Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto promised to remove the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Today, the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill has its second reading in the House of Commons. In this post, Constitution Unit Director and House of Lords expert Meg Russell explores 10 key questions about the bill and Labour’s policy. For example, who are the hereditary peers? How did they get into the House of Lords? How have they survived so long? And what effect will their departure have on the House of Lords? 

1. How long have the hereditary peers been in the House of Lords? 

The history of the House of Lords is long and complex. It is an ancient institution, but has changed very substantially over the years. The roots of the chamber can be traced to bodies that were drawn together to advise the monarch as long ago as the medieval period. Individuals called to those early assemblies were powerful figures, including major landholders and representatives of the church. Around the 14^th century they began meeting separately from others representing the people – so that parliament developed into two distinct chambers, which became the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Initially, there was no guarantee that an individual called to one meeting of the upper chamber would be called to the next. But membership gradually stabilised, and it became established that the members of the nobility who took seats would pass these down the family line along with their titles. By the 13^th century the chamber included earls and barons, while the titles Duke and Marquess date to the 14^th century 

2. How did people become hereditary peers? 

Peerage titles were bestowed by the monarch, as a form of patronage. As the monarch’s powers gradually waned, and the structures of modern government became established, the bestowal of peerages (like many other prerogative powers) came gradually to be exercised only on the advice of the Prime Minister. This was firmly established by the late 18^th century. According to long-established custom, all new peerages created were considered hereditary, and for centuries there was no such thing as ‘life peers’. Only following the Life Peerages Act 1958 (an initiative of Harold Macmillan’s Conservative government) could new members routinely be appointed to the House of Lords without their titles passing on to their descendants. From that point onwards, almost all new members appointed to the House of Lords were life peers. 

3. Tony Blair’s Labour government removed hundreds of hereditary peers in 1999 – so why do some remain in the House of Lords?  

Labour’s 1997 manifesto promised to remove the hereditary peers. By then the size of the House of Lords had swollen to around 1200, due to numerous appointments of both hereditary and life peers by prime ministers – exacerbated by the fact that hereditary peerages did not die with their holders, but were carried on. Around 750 of the chamber’s members were hereditary peers. The House of Lords Bill, introduced in 1998, originally sought to remove all hereditary peers from the chamber. But there was considerable resistance in the Lords itself, particularly among the hereditary peers and by the Conservative Party. Notably, most of the hereditary peers who took a party whip were Conservatives. For fear of the bill being held up, and possibly its whole legislative programme being disrupted, the government did a deal with the Conservative leader in the House of Lords to allow 92 hereditary peers (representing 10% of the total, plus 15 ‘officeholders’ and two royal officeholders) to remain. A system was put in place so that if a hereditary peer died or (post-2014) retired, they would be replaced by another hereditary peer. Initially, those departing were replaced by ‘best losers’ from the internal elections that had been held in 1999 to decide who would remain. But in 2002 a system of byelections began, so that in most cases replacements were chosen through an election within the peer’s party group, where the voters were other hereditary peers, while for the 15 officeholders replacements were chosen through an election across the whole chamber. A large number of these byelections have since been held, which kept the numbers replenished. 

4. What other attempts have been made to remove the hereditary peers since 1999? 

Since 1999, there have been multiple further attempts to end the presence of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Few initially expected the byelection provisions to come into force, as Labour had promised a further stage of reform meaning the hereditaries’ presence would be only temporary. But with no such reform forthcoming, Lord (Bernard) Weatherill (who as Convener of the Crossbench peers had fronted the original compromise amendment to retain the 92), unsuccessfully proposed a private member’s bill (PMB) to block them coming into effect. Subsequently, various members, including Lord (David) Steel, Baroness (Helene) Hayman and most recently Lord (Bruce) Grocott made repeated attempts via further PMBs to end the byelections, but all have failed. On the government side, Gordon Brown’s Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill did include a provision to end the byelections, but this was dropped during the parliamentary ‘wash up’ before the 2010 general election. This was the only time (aside from the present case, and the coalition government’s failed large-scale Lords reform proposals) that the government has thrown its weight behind removing the remaining hereditary peers. Had one of the Conservative-led governments 2010-24 supported one of the PMBs to end the byelections, the hereditary peers might by now be gradually fading away, rather facing mass ejection. 

5. Who are the remaining hereditary peers today? For example, what are their party, gender and other characteristics? 

The most recent hereditary peer by-election was held in November 2023. Byelections are currently suspended, due to the government’s proposals, so there are 88 serving hereditary peers. Their makeup was analysed in a recent post on this blog by Lisa James. In terms of demographic characteristics, the most striking feature is that all 88 are men, since most hereditary peerages are passed on only down the male family line. Just under half of the sitting members entered the chamber in the last 10 years, but 19 of them have served for over 40 years. Another striking fact is that half of the remaining hereditary peers owe their peerages to titles created only in the 20^th century. They include, for example, the grandson of Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee – his grandfather having been ennobled in 1955, when the only way to appoint a member to the Lords was as a hereditary peer. At the other extreme, one serving member – Lord (Miles) de Clifford – has a peerage dating back to the 13^th century, and two to the 14^th century. Another crucial factor is that 45 of the remaining hereditary peers are Conservatives, while just four are Labour and four are Liberal Democrat (the remainder take no party whip). In addition to the principle of ending hereditary membership, this latter point is an obvious motivator for Labour’s reform. 

