How exactly is Labour planning to reform the House of Lords?

Ministers call it a ‘landmark’ change, but Sean O’Grady looks at how much difference it will really make

A bill was introduced on Thursday to remove hereditary peers (PA Wire)

Legislation to abolish the remaining hereditary peers’ right to sit in the House of Lords has been tabled by the government.

Fulfilling a manifesto commitment, it is the first step in a proposed more radical reform of the upper chamber of parliament, intended to place it on a democratic footing. Minister for the constitution Nick Thomas-Symonds says the proposed law is a “landmark reform to our constitution” and marks an end to voting on laws “by an accident of birth”.

Is it a “landmark reform”?

Not really, though it is certainly a historic moment, ending the last vestiges of a hereditary role in making English law dating back to the 11th century. However, the number of peers affected, 92, is now only a small proportion of the total membership, which now stands at 805. The Lords also has relatively little power after more than a centre of periodic reform.

Why 92?

It is an arbitrary figure, the product of some horse-trading between the peers concerned and the Labour government led by Tony Blair. In order to get his reform of the Lords through the upper House, he agreed to keep 92 hereditaries in return for an agreement to remove the other 660 from the upper chamber one year later. That controversial deal was brokered by Lord Strathclyde, who is now leading the resistance to the government’s proposed changes.

The 92 have technically been elected – usually for life – by the wider hereditary peerage with the following quotas: two peers elected by the Labour hereditary peers; 42 peers elected by Tories; the Conservative hereditary peers; three peers elected by the Liberal Democrats; 28 by the crossbenchers; 15 by the whole House, plus, as ex-officio, the earl marshall and the lord great chamberlain.

Who are the hereditary peers?

A very mixed bunch of survivors, some with titles dating back centuries such as the present Duke of Wellington, and a chap named Jasset David Cody Ormsby-Gore, 7th Baron Harlech. Others are of more recent creation, including the grandson of Labour premier Clement Attlee, who was made an earl in 1955.

Unless they can persuade the prime minister, or possibly his successor, to appoint them life peers, their days as legislators are numbered.

Why are they being abolished, if they don’t matter?

In the words of Thomas-Symonds: “The hereditary principle in law-making has lasted for too long and is out of step with modern Britain. The second chamber plays a vital role in our constitution and people should not be voting on our laws in parliament by an accident of birth.”

Is there a case for keeping the hereditary element?

Yes, but not a particularly compelling one. Lord Strathclyde, who happens to be a Conservative, argues this move violates the agreement made with Blair in 1998 and is a “blunt instrument” that does “nothing to improve the workings of the House”. It will leave appointments solely in the hands of the prime minister of the day, which is not exactly democratic either.

Will there be a struggle?

Word is that the Lords’ resistance squad will try to introduce a series of amendments to the bill to hold it up, such as proposing to expand and diversify the statutory faith representation behind the Anglican bishops. Arguments are expected to drag on for about 18 months but because the idea was in the Labour manifesto, it must pass eventually under a convention formulated by the fifth Marquess of Salisbury in 1948.

What’s next?

Labour’s manifesto also promised to compulsorily retire peers of all kinds once they reached the age of 80. However, that is not part of the current bill and there’s some speculation that ministers are having second thoughts, promoted by the peerages recently given to Labour veterans Margaret Hodge (80 this week) and Margaret Beckett (81).

More ambitious democratic reform, aimed at turning the Lords into a House of the regions and nations of the UK, will require very lengthy consultations and care if it is not to rival the Commons’ electoral mandate and pre-eminence.