Public wants House of Lords reform to go further: to limit appointments and the size of the chamber

Key points:

Ahead of Lords report stage on the government’s House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, new polling for the UCL Constitution Unit fielded by YouGov on 22–23 June shows overwhelming public support for going further, in line with some proposed amendments to the bill:

• The most widely supported option explored was to restrict the Prime Minister to appointing no more new members of the House of Lords than those who leave, so that it does not become any larger (Table 1 below). 79% backed this, or 95% if we exclude ‘don’t know’s.
• Nearly as many (71%, or 93% if we exclude don’t knows from YouGov’s figures) supported restricting the size of the House of Lords (currently over 850 members) to no bigger than the House of Commons (which has 650 members) (Table 2).
• Changes of this kind have been proposed in a key Crossbench amendment to the bill.
• Removing the hereditary peers from the chamber, as proposed by the government, had clear majority support (60%), but notably less than the changes above (Table 3).
• Asked to choose between removing the hereditary peers or limiting the Prime Minister’s power of appointment, or neither, or both, limits on the number of appointments had by far the higher support (Table 4). Just 3% of voters chose the current government plan, to remove the hereditary peers without also limiting the number of appointments.
• There is high public support for going further in restricting the Prime Minister’s patronage power, including giving an independent body the power to block nominees who do not meet basic standards (Table 5) – as proposed in another amendment to the bill.
• On all of the eight questions asked, public priorities were clearly at odds with the status quo option (marked * in the tables that follow).

Contents:

• Support for reducing patronage and limiting the size of the Lords is very high
• A majority, but well short of the above, support removing the hereditary peers
• Dealing with excessive appointments is a higher priority than removing the hereditary peers
• The public supports empowering an independent House of Lords appointments commission
• The public would prefer further general limits on prime ministerial appointments, and to protect party balance and independent members
• Technical notes
• Coverage
• Key links

Support for reducing patronage and limiting the size of the Lords is very high

The Constitution Unit survey (see full technical notes below) found particularly high support for limiting the number of appointments that the Prime Minister can make to the House of Lords (which is currently unlimited) (Table 1). Only 4% supported the status quo, against 79% who believed that the Prime Minister should be ‘limited to appointing no more new members each year than the number who leave the chamber, so that its size doesn’t grow’. When we exclude those who chose ‘don’t know or can’t decide’ from YouGov’s figures, the position of limiting the Prime Minister’s appointments was supported by 95% of respondents expressing a preference.

Table 1: For so long as the Prime Minister appoints new members to the House of Lords, which of the following comes closer to your view (%):

Support for limiting the Prime Minister’s appointments was higher among respondents who had voted for any of the main parties in 2024: 84% of Labour voters agreed with the statement, as did 87% of Conservatives, 90% of Liberal Democrats, 87% of Reform voters and 88% of Greens. (Figures from voters for all parties listed exceed those for the population as a whole (throughout this document) largely because non-voters were more likely to respond ‘don’t know or can’t decide’.) If we exclude those who expressed a preference from YouGov’s figures, 97% of Labour voters, 95% of Conservatives and 96% of Liberal Democrats supported change.

The survey also repeated a question first asked in 2022 regarding the size of the House of Lords (Table 2). As previously, this showed very high public support for limiting the chamber’s size to no bigger than the House of Commons. (Currently the House of Lords is of no fixed size and has over 850 members, while the House of Commons has 650.) Only 5% of respondents supported the status quo of no limit on the size of the House of Lords, compared to 71% who believed it should be no bigger than the House of Commons. The size limit was widely supported by voters for all the main political parties in 2024: 79% Labour, 80% Conservative, 80% Liberal Democrat, 76% Reform and 74% Green.

Table 2: Which of the following comes closer to your view (%):

Both of these issues were addressed by the cross-party Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House (the ‘Burns committee’), which reported in 2017. It proposed that the size of the chamber should be limited to no larger than the House of Commons, and that the Prime Minister should initially be restricted in making appointments to ‘two-out-one-in’ to bring the chamber down to that size, and then to ‘one-out-one-in’, to keep it there. During the House of Lords committee stage of the government’s current bill an amendment to implement these recommendations was proposed by the committee’s Crossbench chair Lord (Terry) Burns, and is likely to be returned to at the report stage.

