What are the options for House of Lords reform?

The history of Lords reform

The House of Lords is often considered a historical artefact. But, in reality, today’s chamber is the result of various reforms passed since the early twentieth century. These changes removed the Lords’ legislative veto, allowed women to be appointed, established life (rather than hereditary) peerages as the ‘standard’ way of appointing members, removed most hereditary peers, and created mechanisms for retirement and expulsion. The remaining 92 hereditary seats were removed at the end of the 2024–26 parliamentary session.

Numerous other attempts at reform have failed. These include multiple efforts since 2003 to find majority parliamentary support for a largely or wholly elected second chamber.

Options for Lords reform

Proposals for change may be either radical, or incremental.

More radical proposals generally entail wholesale change to the composition of the Lords. Most have proposed a move to a wholly or mostly elected chamber, though some have argued for a minority elected chamber, or for sortition (where members would be selected from the public by lot, as for jury service). Many such proposals include at least an element of regional representation – with seats reserved for members from the devolved nations, and English regions. Some have also proposed greater powers for a reformed second chamber; in 2022, the Labour Commission on the UK’s Future chaired by Gordon Brown suggested a reformed ‘Assembly of the Nations and Regions’ with new powers in approving changes to constitutional legislation.

More incremental proposals seek to improve the functioning of the appointed chamber. This often includes tightening up rules on entry – for example, through setting a cap on numbers to arrest the chamber’s constant expansion, or giving the House of Lords Appointments Commission a veto over appointments on propriety grounds (going beyond the advisory role that it currently has). It may also include the introduction of new exit mechanisms; a House of Lords committee is currently investigating the options for introducing a retirement age, and tighter participation requirements.

Key challenges

There are various reasons that House of Lords reform has historically been difficult to achieve. Attachment to the status quo can scupper even incremental reform – for example, Prime Ministers have proved reluctant to give up the power of patronage that the current appointments system gives them.

Another problem is the difficulty of reaching agreement on a new model. Any reform requires agreement not only on the principle of change but also the details, over which reformers may differ. For example, a move to an elected second chamber would entail decisions about constituency boundaries and the electoral system – topics on which campaigners may not agree. Even more incremental proposals may involve controversial questions – for example, at which level to set a retirement age, or how to distribute appointments between parties.

More fundamentally, proposals for radical reform generally aim to increase the chamber’s legitimacy. But the caution with which the House of Lords exercises its quite substantial formal powers reflects its unelected status. A more ‘legitimate’ House would likely expect to wield greater power. This could potentially threaten Commons primacy – and has historically been one key reason that MPs hesitate to approve radical Lords reform.

Image attribution: ‘The Mace on the Woolsack’ ©House of Commons.