New UK government promises to remove 92 unelected peers from upper house

London:

The UK government on Wednesday announced plans to scrap 92 seats in the House of Lords retained for hereditary lawmakers, resurrecting reform of the unelected chamber begun under Tony Blair’s Labor government in the 1990s.

King Charles III, opening the first parliamentary session after Keir Starmer’s general election victory for the Labor Party, said the removal of the right of peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords was part of “measures to modernize” the constitution uncodified from Great Britain.

Labor won the July 4 election by a landslide, returning them to power for the first time since 2010, allowing them to enact their manifesto promises, including the Lords’ much-touted reforms, into law.

The unelected upper house of Parliament has long been the target of demands for reform to make it more representative and less “a chamber infested with grotesques and outdated things”, as a newspaper columnist described it in 2022.

But the extent of Labour’s plans remains unclear.

The dismantling of hereditary peers – the hundreds of members of the aristocracy whose titles are inherited – has been described as a “first step in wider reform”.

“The continued presence of hereditary peers in the House of Lords is outdated and indefensible,” the government said in briefing notes accompanying the King’s Speech.

Removing hereditary seats

Made up of around 800 legislators, the House of Lords is comfortably larger than any other equivalent in a democracy.

Its members, whose current average age is 71, are mostly appointed for life.

They include former MPs, normally appointed by outgoing prime ministers, along with people appointed after having served in prominent roles in the public or private sector, and Church of England clergy.

The main role of the century-old chamber is to oversee the government.

It cannot overturn legislation sent by the popularly elected House of Commons, but it can amend and delay bills and initiate new bills.

This work occasionally puts the Lords in the political spotlight, as during the recent delays to the previous Conservative government’s controversial deportation plan for Rwanda – quickly dismantled by the new government.

Like the House of Commons, the House of Lords has specialist scrutiny committees.

The legislation planned by the new government revisits the House of Lords reform agenda that Blair’s Labor government began in the late 1990s.

His government intended to abolish all seats held by hundreds of hereditary members who occupied the Chamber at that time.

But he ended up keeping 92 in what was supposed to be a temporary commitment.

“25 years later, they are part of the status quo more by accident than by design,” said the statement from Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government.

“No other comparable modern democracy allows individuals to sit and vote in their legislature by birthright,” he added.

“Being a member of Parliament for hereditary reasons is incredibly rare.”

‘Late and essential’

The government said the reforms were in part driven by the gender imbalance of hereditary pairs – currently all men, because most pairs can only be passed down through the male line.

The rest of the House of Lords fares better, with 242 of the other members – 36% – women.

Starmer’s new administration also argues that hereditary peers are too politically “static” for a democracy.

Of the 92 seats allocated to them under the 1999 reforms, 42 are for the Conservatives, 28 for the so-called crossbenchers, three for the Liberal Democrats and just two for Labour.

Meanwhile, 15 are elected by the entire chamber out of hundreds of hereditary peers that exist in the United Kingdom.

Reformers also argue that hereditary peers do not face property checks, compared to life peers who are subject to a House of Lords Appointments Committee vetting procedure.

“In the 21st century, there should not be almost 100 vacancies reserved for individuals who were born into certain families, nor should there be vacancies effectively reserved only for men,” argued the government.

(Except the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)