The main party manifestos have now been published, allowing exploration and comparison of their constitutional proposals. In this second post in a series on the manifestos, Meg Russell looks at the parties’ commitments on parliamentary reform. What are they promising, and what are the prospects for these proposed changes? 

Yesterday on this blog, Lisa James reviewed the constitutional proposals presented by the political parties in their 2024 general election manifestos. Unsurprisingly, parliamentary reform is a key area that appears in several of them. Most parties include aspirations to reform the House of Lords, and some make other commitments on the House of Commons, or the overall power of parliament. This second post in the Constitution Unit’s manifesto series reviews these proposals, reflecting on their origins, merits, and prospects for implementation. It starts with the power of parliament as a whole, before moving to the Commons, and then the Lords. 

The power of parliament 

It is primarily the Liberal Democrats that give space to parliament’s overall place in the constitution – an area subject to significant recent controversy. The Brexit referendum of 2016 led to fierce clashes in parliament, and unusually high-profile arguments about both parliamentary procedure and the limits of the government’s prerogative power. Brexit also raised new questions about parliament’s powers over policy matters that returned to the UK following its exit from the European Union. 

On this last point, parliament’s control over international trade and treaties has attracted particular interest. An International Agreements Committee now exists in the House of Lords, but has no equivalent in the House of Commons. Indeed, machinery of government changes caused the House of Commons International Trade Committee, which previously took some responsibility in this area, to be abolished. Committees in both Commons and Lords have called for parliamentary strengthening over international agreements. The Liberal Democrats are the only party explicitly to address this question in their manifesto. It proposes that parliament should have ‘real power in setting UK trade policy, by ensuring it is properly consulted on and signs off on negotiating mandates and any completed international trade agreements’.  

The party likewise suggests extension of parliamentary power in other areas still controlled by the prerogative. On the much-debated question of parliament’s role in approving military action, the Liberal Democrats want to ‘legislate to ensure there is a parliamentary vote’. And their proposed expansion of parliamentary power also extends to domestic matters. The party wishes to ‘restor[e] to Parliament’ the right to set general election dates – as applied under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which was repealed by the Johnson government. Going further, it proposes that ‘a new Prime Minister, and their programme for government, must win a confidence vote of MPs before taking office’. This would bring the UK into line with various other parliamentary democracies, by introducing the need for a formal ‘investiture’ vote.  

Likelihood of action in these areas declines roughly with each topic on the list. The question of parliamentary control of international agreements is unlikely to go away after the election, and some in all parties want change. The election itself has perhaps reminded us of the benefits of fixed-term parliaments. But unless the Liberal Democrats form part of a coalition government after 4 July, topics beyond the first of these seem unlikely to be acted upon. 

House of Commons 

Moving more specifically to the House of Commons, the Labour manifesto demonstrates the greatest ambition for reform – which clearly matters, given the party’s current position in the polls and likelihood of forming the next government. (This post excludes discussion in the manifestos of elections, or the electoral system for the House of Commons – which are the subject of a subsequent post.) 

Labour’s central commitment is to ‘establish a new Modernisation Committee tasked with reforming House of Commons procedures, driving up standards, and improving working practices’. This very explicitly borrows nomenclature used by the 1997 Labour government, which set up a House of Commons Modernisation Committee that existed until 2010. The committee made numerous proposals for reform, many of them implemented: e.g. on the programming of legislation, establishment of a separate debating chamber in Westminster Hall, and creation of Public Bill Committees. It was a relatively controversial body, and sometimes criticised as government-dominated as it was (uniquely for a select committee) chaired by a government minister: the Leader of the House of Commons. But a recent analysis by two of my Constitution Unit colleagues has shown that it was more successful in practice at delivering procedural change than has been the backbench-only Commons Procedure Committee, and that various of those changes were targeted at strengthening parliament, not just ministers. 

The exact shape of Labour’s proposed committee remains to be seen – including whether, like its predecessor, it would include a mix of frontbench and backbench members. The proposed scope of its investigations also remains unspecified, though the manifesto words make clear that this would go beyond procedural change, possibly straying into areas currently concerning the Commons Standards Committee. Indeed, the sole matter that the manifesto indicates will be referred to the committee is arrangements for ‘restrictions’ on MPs’ second jobs, where the party is committed to ‘support an immediate ban on MPs from taking up paid advisory or consultancy roles’. What else it might be referred is unknown, but might for example include long-term bugbears such as reforming the private member’s bill procedure, or improving the scrutiny of delegated legislation. Notably, Labour’s Shadow Leader of the House of Commons Lucy Powell spoke powerfully at the Institute for Government last month about the need to improve the quality of scrutiny and the legislative process. There is no explicit mention of this in the manifesto, though some key aspects could be resolved through the government improving its own procedures. If Labour wins the election, there will be no shortage of ideas proposed for the new committee, but it (like other select committees) is very unlikely to be set up before autumn 2024, at the earliest. 

Other parties do propose some specific changes to the House of Commons, though notably none appear in the Conservative manifesto. The Liberal Democrats specifically seek to ‘[s]trengthen the Intelligence and Security Committee’, though one expert has expressed doubts about what is being proposed. The party also proposes to extend select committee oversight of public appointments, and commits to tough action on ‘harassment and bullying in Westminster and legislating to empower constituents to recall MPs who commit sexual harassment’. The Green Party manifesto suggests other changes to working arrangements, which ‘could include proposals such as job sharing for MPs’ in order ‘to make politics more accessible to underrepresented groups including women and disabled people’. 

