What will the House of Lords look like in future?

After the latest round of peerages, Sean O’Grady delves into a system that Keir Starmer has promised to reform and asks if change is coming anytime soon

Former Tory deputy prime minister Therese Coffey is one of six individuals nominated by Kemi Badenoch (PA)

Another batch of life peerages is released and the House of Lords remains an exceptional parliamentary chamber. It’s one of only two such assemblies in the world where lawmakers are there by accident of birth (the other being Lesotho), though not for much longer; and it’s the largest such group, apart from the National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, which has even less power.

The new barons and baronesses will partly make up for the loss of the 88 remaining hereditary members there, now indirectly elected by their “peers” in both senses of the term. Its critics say the best case for getting rid of it is to go and look at the House of Lords at work; its defenders counter that the best case for retaining it is to go and look at the House of Lords at work. In any case, “Change”, as the Labour election slogan had it, is coming – but maybe not so much...

What is a life peer?

It is a peerage, or more precisely a barony, which lasts only for the lifetime of its recipient; so the title, with accompanying seat and vote, cannot be passed on to their descendants, or anyone else for that matter, as had always been the case for many centuries. A life peerage is supposed to be a mark of honour and respect, though such lofty aspirations are not always fulfilled. Any peerage can now be renounced by the recipient so that they can stand for election and become a member of the Commons – you can’t be in both.

The then prime minister Harold Macmillan invented the life peerage in 1958 as a means of injecting some life and specialist expertise into the upper house, giving it purpose and a role, thus aiding its longer-term survival. Life peerages were also useful consolation prizes for sacked or time-expired fellow politicians. He called it a “modest constitutional reform”, adding that “it seems clear that the country is now persuaded of the advantages of a second chamber, even though the House of Commons may continue to be jealous of its powers and authority”.

What do they do?

Vote on legislation, sometimes improving it, sometimes not, occasionally delaying it, unable to reject it; debate and scrutinise laws and policies in the chamber and committees; and appear in the media. It’s fair to say that some peers are more active than others, and Labour has said it will introduce “a new participation requirement”, which would help the public accept the routine “attendance allowance” of £361 plus expenses, which has sometimes been abused with peers paid just for “clocking in”.

Why so many?

The accretion of patronage over many decades. The temptation of the party leaders to exercise their power to raise common folk to the nobility has proved increasingly irresistible, and the informal qualifications to become a “working peer” have become more democratic. Thus, while 14 more or less distinguished individuals were elevated to the upper house in the first round in 1958 (10 men, four women), the figure this year for politicians and the like is 38 (18 men, 20 women).

Despite repeated attempts to slim the ranks, it remains a popular Elysian destination for people of achievement, or, as is unkindly alleged, those who have made sufficiently generous donations to various parties’ funding.

What lies ahead?

It is rather unclear. Labour pledged in its election manifesto to immediately remove the remaining small hereditary element, and that is underway now. A proposal to force retirement at 80 has been quietly dropped. Beyond that, there is only the vague idea of “an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”. So, in order to preserve the democratic monopoly of the Commons, the reformed upper house might be an eclectic mix of metro mayors, representatives nominated by the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, local councillors, religious leaders, and some “expert” individuals nominated for a period of say 15 or 20 years. Then again, nothing much may happen, as so often in the past.

After all, the first attempt at serious reform was in Edwardian times, when the Liberal government removed the Lords’ power to block Lloyd George’s reforming Budget. The Liberals declared in the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 that “it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation.” Still waiting.