Please bookmark for future updates
Over the holidays, this column will explore next year’s urgent issues. Today, why it is easier to be a constitutional reformer in opposition than in office
Next year, the remaining hereditary members of the House of Lords will finally lose their right to sit in the upper house. When that happens, a democratic milestone in British parliamentary history will unquestionably have been reached. But a milestone along a road to what eventual constitutional destination? We do not know the answer to that, because the government will not say. The government itself may not be sure. As on many other issues, Labour’s true direction of travel on House of Lords reform remains obscure.
One thing, however, can already be said. Last week, Downing Street published a list of 38 new life peers. It was one of the longest such lists of the modern era. It contained 30 new Labour peers, six Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats. Many were former MPs. The overall aim, as the nominations made extremely clear, was to boost Labour’s numbers in the Lords at the expense of the Conservatives.
It is important to assess these two developments together, not separately. Combined, their principal aim and effect is to advantage the Labour party in the Lords. The overriding goal is not to make a radical parliamentary change, let alone a democratic one. True, the right to sit in parliament based on the strength of your family origins will finally have disappeared. That will be welcome and necessary. At the same time, however, the House of Lords will rest more firmly than ever before on prime ministerial patronage. This is shameful, objectionable and potentially sleazy.
According to the House of Lords Library’s November 2024 figures, there were at that point 804 peers eligible to take part in Lords business. Of this total, 272 took the Conservative whip, with 186 Labour, 78 Liberal Democrats, and 184 crossbenchers. The remaining 84 were non-affiliated, members of small parties or, in 25 cases, bishops.
Of the 88 current hereditary members, however, 45 were Tories, 33 were crossbenchers and only four are Labour. The significance of removing the hereditaries is therefore not only constitutional but also partisan. Fair enough, you may feel. But the combined effect of the abolition of the hereditaries with the creation of a disproportionate number of Labour life peers is obvious. It means Sir Keir may now put his foot on the brake over further Lords reform.
The knell has been tolling for the passing of the hereditaries ever since Labour won the 2024 general election. The party’s manifesto unequivocally pledged their total removal, and the ensuing House of Lords (hereditary peers) bill, which embodies the pledge, has made steady parliamentary progress since it was published in September. The bill cleared the Commons in November, and this month received a second reading in the Lords. Some Conservative peers may attempt to slow the bill’s progress with amendments when it returns to the Lords in January. But the bill is likely to become law before the summer.
And then what? There is nothing inherently wrong with taking reform one step at a time. But the planned next steps, if there really are any, are not as clear as they ought to be. This lack of clarity is ominous. It seems to represent a step backwards from the more pro-reform position taken by Labour in the election.
Labour’s 2024 manifesto pledges on the upper house were not confined to abolition of the hereditaries. Far from it. The party also promised a mandatory retirement age for all peers, requiring them to leave at the end of the parliament in which they reached 80 years of age. There would also be a new requirement on peers to participate in Lords business.
The promises did not end there. The removal of disgraced members would be made easier. The appointments process would be reformed to ensure quality. The chamber’s regional and national balance would be improved. Most tantalisingly radical of all, Labour would also consult on wider proposals for replacing the House of Lords altogether with an alternative upper house. Sadly, there was no proposal to abolish the titles that come with membership of the Lords. Why can’t they just be MLs?
After nearly six months in power, however, there is no sign of any government urgency on any of this. The retirement pledge appears to have been quietly dropped after protests from elderly Labour peers. There are only vague hints about limited reform of the appointments process, and nothing on tougher expulsion rules. There is no hint of a consultation on wider reform, let alone any sense that the issue is regarded as important. It all compounds fears that Labour plans to complete the abolition of the hereditaries – and leave it at that.
The leader of the Lords, Angela Smith, has said she believes the upper house works best when it is smaller than at present, and when it contains “roughly equal numbers” from the government party and the main opposition party. In the Lords on 11 December she added that “the overall objective is to have a smaller chamber, and one that is more active”.
These are important hints. Once again, it is their potential net impact that matters most. Reduction in the bloated size of the upper house is obviously desirable, and is political common ground among most parties. Restructuring the house for the benefit of Labour and the Tories at the expense of other parties and crossbenchers is, however, neither of these things.
Lady Smith’s priority is not an elected or even a pluralist house. It is a house that a Labour government can control better. All governments prefer quiescent parliaments that will allow ministers to get on with their work unchallenged. With its large majority, Labour already has a firm grip on the Commons. Things are different in the Lords, where Labour was in a distinct minority, in large part because of profligate appointments under Boris Johnson. But the answer to this is not for Labour to outdo Mr Johnson.
It is easy to be a reformer in opposition. The tough thing is to be a reformer in government. That is where Labour is currently failing. It is the instinct that it needs to embrace in 2025. Reform is not the enemy of Labour success in government but one of the preconditions for it. This applies not just to House of Lords reform. It also applies to the wider task, often invoked by Sir Keir, of restoring trust in politics and government. That task will be central to the politics of 2025 and beyond. But the answer must not be a partisan stitch-up.
The Guardian view on the House of Lords: ministers risk a hollow reform with a partisan approach | Editorial