A majority, but well short of the above, support removing the hereditary peers

The government’s bill seeks to remove all of the remaining hereditary peers from membership of the chamber. The survey asked whether respondents supported the hereditary peers’ removal, or would prefer that all or some of them could stay (Table 3).

Table 3: Around 90 members in the House of Lords (which now has around 850 members) are ‘hereditary peers’, meaning they hold their seats because they inherited a title (such as ‘Lord’ or ‘Earl’) from another family member. There are currently plans to remove these members. Which of the following comes closer to your view (%):

There was clear majority support for the removal of the hereditary peers (60%), though a minority (22%) believed that all or some should be able to remain in the House of Lords. This largely reflected a party split, with 2024 Conservative voters more supportive of the hereditary peers remaining. In total, 74% of 2024 Labour voters supported removing the hereditary peers, as did 67% of Liberal Democrats, compared to just 42% of Conservatives.

Dealing with excessive appointments is a higher priority than removing the hereditary peers

Perhaps the most striking result from the survey is that which combines the previous two points: asking respondents whether they would prefer the hereditary peers to be removed without putting a limit on the Prime Minister’s future appointments (effectively the current government plan), or whether they would prefer both of these two changes, or to simply limit appointments without removing the hereditary peers, or do neither (Table 4).

The current government plan of simply removing the hereditary peers without making further changes gains support from only 3% of respondents (including 3% of 2024 Labour voters). The Conservative position of preferring the hereditary peers to remain also has limited support – just 1% unless combined with limiting the number of prime ministerial appointments (and 0% among 2024 Conservative voters), while leaving the hereditary peers in place and putting a limit on the number of appointments that the Prime Minister can make was supported by 22%. By far the most popular option was making both of these changes (56%, including 69% of Labour voters). Taking each dimension in turn, 59% supported removing the hereditary peers, while 78% (including 82% of Labour voters) supported limits on the PM’s appointments.

Table 4: Which of the following four overall outcomes would you prefer for the House of Lords (%):

*Here the ‘status quo’ option relates to the current proposals in the government’s bill, rather than the current state of the House of Lords.

The public supports empowering an independent House of Lords appointments commission

The House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC) currently advises the Prime Minister on the propriety of nominees, but has no ability to block those that it concludes do not meet propriety standards. On one occasion, Prime Minister Boris Johnson notably overruled the propriety recommendations of HOLAC. Therefore amendments are proposed to require the Prime Minister to abide by HOLAC’s propriety recommendations. The survey shows a plan of this kind has a high level of public support (Table 5). Just 13% support the status quo, where the Prime Minister can overrule HOLAC’s recommendations. In contrast, 72% support an independent body being able to block the Prime Minister’s candidates if they do not meet basic standards. This rises to 85% if we exclude those choosing ‘don’t know or can’t decide’.

Table 5: It is currently the Prime Minister that appoints new members to the House of Lords. While this remains the case, which of the following comes closer to your view (%):

The public would prefer further general limits on prime ministerial appointments, and to protect party balance and independent members

Moving beyond points currently being debated on the bill, the public also supports further restrictions on the Prime Minister’s power. The survey began by asking another question previously asked in 2022, regarding whether it should be the Prime Minister of the day or an independent body who appoints new members to the House of Lords (Table 6). The status quo of appointment by the Prime Minister achieved only 6% support (including only 6% among 2024 Labour voters), while 74% preferred appointments to be made by an independent body.

Table 6: Which of the following comes closer to your view (%):

A further question is whether the Prime Minister should be constrained in how new seats in the House of Lords are divided between different groups. Currently not only can he or she appoint as many members as they please, but there is no formula for dividing these between the parties, or to determine how many seats go to independent members. The Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House (the ‘Burns committee’) considered these questions and proposed that prime ministerial appointments should be required to follow a clear formula based on general election votes.

Again on this point the survey found only minimal support for the status quo: just 9% of respondents believed that the Prime Minister should determine how seats are shared between the parties, versus 64% (67% Labour, 66% Conservative, 73% Liberal Democrat, 75% Reform, 72% Green) who support the Prime Minister having to follow a formula linked to election results when sharing out new appointments (Table 7). Among those expressing a preference (i.e. when we exclude respondents choosing ‘don’t know or can’t decide’ from YouGov’s figures), 88% favoured a change from the status quo.

