The UK government has outlined plans to abolish the remaining hereditary peers in the House of Lords, marking the most significant reform of Parliament in 25 years. The proposal aims to eliminate the 92 seats reserved for hereditary peers—individuals who inherit their titles through their families—a key promise in Labour’s general election manifesto.
The move seeks to complete reforms initiated by the last Labour government in 1999, which revoked the 700-year-old right for all hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. At the time, 92 hereditary peers remained as part of a compromise with the Conservative Party.
Tory Lord Strathclyde, a former leader of the Lords and one of the remaining hereditary peers, criticized the proposal as a “high-handed, shoddy political act.” Speaking in the Lords chamber, he argued that peers who seldom participated in debates should be removed rather than hereditary peers, many of whom he claimed were active contributors and among the “most senior and experienced” members.
Lord Strathclyde later told Matt Chorley on BBC Radio 5 Live that he would support the removal of hereditary peers, but only if “something better” replaced them, expressing concerns over a wholly appointed House of Lords being subject to prime ministerial patronage.
Lords leader Baroness Smith defended the bill in the chamber, pointing out that it had been featured in both Labour’s manifesto and the King’s Speech, which outlines the government’s legislative program. She noted that the legislation did not prevent hereditary peers from being nominated for life peerages in the future and highlighted that none of the remaining hereditary peers were women.
Labour has also pledged to introduce a retirement age of 80 for members of the Lords, although this reform will follow later after consultations. Another Conservative, former cabinet minister Lord Forsyth, condemned the proposal as a “naked attempt to disable opposition in this House,” given Labour’s majority in the Commons. He argued that the House of Lords was the only part of Parliament capable of properly scrutinizing legislation.
Constitution minister Nick Thomas-Symonds hailed the proposal as a “landmark reform” of the UK’s constitution. He criticized the hereditary principle in law-making as outdated and “out of step with modern Britain,” emphasizing the importance of a second chamber whose members should not be voting on laws “by an accident of birth.” He reiterated the government’s commitment to delivering on its manifesto promises and emphasized that the bill was part of putting “politics in the service of working people.”
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer supports abolishing the House of Lords altogether, proposing to replace it with an elected Assembly of the Nations and Regions. However, this reform is not expected to occur before the next general election.
Labour’s manifesto called House of Lords reform “long overdue” and “essential,” citing the chamber’s size and the lack of engagement from many peers as detrimental to democracy. The current system leaves about half of the hereditary peers as Conservatives, with others serving as independent crossbenchers and a smaller number representing Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
Several high-profile hereditary peers remain in the Lords, including Lord Attlee, the grandson of former Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee, and Viscount Stansgate, whose father, Tony Benn, famously renounced his peerage to sit in the Commons. Other prominent members include the Duke of Wellington, whose ancestor defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, and Lord Ravensdale, the great-grandson of Oswald Mosley, founder of the British Union of Fascists.
The Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain, who hold ceremonial functions during state occasions, are also expected to lose their seats under the new plans.
Currently, most Lords are eligible for a £342 daily allowance for each sitting day they attend, although some choose not to claim it. Certain Lords, including the Lord Speaker and government ministers in the chamber, receive a salary, with amounts ranging from £66,884 to £106,363, though the actual amounts claimed tend to be slightly lower.