When in 2003 Lord Falconer of Thoroton signalled the government's preference for an all appointed House of Lords, three members of the
Liberal Democrats issued a statement: Ministers responded, saying:
Second public consultation In September 2003, the
Department for Constitutional Affairs issued
Constitutional Reform: Next Steps for the House of Lords, which gave as its main proposals: • A fully appointed House of Lords • Removal of the remaining 92 hereditary peers • Establishment of a statutory independent Appointments Commission accountable to Parliament which would determine numbers and timings of appointments, select independent members of the House to oversee party nominations The paper also started a second consultation, on the Appointments Commission for the House of Lords requesting submissions on how the Appointments Commission itself would be appointed, even though no other alternatives to an appointed Commission had been considered. Reaction to the paper was hostile: for example,
Lord Goodhart, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Constitutional Affairs, said "the overwhelming reaction I have is a feeling of contempt and betrayal". On 18 March 2004 (before the statistical analysis had been published), the BBC reported that the government would not proceed with legislation to enact the proposals in the consultation. Although this suggested a lack of support for their proposals from the consultation, when the statistical analysis was published on 22 April 2004 the report stated that on the main issue (2a): With such an apparently high level of support, it is unclear why the government chose not to proceed. The only insight available is unofficial reports putting the actual level of support at closer to a third. Moreover, as the government published most of the responses to both consultations, it is possible to see that a number of these responses were critical of both the Government's proposal and the consultation process; some even went on to complain that the UK government breached its own code of conduct for consultations by failing to mention a number of the new ideas arising from both consultations. In the
2005 general election, all three parties included statements on reform of the House of Lords in their manifestos with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats promising "substantially"/"predominantly" elected chambers. In December 2005, the
Constitution Unit, part of the University College of London's School of Public Policy, released research findings showing "surprising levels of support from MPs and the public for the Lords to vote down government proposals":
Constitutional Reform Act 2005 On 24 March 2005, the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005 received royal assent. It provides for replacement of the Lord Chancellor as the legislative speaker of the House of Lords with the Lord Speaker and the replacement of the
Appellate Committee of the House of Lords with a
Supreme Court. The first Lord Speaker was elected in 2006. The provisions relating to the Supreme Court came into force on 1 October 2009, when the new court started work. Most of the Law Lords became its first justices, but retained their peerages. A peerage is no longer required to sit in the UK's court of last resort, although life peerages are still customary; judges are nonetheless disqualified from sitting or voting in either house of Parliament as long as they remain judges.
2006 discussions In March 2006, House of Lords reform was again under discussion. This new interest resulted from the
Cash-for-Honours scandal together with recent attempts by the Lords to block, water down, or add safeguards to (according to viewpoint) recent controversial legislation such as the
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the
Hunting Act 2004, the
Terrorism Act 2006, the
Identity Cards Act 2006, and the
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Following the failure of the previous public consultations, to endorse the Government's proposals for reform, in April 2006,
Baroness Amos announced the government had begun consulting with the other political parties and the Convenor of the Cross Benches on the membership of the House. In the
Cabinet reshuffle on 5 May 2006, governmental responsibility for this topic was transferred from
Lord Falconer of Thoroton, both
Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and
Lord Chancellor, to the
Leader of the House of Commons,
Jack Straw. Jack Straw now faced an enormous challenge. Although seen as modest reforms, the removal of most hereditary peers and rebalancing of the political make up of the House (Labour peers now formed the largest political party) were making the House increasingly confident of its own legitimacy. Paradoxically, far from making the Lords more submissive, more and more the House of Lords was willing to be assertive in its actions and confront the government. On 22 January 2007 the Power Inquiry launched a campaign for greater citizen involvement and provided statistics showing that 68% of the public felt a jury of the general public should decide "the future of the House of Lords", 17% thought elected politicians should decide and 9% appointed civil servants.
