Lords reform: How to turn manifesto promises into tangible results

Labour’s manifesto promised to bring about an ‘immediate modernisation’ of the House of Lords, starting with hereditary peers. These are individuals who hold their titles by birthright. Since 1999 the number of hereditary peers has been capped with replacements elected by their peers when one dies or leaves. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill has passed its second reading and is now at the committee stage, a first step towards stripping these peers of their attendance and voting rights. ¹⁴ https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3755/stages  The bill marks the latest push from those with a longstanding ambition to reshape the House of Lords and create a second chamber that is more legitimate and reflective of modern Britain.

Lords reform to date has been piecemeal and incremental, reducing the momentum for bigger reforms

There were many attempts to reform the Lords from the 19th century onwards, prior to the Labour government’s ambitious two-stage reform plan in 1997. This aimed first to remove the hereditary peers before embarking on wholesale reform. ¹⁸ www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1997/1997-labour-manifesto.shtml  This phased approach, has been credited by some with securing buy-in for at least some change – it resulted in the removal of most of those holding their seats in the Lords through birthright. However, a deal with the Conservatives spared 92 hereditary peers meaning the reform was modest in comparison to Labour’s original aspirations. And for some, the two-phase strategy dissipated the momentum needed for the second stage of reform. ¹⁹ https://constitution-unit.com/2023/03/03/why-labour-should-adopt-a-two-stage-approach-to-house-of-lords-reform/  

Following the removal of most hereditary peers, plans for a more representative, elected chamber repeatedly faltered during the New Labour years. In 2000, a Royal Commission proposed electing only a minority of members, but backbench resistance meant that no bill was brought forward. ²⁰ https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-03/House-of-Lords-reform-guest-paper.pdf  In 2003, after debating various reform options, the Commons rejected them all, though in 2007 MPs did back an entirely elected chamber. The Lords, on the other hand, voted twice for a fully appointed chamber. Cross-party talks in 2008 led to a white paper proposing an 80% elected chamber, but internal Labour disagreements derailed the effort. This repeated cycle of proposal and resistance kept major Lords reform out of reach during the New Labour years.

Since 2010, Lords reform has followed a similar pattern. Under the coalition, Nick Clegg’s 2012 proposal, similar to the 2008 plan for an elected chamber, was derailed after 91 Conservative MPs voted against the bill at the second reading and Labour signalled it would oppose the programme motion raising the prospect of a drawn-out parliamentary process. 

Reformers resorted to incremental change – in 2014, a private member’s bill allowed life peers to retire voluntarily, and in 2015, another gave the Lords the power to expel or suspend members. In 2017, a committee led by Lords Burns recommended gradually managing down and then capping the number of peers at 600 through a ‘two out, one in’ rule. This had limited impact: the number of peers dropped under Theresa May’s premiership, but the number appointed rose again under Boris Johnson. 

More substantive reforms have remained out of reach

Despite various attempts, big changes to the Lords haven’t materialised, largely because of divisions within the ruling political party about the end goal. Past reform efforts, like those in 2008 and 2012, sparked resistance among the governing party’s backbenchers leaving no unified policy vision for a reformed Lords. And incremental change has taken the wind out of the sails of wholescale reform.

Gaining cross-party support for Lords reform has proven particularly challenging, as changes to the composition of the upper house inevitably shifts the balance of influence between political parties, directly impacting their ability to achieve their broader political goals. Although Labour has the numbers in the Commons to push through its legislation to remove the 92 hereditary peers, this seemingly small step will disproportionately affect Conservative representation, making it a tougher sell across the aisle.

While the House of Lords itself hasn’t been the main roadblock to reform, the challenge of Parliament reforming itself cannot be overstated. Constitutional change relating to parliament is tricky especially when it asks some legislators to essentially vote themselves out of a job. The problem is illustrated by the five private member’s bills introduced by Lord Grocott to scrap by-elections for hereditary peers – each one has been thwarted by a handful of peers using delaying tactics to stall progress.

These challenges mean that Lords reform requires a significant degree of political will to stay the course. This needs to be traded-off with the many other pressing demands a government faces, including delivery of other manifesto promises. Opponents to reform can increase the political cost to a party pursuing Lords reform by stretching out debates and consuming valuable parliamentary time. The more time spent on Lords reform, the less available for other policy priorities, slowing overall progress on the government’s agenda. 

This government’s staged approach will make fundamental reform less likely

Labour has recognised the specific challenges with implementing major Lords reform and opted for incremental change. The Hereditary Peers Bill was the only manifesto pledge on Lords reform to be included in the King’s Speech. It is being touted as the government’s ‘first step’ and the “largest constitutional reform to the UK Parliament in a quarter of a century”. ²³ www.gov.uk/government/news/removal-of-hereditary-peers-from-parliament-moves-a-step-closer-with-second-reading-in-the-house-of-commons  It is controversial – bound to face opposition in the Lords, while equally not going far enough for others.

The government’s incremental approach makes sense if it wants to achieve some change, but is equally not prepared – in its first term – to devote the political capital required to push through major reform. History, both in the UK and abroad, shows that attempts at radical reforms of second chambers rarely succeed. Recent examples include the rejection of proposals to abolish the Irish Senate in 2013 and to reform the Italian Senate in 2016, which brought down the then prime minister, Matteo Renzi.  Successfully implemented changes tend to be slow, incremental and hard won over time.  

Tackling clear-cut issues, where it is possible to reach agreement on a legitimacy-based argument for change, is likely to be far easier and quicker to achieve. The removal of hereditary peers, could be followed by some of the other incremental commitments on Lords reform in Labour’s manifesto: a mandatory retirement age, participation requirements, tightening up the appointments process, and removing ‘disgraced members’ from the chamber. ²⁴ https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Commission-on-the-UKs-Future.pdf  But Labour must accept the lesson of history: that incremental change probably makes major change less likely.

To succeed where others have failed, Labour must adopt a different approach 

Modern UK history to date does not set out a clear path on how to successfully implement major House of Lords reform. If Labour wants to succeed where others have failed, it will need to take a different approach to really shift the dial and make progress. One option could include a more concerted effort to secure public backing for reform via a citizens’ assembly, following the model used successfully in Ireland for major constitutional changes including on abortion and same sex marriage. 

Public engagement is not a silver bullet. It has no guarantees of breaking political deadlock, especially where the governing party itself is divided over what the ‘right’ answer is and therefore how best to implement any recommendations. However, giving people a voice in such a significant reform could promote constructive dialogue, bridge divides and create the consensus needed to deliver meaningful reform. And with public backing, the government might just pull off the compromise that leads to real, far-reaching change.