Next year marks the end of an era as the last hereditary members bid farewell to the House of Lords. This change is undoubtedly a significant step in Britain’s parliamentary journey. However, what remains uncertain is the final destination on this constitutional road. The government’s silence on this matter leaves us all guessing, perhaps because they themselves are unsure. As with other issues, Labour’s true intentions regarding reforming the House of Lords are still shrouded in mystery.
Recently, Downing Street released a list featuring 38 new life peers, one of the largest compilations in recent times. This roster included 30 new Labour peers, along with six Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats, many of whom are former MPs. The intention behind these nominations is clear: to bolster Labour’s influence in the Lords at the expense of the Conservatives.
Viewing these developments collectively, the main objective appears to be to favor Labour within the Lords. The motive here isn’t radical change or democratization. While the idea of ending hereditary peer privileges in parliament is both welcomed and necessary, the Lords will increasingly depend on the whims of prime ministerial appointments. This reliance is problematic and raises concerns about potential biases.
According to the House of Lords Library’s figures from November 2024, there were 804 peers eligible to participate in the Lords. Among them, 272 supported the Conservative whip, 186 were Labour, 78 were Liberal Democrats, and 184 were crossbenchers. The remaining 84 were either unaffiliated, represented smaller parties, or served as bishops.
Currently, of the 88 hereditary members, 45 are Tories, 33 are crossbenchers, and just four belong to Labour. So, while the elimination of hereditary members has constitutional implications, it also has partisan connotations. Given this, it seems logical that Sir Keir might now take a cautious approach to any further reforms of the Lords.
Ever since Labour’s victory in the 2024 general election, the fate of the hereditary peers has been inevitable. The party made a clear promise in its manifesto to remove them entirely, and the legislation put forth in September to that effect has seen steady progress through Parliament. Having cleared the Commons in November, the bill had its second reading in the Lords this month. Although it’s possible some Conservative peers might try to delay the bill through amendments when it returns in January, it’s likely to become law before the summer.
So what happens next? Taking reform one step at a time isn’t inherently problematic, but the future steps aren’t as clear as they should be. This ambiguity is concerning and seemingly marks a retreat from Labour’s earlier pro-reform stance during the election.
Labour’s 2024 manifesto on the House of Lords extended beyond just abolishing hereditary positions. The party also proposed a mandatory retirement age for peers, requiring them to retire at the end of the parliament session in which they turn 80. Furthermore, peers would be required to actively participate in Lords business.
There were more promises: making it easier to remove disgraced members, reforming the appointment process to ensure quality, and improving the chamber’s regional and national balance. Perhaps most intriguingly, Labour suggested consulting on the possibility of replacing the House of Lords entirely with an alternative structure. Unfortunately, no mention was made of abolishing the titles tied to Lords membership. Why not simply use MLs?
However, nearly six months into their tenure, the government shows little urgency about these changes. The retirement pledge seems to have been quietly shelved after resistance from senior Labour peers. The talk of reforming the appointment process remains vague, and there’s been no movement on stricter expulsion rules. There’s no sign of a consultation on broader reforms, adding to fears that Labour plans to end hereditary peers and then stop there.
Angela Smith, the leader of the Lords, has expressed her belief that the upper house functions best when it is smaller and comprises “roughly equal numbers” from both the government party and the main opposition. On December 11, she stated in the Lords that “the overall objective is to have a smaller chamber, and one that is more active.”
These remarks are significant. What truly matters is the potential impact. Although reducing the overly large House of Lords is a common political goal, reshaping it to benefit Labour and the Conservatives at the expense of others isn’t seen as equally constructive.
Lady Smith doesn’t prioritize an elected or pluralist house but aims for a chamber that a Labour government can more easily manage. Governments naturally favor cooperative parliaments that enable ministers to carry out their duties without obstruction. Currently, Labour holds a significant majority in the Commons, but the situation in the Lords is different, partly influenced by Boris Johnson’s extensive appointments. But the solution shouldn’t involve Labour following in Johnson’s footsteps.
It’s simple to advocate for reforms while in opposition. The challenge lies in championing those reforms while in government, and this is where Labour is faltering right now. In 2025, Labour needs to adopt the instinct to reform. Such reforms aren’t a threat to Labour’s success in power; they are crucial for it. This applies not just to the House of Lords but also to the broader challenge, often mentioned by Sir Keir, of rebuilding trust in politics and governance. This will be a central theme for politics in 2025 and the years to follow. The solution must not result in a partisan arrangement.
