Reform of the House of Lords, the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, has been a topic of discussion in UK politics for more than a century. Multiple governments have attempted reform, beginning with the introduction of the Parliament Act 1911 by the incumbent Liberal Government. When the Labour Party came to power in the 1997 general election, the Blair government passed the House of Lords Act 1999. On 7 November 2001 the government undertook a public consultation. This helped to create a public debate on the issue of Lords reform, with 1,101 consultation responses and multiple debates in Parliament and the media. However, no consensus on the future of the upper chamber emerged.
All three of the main parties promised to take action on Lords reform in the 2010 general election, and following it the Coalition Agreement included a promise to "establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation". Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg introduced the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 on 27 June 2012 which built on proposals published on 17 May 2011. However, this Bill was abandoned by the Government on 6 August 2012 following opposition from within the Conservative Party. A successful attempt to pursue minor reform of the House was made on 14 May 2014 when the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 gained Royal Assent.
History of reform
Reform and reform attempts before 1997 The Liberal Government elected in 1910 included a preamble in the Parliament Act 1911:
The Parliament Act 1911 removed the ability of the House of Lords to veto money bills; with any other bills, the House of Commons was given powers to overrule the Lords' veto after two changes of parliamentary session and two years. In 1917 the Bryce Commission was set up to consider House of Lords reform proposals. The commission's recommendations were rejected by a vote in the House of Lords. The Parliament Act 1949, however, amended the 1911 act reducing the time the Lords could delay a bill from two sessions and two years to one session and one year.
The Salisbury Convention is an unwritten constitutional convention that the Commons, as the elected chamber, has a mandate to pass anything in the government party's manifesto without the Lords' veto. This was necessary as the Conservative Party had an absolute majority in the House of Lords, and it was seen as inappropriate for them to use this to block the Labour government's policies following their landslide victory in 1945. The Life Peerages Act 1958 enabled the appointment of a new class of peers, who could sit and vote in the House of Lords, but the honour and rights would not be hereditary. These were intended to be merit-based, letting in "the great and the good" from various backgrounds of expertise and experience and ending the exclusively hereditary (and exclusively male) composition. Since 1965, almost all peerages appointed have been life peerages. However, the system has come under criticism in 'cash for honours' scandals in which those who donate significant sums to political parties may be able to gain membership of the House of Lords, undermining its credibility as a revising chamber. The Peerage Act 1963 allowed hereditary peers to disclaim their peerage, allowing them to vote and stand for elections to the House of Commons. It also permitted hereditary peers in the Peerage of Scotland and female hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords without the election of Scottish representative peers as had been the procedure in Scotland prior to the Act.
Parliament (No. 2) Bill 1968–69 In 1968, Harold Wilson's Labour Government published a white paper on reform of the House of Lords. The main proposals made in the white paper were:
Life peers, created hereditary peers and 16 bishops would have been able to be voting members of the House, if they attended at least one third of the sittings and were under 72 years old at the start of a new parliament. The number of bishops would have been decreased from 26 to 16 through retirements. Hereditary peers by succession sitting at the time would have remained as non-voting members with all other rights of a member. Their heirs would have been excluded from future membership. The sitting government would have got a right to a majority of those voting members of the House who have a party affiliation, but not an overall majority of all voting members. The right of the House to delay a bill would have been reduced from one year to six months.
The Parliament (No. 2) Bill, which embodied proposals of the white paper, was introduced in December 1968. The Prime Minister announced in April 1969 that the Government would not proceed with the bill.
Powers as of the 1997 general election Originally, the two Houses of Parliament had equal legislative powers. The agreement of both was necessary before a bill could be submitted to the Monarch for royal assent, which if granted made the bill an Act of Parliament. After the English Restoration, a constitutional convention arose that the House of Lords would defer to the House of Commons on measures to raise and spend money. The Parliament Act 1911 divided Bills into three classes.
Money bills which, failing consent from the Lords within one month, could receive royal assent without it. Other bills on which the House of Lords could exercise a suspensory veto. On any bill extending the maximum term of Parliament beyond five years, the House of Lords retained equal legislative powers.