Table 7: For so long as the Prime Minister appoints new members to the House of Lords, which of the following comes closer to your view (%):

Finally, the survey tested public reaction to another proposal that has been made regularly over the years, including by the Burns committee, that a proportion of seats in the House of Lords (most have suggested 20%) should be reserved for independent ‘Crossbenchers’. This approach also found widespread support (Table 8). Only 7% of respondents supported the current status quo, whereby the Prime Minister decides the proportion of seats going to independent members, versus 70% believing that a minimum proportion of seats should be reserved for such members. Those supporting change included 73% of 2024 Labour voters, 79% of Conservatives, 79% of Liberal Democrats, 73% of Reform voters and 83% of Greens.

Table 8: For so long as the Prime Minister appoints new members to the House of Lords, which of the following comes closer to your view (%):

Technical notes

All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2,228 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken on 22–23 June 2025. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+). The introductory words provided to respondents before the survey questions were:

The UK parliament has two chambers: the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Both of them debate the issues of the day and scrutinise the government and its policies. The House of Commons is elected, while most members of the House of Lords are appointed for life.

The following questions ask for your views on matters concerning the House of Lords. Most questions offer two options (while one of them offers four). It may be that you don’t particularly like either option, but please try to choose the one you think would be better.

Party figures above relate to respondents’ 2024 general election vote. Note figures from voters for all parties listed exceed those for the population as a whole in the tables largely because non-voters were more likely to respond ‘don’t know or can’t decide’.

The Constitution Unit is an independent, non-partisan research centre based in the UCL Department of Political Science. Its Director is Professor Meg Russell FBA, an expert on the UK parliament and author of two books and multiple other publications about the House of Lords. The Constitution Unit’s other research work on the House of Lords can be found online. 

Coverage

• We have new opinion polling on House of Lords reform! — read our Bluesky thread about these results.
• Liz Kendall braves the heat — see our opinion polling covered in Politico’s London Playbook.
• Public supports Lords reform going further: new poll — read Lord (Mark) Pack’s coverage of our opinion polling.
• 10 reasons why the hereditary peers bill should be amended to constrain Prime Ministerial patronage and the size of the House of Lords — read Meg Russell’s most recent blog post, which cites this opinion polling.
• Removing hereditary peers is not enough to reform Lords, poll suggests — read Henry Dyer’s article about our opinion polling in the Guardian.
• The battle for trust in politics is being lost — read Tom Brake’s comment piece for politics.co.uk, which cites our opinion polling.
• Public wants much greater Lords reform than government’s modest plan – new survey — read Meg Russell in the Conversation about this opinion polling.
• See Lord (Michael) Dobbs and Lord (Dick) Newby cite our opinion polling on day one of report stage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill in the House of Lords.
• Labour’s welfare meltdown — hear Meg Russell discuss the opinion polling and hereditary peers bill on the Parliament Matters podcast.
• Rowan Hall discusses opinion polling about House of Lords reform on BBC Radio 4 Today in Parliament — listen to Rowan Hall be interviewed about our opinion polling on BBC Radio 4.
• This Wednesday: The last best hope for Lords reform — read Ian Dunt’s commentary on Lord (Terry) Burns’s amendment, which cites our opinion polling.

Key links

• Public wants House of Lords reform to go further: to limit prime ministerial appointments and the size of the chamber — download this news story as a printable PDF.
• House of Lords | YouGov / University College London Survey Results 250623 — download the data tables from YouGov as a PDF.
• Public overwhelmingly support House of Lords reform going beyond government plans — read the UCL press release.
• Parliament and government have a once in a generation opportunity to reform the House of Lords: now is the time to seize it — read Meg Russell’s blog post about House of Lords reform from April 2025.
• Majority of public support House of Lords appointments reform — find our previous opinion polling results about House of Lords reform from 2022.
• The Changing Role of the House of Lords — find out more about the Constitution Unit’s House of Lords research.

Image attribution: ‘Debate in the Lords chamber’ by House of Lords 2024 / photography by Roger Harris (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).