Politics Home Article | A chance to get Lords reform right

3 min read29 January

This article was commissioned by the Total Politics Impact team for the Legislative Lookahead 2026.

The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill completes the 1999 Reform, when following the departure of most hereditary peers, 92 remained with a bizarre system of ‘by-elections’ to replace them with another hereditary following death or retirement. 

Following numerous unsuccessful attempts to end the by-elections, the 2024 Labour Manifesto committed that the first and immediate stage of our Lords Reform programme would be the retirement of hereditary peers. 

Interestingly, however, many of the debates on the bill have been far less about defending the Hereditaries right to remain and more about the need to quickly address secondary manifesto commitments, particularly on a formal retirement age from the House and participation requirements. 

Encouraged by the widespread support and creative suggestions on these issues, an opportunity presented itself. Rather than just await further legislation on those two specific issues, the protracted nature of the discussions that took place during debates on the current bill led me to conclude that there had to be a better way to move things forward. 

Key figures from across the Lords agreed. Following the formal announcement I made in the Chamber just before the Christmas parliamentary recess, the House now has an opportunity to take some ownership of how the next set of changes can be progressed. 

So, with the Hereditary Peers Bill due to complete its passage shortly, phase two reform has started with a special select committee of peers focused on participation and retirement. Most in the House agree that the current membership is too high and that those that attend too rarely cannot effectively contribute. 

The House now has an opportunity to take some ownership of how the next set of changes can be progressed

The new cross-party committee will explore and make recommendations on how best to bring about a formal process of retirement for peers following their 80th birthday and on the measurement of individual activity in the proceedings of the House. 

Participation is difficult to quantify, beyond speeches and oral questions in the Chamber and Grand Committee, or voting. I know, however, that those who regularly contribute to our work have a feel for what this might amount to – including the solid and important, but often unnoticed, work of Lords’ select committees. 

These are not necessarily easy issues on which there will be complete agreement. The special committee will consider what can be done consensually and pragmatically, with and/or without legislation, and the impact on the size and functioning of the Upper Chamber. New appointments will continue to be important for ensuring fresh experience and expertise but that should not mean the House keeps getting bigger. 

After so many previous attempts at reform have become bogged down or kicked into the long grass, we now have an opportunity to make speedier progress on issues of great concern. A serious body of distinguished and committed peers, the select committee is due to report back by the end of July. 

I am proud of the work of the Lords, which when at its best plays a vital scrutinising role in our bicameral parliament. But like all long-standing institutions, it is right that we continue to examine how we work and seek necessary improvements.