2007 white paper On 8 February 2007, the Government published a new
white paper following discussions of a cross-party working group convened by
Jack Straw, Leader of the House of Commons. The consensus position adopted by the paper called for a House composed of elected members and members appointed by a new Statutory Appointments Commission. The new commission would select non-party-political appointees; party-political appointees would be nominated by party leaders in the House of Commons and vetted by the commission. Any elected element would be elected under a regional
list system. All elections and appointments would take place on a five-year cycle, with one third of the House admitted at each intake to a fixed fifteen-year term; this term would be non-renewable, to ensure members' independence. A further measure would prohibit former members of the reformed House from seeking election to the House of Commons before a minimum amount of time had elapsed after the expiry of their term in the reformed House – the Government suggested five years. The aim of this measure was to prevent aspiring politicians from using the reformed House as a base to launch a Parliamentary career. The Government proposed that elections and appointments should be held on the same day as elections for Britain's
Members of the
European Parliament – which also take place on a fixed five-year cycle. Whilst the white paper made recommendations for a half-elected, half-appointed House, it proposed a
free vote of MPs among seven options as to composition (see
below). The white paper also recommended that at least 20% of members be non-party-political appointees: for example, under the white paper's proposal of a 50–50 split between elected and appointed members, the remaining 30% appointed members would be party political; under the 80%–20% elected/appointed option, there would be no party-political appointees. The 20% non-party-political element would include a reduced number of
Church of England bishops, whose appointment would not go through the Statutory Appointments Commission. The total size of the House was proposed to be 540 members – with 180 introduced at each intake. The paper provided for a gradual transition, with no
life peers forced to retire before death, but with the possibility of a redundancy package should they choose to do so. The remaining
hereditary peers would be removed, but the white paper left open whether they would be removed at one stroke or allowed a gradual removal by "natural wastage". The link between the
peerage and membership of the House would be broken: peerages could still potentially be awarded as an
honour, but would neither entail nor follow automatically from a seat in the House. The question of a possible new name for the reformed House was left open. The white paper also proposed avoiding the risk of all options being rejected, as had occurred in the 2003 debate, by using the
alternative vote system (also known as instant-runoff voting). Using the alternative vote for legislative proposals would have been a new precedent for the UK Parliament. Resistance by Members on all sides of the House of Commons caused Leader of the House of Commons Jack Straw to drop this proposal on 19 February. The free vote was therefore held under traditional Parliamentary procedures.
Votes of March 2007 In March 2007 the Houses of Commons and Lords debated the proposals in the 2007 white paper and voted on a similar series of motions to those voted on in 2003. Unexpectedly, the House of Commons voted by a large majority for an all-elected Upper House. One week later, the House of Lords retorted by voting for an all-appointed House by a larger majority. This called into question the significance of the larger majority achieved for 100% elected than that achieved for 80% elected. However, examination of the names of MPs voting at each division in the Commons shows that, of the 305 who voted for the 80% elected option, 211 went on to vote for the 100% elected option. Given that this vote took place after the vote on 80%whose result was already known when the vote on 100% took placethis shows a clear preference in the Commons for a fully elected upper house over the only other option that passed, since any MP who favoured 80% over 100% would have voted against the latter motion, having already secured their preferred outcome (76 MPsincluding Jack Straw, his shadow
Theresa May and Opposition Leader
David Camerondid exactly that). There was strong opinion about the votes.
Lord McNally, the Liberal Democrat leader in the Lords, said the Lords' decision Prior to the debate Lord Lipsey, former economics editor of
The Sunday Times, estimated the cost of the plans in the white paper at £1.092 billion over a 15-year term. The government dismissed this as "back-of-an-envelope calculations" and Jack Straw told the House of Commons that ("Other place" is Commons jargon for the House of Lords.) In response Lord Lipsey accused Jack Straw of misleading the House of Commons: On 15 March,
Lord Steel of Aikwood published a proposed bill approved by a large meeting of peers and MPs of all parties who had been working on these proposals for some time with proposals for four reforms: • End the by-elections for hereditary peers and turn the remaining ones into
de facto life peers and finally end hereditary entry into our Upper House. • Create a Statutory Appointments Commission to replace Prime Ministerial patronage for new peers. • Authorise the government to proceed with a retirement package which should reduce the average age and decrease the present House of 740 by possibly 200. • Enable peerages to be removed from those guilty of serious offences on the same basis as the Commons.