6. What will the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill do?  

The bill is short, and simply seeks to remove all of the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords at the end of the current parliamentary session. It is not yet known when this session will end, but this will most likely be in summer or autumn 2025. Originally, some suggested that the two ‘royal officeholders’ – the Lord Great Chamberlain and Earl Marshal – who play a role in the state opening of parliament – might remain, but the bill includes no such provision. 

7. Is the bill likely to pass, or might it be blocked by the House of Lords, or some kind of compromise be reached? 

It is very likely that the bill will pass the House of Commons with a large majority. Labour is committed to the change, which appeared in its manifesto, and the party holds 403 of 650 Commons seats. Other parties such as the Liberal Democrats, Greens and SNP are also likely to support the bill. As a manifesto bill, and particularly one so roundly supported by the Commons, the House of Lords is extremely unlikely to block it. Under the Salisbury Convention, peers do not block government manifesto proposals, and indeed rarely block any government bill in its entirety. But there may be attempts to amend the bill, or to seek some kind of non-legislative compromise. Given that Labour sees the complete removal of the hereditary peers as at least 25 years overdue, a compromise like that in 1999 to allow some hereditary members to remain seems very unlikely. But back then, some serving hereditary peers were also offered life peerages by the government, and this might conceivably happen again. However, concerns about the size of the House of Lords mean that few (if any) such appointments are likely. 

8. How will the makeup of the House of Lords change if the last hereditary peers are successfully removed?  

The way the House of Lords will change is closely related to the characteristics of the remaining hereditary peers, as described above at question 5. All of those departing will be men, so the chamber will become somewhat more gender balanced. Conservatives are the largest group among them, so the chamber will also become more party balanced. Nonetheless, as the analysis by Lisa James shows, the large size of the House of Lords means that these changes will be small in percentage terms. Men make up 70% of the current chamber, and this is due to drop to 67%; the Conservatives hold 34% of the seats, and this will drop to 32%. Meanwhile the proportion of seats held by Labour will rise from 23% to 25%. The proportion of independent Crossbenchers will also slightly drop, from 23% to 21%. Clearly, some very experienced members will depart the chamber, as will some who hold key positions – for example on committees. But the House of Lords has hundreds of other members who potentially can take these roles. The most important change may be to the image and ethos of the chamber. The hereditary peers are a long-standing part of the constitution, so this will be a break with the past; but their presence also leaves the chamber open to criticism. After their departure, the Lords may be seen as slightly more modern, and perhaps (as happened in 1999) consequently may become somewhat more confident to intervene in policy. 

9. Will the departing members of the House of Lords cease to be hereditary peers? 

No. The hereditary peers are not being ‘abolished’ in the sense of losing their titles, they are simply losing their rights to sit in the House of Lords. Those who departed the chamber as a result of the 1999 reform (or in many cases now, their descendants) remain hereditary peers, and the same will apply to those departing after the current reform. 

10. What other problems have been identified with the House of Lords, and what further reforms are likely under this government?  

The removal of the hereditary peers can be seen as long overdue, and there are also many other long-standing complaints about the House of Lords. At over 800 members, it is seen as far too large (Constitution Unit research finds strong public support for the chamber’s size to be limited), and the removal of the hereditary peers will only partially address this. The main cause is overappointment by successive prime ministers, and unless this is dealt with the size of the chamber could easily swell again. There are also concerns about the quality of some people appointed to the Lords, and the relative powerlessness of the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC) – which can vet members for ‘propriety’ but not for wider suitability, and which has no control over the number of appointments made, or how they are shared out between the parties. Going further, many people clearly think that the second chamber should be elected. The Labour manifesto promised a series of changes, beyond the removal of the hereditary peers, touching on these various points. One proposal was to introduce a retirement age of 80, to further reduce the size of the chamber, but this has met with concern inside the House of Lords and no action has yet been taken. A more practical proposal might be to require each group in the chamber to shed a certain number of members, as occurred when the hereditary peers departed in 1999. Labour also promised to ‘reform the appointments process’, and recent news stories suggest that this may include requiring public statements about why nominees are suitable for the Lords. It would ideally also include empowering HOLAC and introducing limits on the number of appointments. The manifesto also committed Labour to pursuing more ambitious longer-term reform, but to consult on the options. This clearly indicates a two-stage approach, or multistage approach, in which some progress may be made in the current parliament, and some perhaps in the next. But it should never be underestimated how just difficult large-scale House of Lords reform is to achieve. 

The Constitution Unit has long researched the House of Lords. Further information about our work, including Meg Russell’s book and multiple Constitution Unit reports, can be found on our website. 

About the author 

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

Featured image: House of Lords Members debate EU Withdrawal Bill September 2019 (CC BY-NC 2.0) by UK Parliament.