House of Lords 

The most popular topic in the manifestos on parliament is the reform of the House of Lords. A suggestion of major reform comes from five parties: the Liberal Democrats, Greens, Labour, Reform UK and the SNP. The Conservatives make no mention of this either – meaning that there is no indication in their manifesto of any plans for parliamentary reform at all. 

Mentions of major reform are all relatively brief and nonspecific. The Liberal Democrats merely want the Lords to have ‘a proper democratic mandate’, while the Greens want to replace it ‘with an elected second chamber’, and the SNP wants ‘abolition of the undemocratic House of Lords’. Reform UK says marginally more, suggesting that the Lords should be replaced ‘with a much smaller, more democratic second chamber’, and also suggesting an ‘[i]mmediate end of political appointees’. This implies a two-stage process, as explicitly (and sensibly) signalled by Labour in far more detail. Labour’s second stage is ‘replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations’, which appears alongside a pledge to ‘consult on proposals, seeking the input of the British public’. This hints at the kind of reform set out by the commission chaired by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which certainly required further thinking and consultation. The form that consultation would take is an interesting question – it could be either of a traditional kind (e.g. a green paper), or perhaps – as the Constitution Unit’s Alan Renwick has suggested – include a citizens’ assembly. 

Labour provides far more detail on the possible ingredients of a first stage of Lords reform – doubtless wanting to minimise trouble in the House of Lords itself (given the Salisbury Convention, whereby the chamber does not seek to block manifesto commitments). Again, as a party possibly poised to enter government, these proposals deserve close inspection. 

One pledge is to remove the remaining 92 hereditary peers from the House of Lords – a group that Labour’s manifesto describes as ‘indefensible’. It promises ‘an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords’. For years, Labour’s former Chief Whip in the chamber, Lord (Bruce) Grocott, has pursued a private member’s bill to end the by-elections through which hereditary peers are replaced when they retire or die. This would have resulted in a gradual phasing out of such peers, but never achieved government backing, and therefore repeatedly failed. The party’s commitment now appears to be a more radical one, to (as the 1997 government originally intended) actually fully remove the hereditary peers. This would have the dual benefits of immediately reducing the size of the Lords (which the manifesto agrees ‘has become too big’), and rebalancing it somewhat between the parties.  Following excessive appointments by recent prime ministers, there are now 275 Conservative peers to Labour’s 171 in the 785-member chamber; around 48 hereditaries are guaranteed to be Conservatives, next to just four Labour and four Liberal Democrats (while most others are independent Crossbenchers). Grocott’s bill was relatively uncontroversial in the Lords, but complete removal of the hereditary peers would prove more so – since various of them do contribute usefully to the chamber. A bill’s passage might be eased by giving some of these members life peerages (as Labour did in 1999, when most hereditaries initially departed). 

The more controversial aspect of Labour’s short-term Lords reform proposals may prove to be the rather unexpected proposal of a retirement age of 80 for the chamber. Media reporting has already noted that numerous highly valued members exceed that age, while it is notable that various members who have caused recent controversy have been far younger. The manifesto pledges that ‘[a]t the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords’. As of today, 186 members of the Lords exceed that age. Clearly that would rise significantly during the parliament. The downsides of this policy include that age is a blunt measure of quality or ‘usefulness’, but also its lack of short-term effect on the bloated size of the chamber. It is curious that Labour did not propose a more pragmatic solution instead – whereby party groups (as occurred when most hereditaries departed in 1999) could decide which members they most wanted to keep. This could have been implemented very quickly. The party also promises to ‘introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed’, which might drive out a few further members. 

These changes would all require legislation, but Labour’s final proposal could be acted upon – at least in the short term – straight away. The manifesto promises to ‘reform the appointments process to ensure the quality of new appointments and will seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second chamber’. Properly implemented, this could prove the most important measure of all. Appointments to the chamber in recent years have very often been controversial, and excessive in number. The Prime Minister can simply instruct the non-statutory House of Lords Appointments Commission to apply enhanced criteria in judging the suitability of members nominated for peerages by the parties (as well as, as at present, their propriety) – and commit to accepting its recommendations (recently not always the case). Labour also appears to be offering HOLAC some control over territorial diversity. What is not mentioned, but essential to make a new system work, is a hard limit on the size of the chamber, and a transparent formula for sharing seats between the parties. Without these there is even a possibility that a retirement age backfires, incentivising parties to appoint younger and younger members in order to keep hold of their seats. As well as regulating departures, regulating appointments to the Lords has always been an essential part of the jigsaw. And cementing HOLAC’s powers in legislation would also be wise. 

This is the second in a series of posts offering analysis of the parties’ manifestos, and the latest in a broader collection of posts on the 2024 general election. Sign up via the box in the left-hand sidebar to receive email notifications when a new post goes live. 

Note: this post was edited later on the day of publication to include the SNP’s commitment on House of Lords reform following release of its manifesto.

About the author

Meg Russell FBA is Professor of British and Comparative Politics at UCL and Director of the Constitution Unit.

Featured image: PMQs, 29 May 2024, (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Parliament.