Brown Labour government On 19 July 2007,
Jack Straw stated that the powers of the chamber, the method of election, financial packages and the number of members would yet again be discussed by a cross-party working group. The opposition's response was to suggest that "the real message in your statement today [is] that Lords reform is on ice until after the next election". On 14 May 2008,
Gordon Brown announced that the government intended to publish a new
white paper on lords reform. These provisions were removed in order to pass the legislation through parliamentary wash-up procedure.
Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government The
Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement agreed following the 2010 general election clearly outlined a provision for a wholly or mainly elected second chamber, elected by a proportional representation system. These proposals sparked a debate on 29 June 2010. As an interim measure, it was agreed that the appointment of new peers will reflect shares of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.
May 2011 proposals and draft bill Detailed proposals for Lords reform including a draft House of Lords Reform Bill were published on 17 May 2011. and made the following suggestions: • The reformed House of Lords should have 450 members. • Peers with the least attendance should be the first to be removed from a mainly elected House. • Up to 12 Lords Spiritual should be retained in a reformed House of Lords.
House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 The bill, introduced by Nick Clegg, was given its first reading on 27 June 2012. On 9 July 2012, the bill began to be debated. The Government also tried to introduce a programme motion, which would have limited the amount of time available to debate the bill. Labour called for more scrutiny of the bill and said it would vote against the programme motion, along with several Conservative MPs. On 10 July 2012, it became clear that the Government was going to lose the vote on the programme motion and it was withdrawn. At the vote that evening on whether to give the bill a second reading, 91 Conservative MPs voted against the
three line whip, while 19 more abstained. On 6 August 2012, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced that the Government was abandoning the bill due to the opposition from Conservative backbench MPs, claiming that the Conservatives had "broken the coalition contract". However, David Cameron disputed this view, saying that the agreement contained no specific promise to enact reform of the House of Lords.
House of Lords Reform Act 2014 The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 allowed members to resign from the House; previously there was no mechanism for this. It also allowed for the (non-retrospective) exclusion of any peer convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year or more.
Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 The Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 regulates the procedure for women bishops to enter the House of Lords as Lords Spiritual. It stipulates that whenever a vacancy arises among the Lords Spiritual during the decade after the passing of the act, this vacancy is to be filled by a female bishop, if there are any eligible. This followed the Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure 2014, whereby the
Church of England first
ordained female bishops.
House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 The House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 authorised the House to expel or suspend members.
May Conservative government Burns report In January 2017,
Lord Fowler (the
Lord Speaker), launched the inquiry of his new committee on the House's size. The committee, chaired by
Lord Burns, reported on 31 October 2017, chiefly recommending a reduction to 600 members. To that end, the report recommended: members be appointed to 15 year terms; at least 20% would be
independents/
crossbenchers and no party would have a majority; party appointments would be tied to general election results; a "two-out, one-in" programme of departures to make reductions towards the target size.
Starmer Labour government During and following the
2024 general election, the Labour Party detailed plans to extend the expiring
Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015, eliminate
hereditary peers from the House of Lords, and introduce mandatory retirement for Lords at 80 years of age. On 30 July 2024,
Baroness Smith of Basildon, the
Leader of the House of Lords, introduced a bill to extend the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 by 5 years to 18 May 2030. On 5 September 2024,
Keir Starmer's government introduced the
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill in House of Commons to remove all hereditary peers, including the
Earl Marshal and
Lord Great Chamberlain. Across the aisle, Conservative
Lord Norton of Louth introduced a
private member's bill in September 2024 to reform the peerage appointment process by creating an advisory commission. In October 2024, the Starmer government introduced a requirement that political parties would have to justify each of their nominations for peerages with "citations" similar to those for honours from monarch, consisting of statements of up to 150 words. In December 2025, a new select committee of the House of Lords was formed, entitled the Retirement and Participation Committee, with a mandate to consider a potential retirement age and a potential participation requirement.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton was appointed chair. The other members were
Baroness Anelay of St Johns,
Lord Blunkett,
Viscount Chandos,
Baroness Hayman,
Baroness Manningham-Buller,
Baroness Mattinson,
Baroness Parminter,
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury,
Lord Smith of Hindhead,
Lord Strathclyde and
Baroness Suttie appointed as Members. == Opinion polling ==