Previous Reform
The British Parliament approved this Tuesday in the first reading a government bill that would end hereditary seats in the House of Lords. The Labour government championed the measure, and if it receives final approval it would seal a centuries‑old tradition in the United Kingdom. Approximately 90 current members of the Lords out of 804 inherited their seat from their parents, a practice that Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged to change during the election campaign, arguing it is anachronistic and undemocratic.
There are currently three routes to membership in the House of Lords. The most common is appointment by the Crown on the prime minister’s advice. Ministers and advisers from former governments have been named Lords as a reward for their work, sometimes provoking controversy. The second route is hereditary, while the third is tied to holding certain offices, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has his own seat in the Lords, as well as 23 other bishops. All of them hold the right to sit for life.
“In the twenty‑first century, there should be no seats in our Parliament reserved for people born into certain families. We are one of only two countries that still retain hereditary elements in the legislature, a clear sign that reform has arrived. This is a matter of principle for a government committed to justice and equality,” stated Nick Thomas‑Symonds in the House of Commons.
Previous Reform
In 1999, the Labour government led by Tony Blair attempted to end the hereditary character of Lords seats through legislation. The law declared that no one could be a member of the Lords by hereditary title, although it carved out exceptions for 92 members who would await future reform. Among those still seated are the Duke of Wellington, a direct descendant of the general who commanded the British Army at Waterloo in 1815, and John Attlee, grandson of former Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee.
Although Labour is unlikely to have trouble finalizing the text thanks to its substantial Commons majority, the bill has faced criticism from Lords members and Conservative MPs who argue that many hereditary peers are not aligned with political parties and still act as a counterweight to the Government. “We are proud to be a country with deep roots, not a young one. The Lords is not meant to be a democratic chamber, and that is the key point,” said Oliver Dowden, the former deputy prime minister under the Conservative government. “The Constitution should evolve, but reforms should fix what is broken and proceed with caution.”
Remuneration Levels
The approval of the law would end hereditary seats in the Lords, but it remains short of the Starmer government’s broader aim of replacing the chamber with an Assembly of the Regions and Nations, featuring elected members and greater representation of the United Kingdom’s various territories. For now, the proposal to require current Lords to step down at age 80 has been set aside.
The Lords has faced criticism for its large size, surpassed globally only by China’s National People’s Congress, and for the generous remuneration enjoyed by its members. Most are entitled to an allowance of 342 pounds per session attended or a salary up to 106,000 pounds per year for the president of the chamber.