The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill is currently being debated in the Lords itself, and has reached a crucial moment. In this second post of a two-part series, Constitution Unit Director Meg Russell reviews the prospects for using the bill to achieve other long-awaited Lords reforms, beyond removing the hereditary peers. She argues that key changes, particularly to limit the size of the chamber, and improve the appointments process, should be made to the bill, as history suggests that further government legislation is unlikely to follow. These changes are in tune with public opinion, and would be consistent with promises made in Labour’s manifesto.

The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill has just completed its committee stage in the House of Lords, and will shortly begin its report stage – traditionally the main opportunity for the chamber to make amendments. In this second post of a two-part series, I consider the prospects for getting more change from the bill than merely removing the hereditary peers, and argue that this is a rare opportunity which should be seized by parliament and government.

As the previous post outlined, government bills on Lords reform succeed only around once every 30 years. Failing to make full use of the current bill in the weeks ahead would thus risk the next stage of reform waiting for another a generation or more.

The debate so far, and the politics

As the previous post discussed, debate in the Lords on this bill has already been lengthy, allowing numerous topics to be aired. The main focus of the Conservative frontbench has been to prevent or delay the hereditary peers’ removal, which would directly challenge Labour’s manifesto. Other proposals debated sought to build upon the bill, drawing on changes that have been under discussion for many years, some of which were explicitly backed in that manifesto.

The sheer volume of committee stage amendments risks them being seen by supporters of the bill as part of an obstructionist campaign. But many such amendments, including some from backbench Conservatives, raised important points on which there is widespread support for change. For years, the main pressure for incremental progress on Lords reform has come from inside the chamber itself, not least through the work of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House. Now is the moment for the Lords finally to achieve progress on these points.

Ideally, the government should welcome constructive suggestions on future reform, particularly to implement its manifesto commitments (indeed ministers have sometimes explicitly expressed this sentiment in debate). The bill provides a potential vehicle to reach agreement across the chamber and directly cement further change. For Conservative parliamentarians, it presents a chance to help secure widely supported changes, and hold the government to its commitments. The party cannot win anything on its own, but has the potential to do so if working cooperatively with Liberal Democrats or Crossbenchers. This, in turn, could encourage government concessions. But it would require a change of direction, towards constructive engagement rather than gameplaying.

Government responses in debate have tended to emphasise the narrowness of the current bill, and suggest that while other changes are desirable, these should wait until after it has passed. But the harsh reality is that those changes that require legislation (which in the end is most of them) are best made in this bill, as another is unlikely to come. This is a reality that ministers, as well as others in the chamber, need to recognise.

Possible areas of compromise

The overall pattern of committee stage amendments was briefly summarised in the previous post. This section focuses on five key areas, considering where progress might (or might not) be made.

Hereditary peers

Most Conservative frontbench energy so far has gone into contesting the removal of the hereditary peers. Since this directly challenges a manifesto commitment, and finds no support on the Labour or Liberal Democrat benches (though might attract a small number of Crossbenchers), no Lords votes on this are likely to be won – which perhaps explains the party’s recourse to delaying tactics. Beyond the most core of the Conservative core vote, there is also very little support for this position outside parliament.

During the bill’s passage, peers on all sides have been keen to pay tribute to the work of individual hereditary peers, and emphasise that the bill addresses a point of principle, rather than being a personal attack. A small number of key hereditary peers – such as Crossbench Convener Lord (Charles) Kinnoull, or Deputy Conservative Leader Lord (Freddie) Howe – might well be offered life peerages, and party leaders might put forward others over time. But obstructive behaviour by the Conservative frontbench seems if anything less likely to make concessions in this area attainable. The way to secure seats for departing hereditaries is more likely to come through cooperation, while wider electoral and other gains would come through focusing on the bigger, strategic questions of the chamber’s future.

An elected chamber

Despite Labour’s promise of longer-term action, direct progress towards an elected second chamber seems unlikely within the confines of this bill. The Liberal Democrat frontbench has been the main source of pressure on this point (in both the Commons and the Lords), pressing for binding commitments in the bill that the government will move in this direction. This is understandable, as it reflects the party’s long-held policy. But there is limited sincere support in the Lords for moving to an elected chamber. The government will no doubt continue to affirm its commitment to consultation in this area, but amendments here also seem unlikely to pass.

Attendance, participation and a retirement age

On both of the previous points opposition parties are in disagreement. But where they can reach agreement, ideally also with Crossbenchers and indeed Labour peers, real progress can potentially be made. This applies to various smaller-scale incremental changes.

At the committee stage, Lord Blencathra (a former Conservative Commons Chief Whip) proposed numerous amendments on the commitments in Labour’s manifesto. He offered, for example, a range of options for a retirement age (at 80, 85 or 90) and on attendance requirements for peers (at 10%, 15% or 20% of sittings). These were debated on 10 March and 12 March respectively, alongside related amendments from other peers.

While some in Labour might see such amendments as a delaying tactic, debate on them is potentially useful. Nonetheless, voting on multiple alternative amendments is an inefficient means of decision-making. It also does not allow for detailed deliberation on their consequences. For example, it is well known that a retirement age, or attendance requirement, could have differential impacts on the different groups in the chamber (e.g. because Crossbenchers tend to attend less frequently than party peers). A cross-party committee tasked with looking into such options, taking evidence, and bringing forward proposals, would be preferable. But that alone would risk missing out on the legislative vehicle for implementation provided by this bill. No matter how much determination Labour ministers might have to introduce a further bill, that seems unlikely (as further discussed below).

Ministers have welcomed the debates sparked by Blencathra’s amendments, and indicated desire to make progress in these areas, so it would be a shame if this opportunity was wasted. One option would be to agree limited change which would be uncontroversial with peers (e.g. a very high retirement age or low attendance requirement). Another would be to amend the bill to guarantee that subsequent agreements (to put for example age or attendance requirements into Lords standing orders) would gain legislative effect. A further committee stage amendment by Blencathra explicitly sought to do this. If ministers developed proposals along these lines for consideration at report stage, this could enable them to work constructively with members on their ambitions, without having to legislate again.

The size of the House of Lords

The most urgent question concerns the size of the House of Lords, and the need to prevent unregulated prime ministerial appointments pushing this ever upwards (which could continue even if new routes are provided for departures). This is a perennial problem (the first bill proposing a limit on peerage creations was an astonishing 300 years ago), and it greatly damages the chamber’s reputation. Labour’s manifesto emphasised that the chamber ‘has become much too big’, and there was unanimous agreement on this in a  debate in the Lords in 2016, which led to establishment of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House. This cross-party body, chaired by Crossbencher Lord (Terry) Burns, deliberated carefully upon what should be done, and published detailed proposals in 2017. Since then, the committee has reported regularly. Prime Minister Theresa May broadly complied with its recommendations, but it lamented their flouting by her successor Boris Johnson. The problem is not just the size of the House per se, but the unlimited patronage of the Prime Minister.

The central recommendation from the Lord Speaker’s Committee was that the House of Lords should be no larger than the House of Commons (currently it stands at well over 800 members, while there are 650 MPs – even if all hereditary peers depart, it will still have around 750). This principle was welcomed by most peers when the Lords debated the committee’s report, and also by the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Crucially, public opinion also strongly favours it – in a survey in 2022, just 3% of respondents supported the current lack of a size limit on the House of Lords, versus 65% who believed it should be no larger than the House of Commons.

The committee stage amendment from Lord Burns sought to implement this central proposal, via his committee’s suggested mechanism – that only one new peer should be appointed for every two departing until the size of the Lords matches that of the Commons, after which they could be matched one-for-one. This was probably the most important committee stage amendment of all. While the details of attendance requirements, retirement age, and other matters have yet to be worked through, this simple proposal reflects the view of the clear majority of the public, the House of Lords, and the key committee in the Commons. Placing a limit on the size of the chamber would be popular, and respond to the criticism voiced in Labour’s manifesto.

The House of Lords Appointments Commission

A final area where there has been much discussion in recent years concerns the power of the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC). This independent body vets party peerage nominations for propriety (only), and chooses Crossbench peers when invited to do so (which has recently been increasingly rarely). It remains a non-statutory body, with non-enforceable powers. Various expert groups have argued for HOLAC’s power to be extended, and put into statute. Such improvements would be in line with Labour’s manifesto pledge to ‘reform the appointments process to ensure the quality of new appointments’. The current Leader of the House of Lords, and the chamber’s current Liberal Democrat Leader, have previously argued for extending the Commission’s recommendations to cover suitability as well as propriety.

As a non-statutory body, HOLAC could be empowered simply through an instruction from the Prime Minister. Minimally, Keir Starmer could pledge that he will follow its recommendations on propriety (as all other prime ministers aside from Boris Johnson have done) – indeed it is slightly curious that he hasn’t already done so. To cement this, the government could accept the Liberal Democrat amendment moved in both the Commons and the Lords requiring the PM to abide by HOLAC’s propriety recommendations. If pushed to the vote, this would seem difficult for peers (or indeed MPs) to resist.

Going further, accepting something like Viscount Hailsham’s committee stage amendment that HOLAC should check if ‘the person to be recommended is a fit and proper person to sit and vote in the House of Lords and will participate appropriately and in its business’ would be an additional positive step. The same survey cited above found strong public support for empowerment of an independent appointments commission.

A once in a generation opportunity

The politics around the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill have been difficult. The confrontational stance of the Lords Conservative frontbench, and its focus on an outcome that cannot in practice be achieved (resisting the removal of the hereditary peers), has been counterproductive. This has actively discouraged compromise by ministers, who in the face of such resistance have increasingly argued for an unamended bill. Meanwhile Liberal Democrats, Crossbenchers and government backbenchers who support Labour’s right to proceed with its manifesto commitment have been reluctant to add to the government’s woes.

There are further incremental changes to the Lords that ministers support, which in practice can only be achieved via legislation. But even they must realise that the likelihood of a second House of Lords reform bill in this parliament is close to nil. As detailed in the previous post, before this bill it had been 26 years since a government measure on reform had reached the Lords (in 1999), and before that it had been a further 36 years (in 1963). Even had Starmer’s government not been cautious at the outset, the extended proceedings on this short and simple bill will serve as a strong disincentive to bring forward further legislation. Ministers are now painfully aware that this could clog up many further weeks of precious parliamentary time.

The House of Lords itself badly wants reform. Its members have argued for years for further incremental changes, particularly to address the growing size of the chamber and improve the appointments process. It would be perverse for them not to use this legislative vehicle to achieve these desirable and widely supported objectives, and to instead await another bill that almost certainly will not come.

Such change can be achieved during a more focused and constructive report stage. Since the government lacks a majority in the House of Lords, a coming together of groups behind modest proposals to a) restrict the chamber’s size to no larger than the House of Commons, and b) require the Prime Minister to abide by HOLAC’s propriety recommendations, and maybe more, could easily be won. Under pressure, ministers might themselves embrace such changes, and they would certainly be welcomed by the public. Should the bill return to the House of Commons with such provisions in it, MPs should welcome them too. Whichever political groups seek to promote these widely agreed proposals stand to gain political credit, while groups that resist them would face some political risk.

After decades of debate on House of Lords reform this bill offers a once in a generation opportunity to make progress, beyond its current narrow confines, including on measures in Labour’s own manifesto. With report stage approaching, now is the time for ministers, parliamentarians from all parties, and those outside Westminster who want further incremental reform, to focus on achieving it using the bill that is now before parliament. As Baroness Smith herself said during debate on the bill, ‘There are times in life when you have to seize opportunities to make things happen and, sometimes, if you fail to take that opportunity, that time passes’. In the case of the next stage of Lords reform, the alternative to seizing this moment may be to wait a further 30 years, or even longer.

Professor Meg Russell FBA is the Director of the Constitution Unit. She is the author of the principal academic book on the House of Lords, and numerous articles and reports on the chamber and its reform. She has served as an adviser on this topic to the former Leader of the House of Commons Robin Cook, the House of Lords Appointments Commission, the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House, and the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

Featured image: Chamber clock (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by House of Lords 2025 / photography by Roger Harris.