2.2 – The structure and role of the House of Lords
Historically, almost all hereditary peers of the UK had a right to sit in the House of Lords. This meant that the House of Lords was primarily made up of Dukes, Earls, Viscounts, Marquesses and Barons who inherited their title. Due to the existence of primogeniture (the right of the oldest male to inherit a title), almost all peers were male.
Two significant changes in the 20th century changed this. In 1958, the Life Peerages Act enabled peers to be created for life. This meant that people could be appointed to the House of Lords from outside of traditional aristocratic circles. In October 1958, four females were appointed to the House of Lords, with Barbara Wootton and Stella Isaacs being among the first to take their seats.
Then, in 1999, the New Labour Government passed the House of Lords Act. This saw all but 92 hereditary peers excluded from the chamber, with their traditional right to take their seat revoked. Since then, 92 excepted hereditary peers have been allowed to sit in the Lords. When one dies or retires, a by-election is held by political parties to elect a new hereditary peer from their number to take their seat. This created the irony that the only people ever elected to the House of Lords were hereditary peers.
Last week, the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill passed Third Reading in the Lords, and it will become law. When it receives Royal Assent and becomes an Act of Parliament, hereditary peers will no longer sit in the House of Lords.
The bill had been held up due to Conservative opposition. Due to the nature of hereditary peerages, the Conservatives hold a lot more than other parties. They were concerned that the removal of hereditary peers would unfairly change the party balance in the House of Lords. Therefore, in order to get the bill over the line, the Government offered a compromise, allowing the Conservatives to name extra Lords in the next ‘top up’ appointments process, with some current hereditary peers being given life peerages in order for them to retain their seat.
This is a significant moment. But what is perhaps most significant is how long it took for this to happen. Tony Blair’s planned reform of the House of Lords was a three-stage process. The removal of hereditary peers was meant to be only the first stage, with the reform eventually leading to an elected House of Lords. From 2001, however, Blair’s focus shifted from constitutional reform to a more foreign policy-orientated focus, with the War on Terror and the controversial decision to invade Iraq in 2003. The removal of hereditary peers always felt inevitable given how at odds their existence was in a modern liberal democracy. The fact that it took another quarter of a century to achieve it is remarkable.