Together with the Parliament Act 1949, these two acts enable the Commons (in exceptional circumstance) to pass legislation without approval from the Lords but subject to certain time delays. In effect, they give the House of Lords the power to delay legislation but not to prevent it. Since 1911 there have been various attempts to reform the Lords, but none tackled the powers of the House except the Parliament Act 1949 which reduced the suspensory veto to one change of session and one year. By the time of the 1997 general election there was still no consensus on comprehensive reform of the upper chamber of Parliaments.
Blair Labour government The Labour Party of Tony Blair had in its manifesto the promise to reform the House of Lords:
In 1999, the Government completed a deal with the Lords to remove most of the hereditary peers and passed the House of Lords Act 1999, leaving amongst the majority of appointed peers a rump of 92 hereditary peers. Of these, two are ex officio members due to their ceremonial functions in Parliament, and the other 90 are chosen from among those with qualifying hereditary peerages, in a procedure established by standing orders of the House. This arrangement was stated to be purely temporary until the second stage of reform was completed. This led to some claims (perhaps not all serious) that the elected hereditary peers were the only democratic members of the House.
Royal Commission In 1999 a Royal Commission was appointed, under Lord Wakeham, to examine proposals for Lords reform and make recommendations. It published its report in 2000 with 132 recommendations of which the main were:
It should have around 550 members of which 65, 87 or 195 should be elected regional members. There should be an independent Appointments Commission responsible for all appointments. The new second chamber should have the capacity to offer counsel from a range of sources. It should be broadly representative of society in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the 21st century. It should work with the House of Commons to provide an effective check upon the Government. It should give the United Kingdom's constituent nations and regions, for the first time, a formally constituted voice in the Westminster Parliament. The Commons should be the principal political forum, should have the final say in respect of all major public policy issues, including those expressed in the form of proposed legislation. The second chamber should have sufficient power, and the associated authority, to require the Government and the House of Commons to reconsider proposed legislation and take account of any cogent objections to it. The House of Lords should contain a substantial proportion of people who are not professional politicians, who have continuing experience in a range of different walks of life and who can bring a broad range of expertise to bear on issues of public concern. Representation of the reformed second chamber should match that of the country as expressed in votes cast at the most recent general election but it should not be capable of being dominated by any one political party and continue to include people who can help it to maintain a philosophical, moral or spiritual perspective on public policy issues. Possession of a peerage should no longer be a necessary qualification for membership. Provisions should be in place to permit ministers to be drawn from the Upper House. The upper House should ensure that changes to the constitution are not made without full and open debate and that there is increased scrutiny of secondary legislation. The commission could not recommend: a wholly or largely directly elected second chamber; indirect election from the devolved institutions (or local government electoral colleges) or from among British MEPs; random selection; or co-option.
In a debate in the House of Lords on 7 March 2000, Baroness Jay of Paddington expressed the government's broad acceptance of the commission's report:
On 4 May 2000 the Prime Minister announced the membership of a non-statutory Appointments Commission. In the debate in the Commons on 19 June 2000 the Government announced the establishment of a Joint Committee of both houses to consider the Royal Commission's work. But in a written reply on 6 March 2001 the Government stated there was little prospect of a Joint Committee being established in the present Parliament due to a failure of cross-party discussions. On 26 April 2001 the Queen confirmed her intention to create 15 new non-party-political members of the House of Lords termed "People's Peers". In the May 2001 general election, all three main parties included statements on House of Lords reform in their manifestos.
White paper and first consultation On 7 November 2001, the government launched a white paper and consultation stating:
In the white paper, although the government said it "strongly endorsed" the Royal Commission's views, it listed its own proposals:
The remaining 92 hereditary peers were to be removed, the number of peers to be capped after 10 years at 600 and 120 members to be elected to represent the nations and the regions. It was to include a significant minority of independent members. Its political membership should be broadly representative of the main parties' relative voting strengths as reflected in the previous general election. Membership was to be separated from the peerage which would continue as an honour. There should be increased representation of women and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. No group in society should in future have privileged hereditary access to the House. The House of Lords would remain subject to the pre-eminence of the House of Commons in discharging its functions; its principal function should continue to be to consider and revise legislation, to scrutinise the executive, and to debate and report on public issues. The statutory Appointments Commission would manage the balance and size of the House, appoint the independent members, and to assure the integrity of those nominated by political parties.
First public consultation The white paper invited comments from interested parties stating the government intended to introduce legislation "incorporating decisions on the issues raised in the consultation" and listed the following as the main points of consultation: