House of Lords Reform: Chronology 1900–

2010

This Library Note provides a chronology of key developments in

the reform of the House of Lords since 1900. It does not provide
a comprehensive account of all reform proposals, but briefly
summarises the context and outcome of significant proposals
for reform of the composition and powers of the House in order
to illustrate the shifting debate on the Lords over the last
century. More detailed chronologies of recent reform proposals
may be found in House of Lords Library Notes Proposals for
Reform of the Composition and Powers of the House of Lords,
1968–1998 (July 1998, LLN 98/004) and House of Lords
Reform 1997–2010: A Chronology (June 2010, LLN 2010/015).

Matthew Purvis
21 July 2011
LLN 2011/025
House of Lords Library Notes are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and
their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of the Notes with the
Members and their staff but cannot advise Members of the general public.

Any comments on Library Notes should be sent to the Head of Research Services,
House of Lords Library, London SW1A 0PW or emailed to brocklehursta@parliament.uk
Table of Contents

1. Parliament Act 1911 .................................................................................................... 1

2. Bryce Commission 1918.............................................................................................. 1

3. Parliament Act 1949 .................................................................................................... 2

4. Life Peerages Act 1958 ............................................................................................... 2

5. Peerage Act 1963........................................................................................................ 3

6. Parliament (No 2) Bill (1968) ....................................................................................... 3

7. House of Lords Act 1999 ............................................................................................. 4

8. Wakeham Commission (2000) .................................................................................... 4

9. Labour‘s White Paper: Completing the Reform (2001) ................................................ 5

10. Joint Committee on Lords Reform (2002–03) ............................................................ 5

11. Government Consultation: Next Steps (2003) ........................................................... 6

12. Labour‘s White Paper: The House of Lords (2007) .................................................... 6

13. Labour‘s Green Paper: An Elected Second Chamber (2008)..................................... 7

14. Further Reading ........................................................................................................ 8

1. Parliament Act 1911

Background Powers: Though the Commons had declared that the Lords should not
interfere with financial (supply) legislation, they could still in theory reject
it outright and the Lords still had power to amend or reject ordinary
legislation.

Composition: Although the Commons had become more representative

through extensions of the franchise, the Lords remained an
unrepresentative body. Critics also noted the large proportion of
conservative-minded Peers.

Issues: In the later 19th century Peers increasingly used their power,
particularly against measures proposed by Liberal governments. Most
significant was the rejection of the Irish Home Rule Bill in 1893. The
Liberal Government elected with a large majority in 1906 suffered
several defeats in the Lords on its flagship measures, such as on the
Education Bill. In 1909 the Lords rejected the Government‘s Finance Bill.

Proposal The Commons had already approved a resolution that the ―Commons
shall prevail‖ against the Lords in 1907. The Government proposed a Bill
to cut the powers of the Lords with regard to primary legislation. The
power to reject would be replaced by a delaying power of up to two
years. The Government threatened to create enough Liberal Peers to
pass the Bill if the Lords rejected it. The Bill was finally passed following
opposition from the Conservative Party and from a large number of Peers
in the House of Lords.

Outcome Parliament Act 1911

The Act‘s preamble describes it is an interim measure until the ―Second
Chamber [could be] constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis‖.

2. Bryce Commission 1918

Background Reform Delayed: The First World War prevented any further reform to
the House of Lords. Following the conclusion of the war, David Lloyd
George established a commission chaired by Viscount Bryce.

Proposal The Commission failed to agree on composition. The majority favoured

246 Members chosen by the House of Commons from geographical
regions and a number of Members (about one quarter of the whole
House) chosen by a Joint Committee. Initially these would be holders of
hereditary peerages. The reformed House would not be able to amend or
reject Money Bills and the Parliament Act would not apply to further
measures to reform the powers of the Lords.

Outcome No action was taken

In 1922 Lloyd George‘s Government introduced resolutions based on the
Bryce report. These were debated for four days. The Government later
fell so no further action could be taken. The Baldwin Government made
similar proposals when the Conservatives returned to power at the end of
1924 but these were neither debated nor voted on in the Commons. The
Labour Party, by then the main opposition party, preferred abolition.

1
3. Parliament Act 1949

Background Backbench Bills: A number of Private Members‘ Bills were proposed

throughout the 1930s that sought to reform the Lords. The most
prominent scheme was proposed by the Marquess of Salisbury whose
reforms were based on the lines of the 1922 resolutions. In spite of
receiving a second reading in 1934, no further progress was made.

Manifesto: The Labour Party had stated that in Government they would
not tolerate obstruction of their programme in the Lords.

Nationalisation: Following the 1945 election win, the Labour Government

expressed concern about getting its nationalisation programme through
the Lords in time for a general election in 1949–50, particularly the Iron
and Steel Bill.

Proposal A Bill to amend the Parliament Act to reduce the Lords delaying power
from two years to one year. No scheme for wider reform was proposed.
Introduced in the 1947–48 session the Bill went through the Commons
but was adjourned in the Lords pending an inter-party conference on
reform. Nine principles were agreed, including that no party should have
overall control in a reformed House, creation of life peerages, allowing
women to be Members and the introduction of allowances. The
Conference collapsed over disagreement on powers. On reintroduction,
the Bill was then rejected at second reading twice in the Lords, having
gone through the Commons. It received Royal Assent in 1949 under the
terms of the Parliament Act 1911.

Outcome Parliament Act 1949

4. Life Peerages Act 1958

Background Old Solution: The creation of life peerages had historical pedigree.
Previous Private Members‘ Bills had proposed similar provisions for life
peerages, including a Bill introduced by Earl Russell in 1869, Lord
Newton‘s scheme in 1907 and a number of proposals through the 1930s.

Proposal In 1957, the Macmillan Government introduced a Bill to enable the

creation of peerages bestowed on men/women for life. The Earl of Home
told the Lords that the measure was ―strictly and severely practical‖ and
underlined that an injection of new Members was needed. He explained
that the ―House is perilously near a breakdown in its machinery‖.

Outcome Life Peerages Act 1958

2
5. Peerage Act 1963

Background Women who had inherited peerages were unable to take their seats in
the Lords, a situation seen as anomalous following the introduction of
women as life Peers.

Peerages could not be relinquished once inherited, a problem highlighted

by Tony Benn who campaigned against the perceived unfairness that he
could not remain as an MP on inheriting his father‘s peerage.

Proposal A Bill was introduced to enable individuals to relinquish inherited titles

and to allow female hereditary Peers to take their seats in the Lords.

Outcome Peerage Act 1963

6. Parliament (No 2) Bill (1968)

Background Manifesto: In 1966 the Labour Party reasserted its promise to safeguard
measures approved in the House of Commons from frustration by delay
or defeat in the House of Lords.

Inter-Party Conference: The Queen‘s Speech on 31 October 1967 stated

that the Government would be willing to enter into inter-party
consultations. The Inter-Party Conference on House of Lords reform was
set up at the beginning of the 1967–68 session and met for the first time
on 8 November 1967. Following rejection by the Lords of the Southern
Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1968, the Conference was
halted.

White Paper: On 1 November 1968 the Government published a white

paper on House of Lords Reform (Cmnd 3799). It proposed a ‗two-writ‘
system of voting and non-voting Peers and reduced powers. Primary
legislation would be subject to shorter delay. The rejection in the Lords of
Statutory Instruments could be overridden in the Commons. The white
paper was debated in both Houses and was approved by a majority of
195 in the Lords and 111 in the House of Commons.

Proposal The Parliament (No 2) Bill containing these proposals was introduced to
the House of Commons on 19 December 1968.

Outcome Bill dropped

In April 1969, Harold Wilson told the Commons the Bill was to be
dropped ―in order to ensure that the necessary Parliamentary time is
available for priority Government legislation‖. Over 80 hours had been
spent on the Bill in Committee. Only the Preamble and 5 out of 20
clauses in the Bill had been discussed.

A number of Private Members‘ Bills followed at the end of the 1960s and
throughout the 1970s. These included Robert Sheldon‘s proposal in 1969
to reduce the Lords‘ powers and Dennis Skinner‘s Bill in 1976 to abolish
it. Others proposed ending Membership by virtue of inheritance.

At the end of the 1970s several articles and reports considered Lords

3
 reform. A Labour Party National Executive Committee (NEC) statement
proposed abolition as the most straightforward and practical course. A
Liberal Party Working Group report advocated an elected House
constitutional settlement within a federal system of government. A
Conservative Committee, chaired by Lord Home, settled in favour of a
House composed by a mixture of election and appointment and
suggested that the powers of the House of Lords to delay legislation
could be restored to a two-year period.

7. House of Lords Act 1999

Background Backbench Bills: In the 1990s a number of Private Members‘ Bills were
proposed to provide for elections to the Lords, including those by
Graham Allen and Peter Hain.

Labour Policy: In 1994 Tony Blair made a speech in which he stated his
Party‘s reform agenda. As a minimum first step the hereditary right to a
seat would be abolished by a short Bill, passed under the Parliament
Acts procedure if necessary, so that only Peers of first creation would be
entitled to attend and participate in House of Lords proceedings.

Proposal The Labour manifesto in 1997 contained confirmation of its intention to

remove hereditary Peers as a first stage. It added that a committee of
both Houses of Parliament would be appointed to undertake a wide-
ranging review of possible further change. They would then bring forward
proposals for reform. The House of Lords Bill was introduced to the
House of Commons in January 1999 and, following a compromise
amendment (‗Weatherill amendment‘) made in the Lords to allow
92 hereditary Peers to remain, the Bill passed.

Outcome House of Lords Act 1999

The Act removed the right of all but 92 hereditary Peers to sit in the
House of Lords.

8. Wakeham Commission (2000)

Background Royal Commission: The same month as the House of Lords Bill was
introduced, the Government published a white paper, Modernising
Parliament: Reforming the House of Lords (Cm 4183). The statement
announced the setting up of an appointments commission to recommend
non-party-political life Peers and the establishment of a Royal
Commission.

Proposal The Royal Commission‘s report made 132 recommendations. It proposed

that a reformed House of Lords would have around 550 Members, with
65, 87 or 195 elected Members. It recommended the creation of a
statutory appointments commission to be responsible for all
appointments to the Second Chamber. It did not propose any radical
change in the balance of power between the two Houses of Parliament.

Outcome Joint Committee

During the Commons debate in June 2000, the Government said that a

4
 Joint Committee of both Houses would in due course be established to
consider the implications of the Royal Commission‘s work.

9. Labour’s White Paper: Completing the Reform (2001)

Background Queen‘s Speech in the 2001–02 session: The Government announced

that it would introduce legislation, following consultation, ―to implement
the second phase of House of Lords reform‖.

Proposal In November 2001 the Government published its white paper, The House
of Lords: Completing the Reform (Cm 5291), seeking responses by
31 January 2002, with a view to introducing legislation thereafter. The
paper stated the Government‘s view that at least 20 percent of the House
should be non-party-political appointments.

Outcome Debate
Two days of debate on constitutional reform were held in the House of
Lords and one day in the House of Commons, with the white paper‘s
proposals attracting little support.

In January 2002, both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats

published their proposals for reform. The Conservative Party proposed
the creation of a 300 member assembly, to be called the Senate, with
240 Members elected by a first-past-the-post system for 15-year terms.
The Liberal Democrats envisaged a Second Chamber of no more than
300 Members with a minimum of 80 percent of Members elected by
proportional representation.

10. Joint Committee on Lords Reform (2002–03)

Background In May 2002 the Government proposed a Joint Committee to achieve

consensus on reform.

Proposal The Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform published its report,
House of Lords Reform: First Report (HL Paper 17 of session 2002–03).
It contained seven options for reform, including wholly elected, wholly
appointed and five different combinations of elected/appointed.

Outcome Votes in both Houses

The House of Commons rejected all seven options for reform presented
by the Joint Committee, while the House of Lords voted by three to one
for a fully appointed House and rejected all other options. The option
which MPs defeated by the fewest number was for an 80 percent elected
chamber. In May 2003, the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform
published its second report, House of Lords Reform: Second Report
(HL Paper 97 of session 2002–03). The Joint Committee‘s report was
seen as passing the initiative back to the Government following the
outcome of the votes in February. The Government responded in July
reiterating its policy on reform.

5
11. Government Consultation: Next Steps (2003)

Background In January 2003, Tony Blair argued against the creation of a hybrid
House and expressed his support for the House of Lords as a revising
Chamber, not a rival Chamber. He favoured an appointed House.

Proposal In September the Government published a consultation paper,

Constitutional Reform: next steps for the House of Lords (CP 14/03). It
proposed removing the remaining hereditary Peers and new provisions
for appointments to the House.

Outcome Dropped
The proposals were opposed in both Houses. In November 2003, the
Queen‘s Speech said that legislation would be brought forward to reform
the House of Lords, removing hereditary Peers and establishing a
statutory appointments commission. In March 2004, Lord Falconer of
Thoroton told the BBC that plans to introduce a Bill to reform the House
of Lords had been dropped.

12. Labour’s White Paper: The House of Lords (2007)

Background Manifestos: The Labour Party, the Conservatives and the Liberal
Democrats all included statements on House of Lords reform in their
2005 General Election manifestos.

Queen‘s Speech: In the Queen‘s Speech for the 2005–06 session, the
Government announced that it would ―bring forward proposals to
continue the reform of the House of Lords‖.

Conventions: In November 2006, the Joint Committee on Conventions

published its report, Conventions of the UK Parliament (HL Paper 265 of
session 2005–06). It concluded that conventions by their nature could not
be codified and ―are flexible and unenforceable‖. It noted that its
conclusions only applied to the present circumstances of the House and
would need to be revisited were the composition of the House to change.
In its reply, the Government accepted the Joint Committee‘s conclusions.

Proposal In February 2007 the Government published its white paper, The House
of Lords: Reform (Cm 7027). It proposed a hybrid House with at least
20 percent non-party-political appointments; direct elections through a
partially open list system; the primacy of the Commons; and reduced in
size to 540 Members.

Outcome Votes
MPs supported the principle of a bicameral legislature and two options—
an 80 percent elected House and a 100 percent elected House. They
also supported a motion stating that the remaining retained places for
Peers whose membership is based on the hereditary principle should be
removed.

Peers voted in favour of a fully appointed House and rejected all other
options.

6
13. Labour’s Green Paper: An Elected Second Chamber (2008)

Background Green Paper: In July 2007, the Government‘s The Governance of Britain
(Cm 7170) stated that it was committed to enacting the will of the House
of Commons as expressed in the recent votes, and that cross-party
discussions would continue to such ends.

Proposal The green paper contained a number of options on composition, electoral

systems and statements of general principles.

Outcome The House of Commons Public Administration Committee reported on

the green paper in January 2009. It concentrated on the mechanisms by
which individuals are appointed to the House of Lords. The Committee
also recommended amending the powers of the House of Lords
Appointments Commission.

In July 2009, the Constitutional Renewal and Governance Bill (CRG Bill)
was introduced to the House of Commons. The Bill proposed the ending
of by-elections to replace hereditary Peers who had died and to disqualify
Members of the House of Lords found guilty of a serious crime or who
were subject to a bankruptcy order. The Bill also provided measures for
the House of Lords to suspend or expel Members and to allow Peers to
resign from the House of Lords and disclaim a peerage.

In February 2010, Jack Straw stated his intention ―to publish key parts of
a draft Bill for reform of the House of Lords in the next few weeks‖.
Following the announcement of the General Election, in April 2010 the
Government agreed to drop a number of provisions from the CRG Bill in
order for it to pass, including all the provisions that would apply to the
House of Lords apart from those relating to the tax status of Members.

7
14. Further Reading

Andrew Adonis, Making Aristocracy Work : The Peerage and the Political System in
Britain 1884–1914 (1993)

P A Bromhead, The House of Lords and Contemporary Politics 1911–1957 (1958)

Emma Crewe, Lords of Parliament: Manners, Rituals and Politics (2005)

House of Lords Library Note, House of Lords Reform 1997–2010: A Chronology

(28 June 2010, LLN 2010/015)

House of Lords Library Note, The Life Peerages Act 1958 (21 April 2008, LLN 2008/011)

House of Lords Library Note, Proposals for Reform of the Composition and Powers of
the House of Lords, 1968–1998 (14 July 1998, LLN 98/004)

Roy Jenkins, Mr Balfour’s Poodle: An Account of the Struggle Between the House of
Lords and the Government of Mr Asquith (1968)

Janet P Morgan, The House of Lords and the Labour Government 1964–1970 (1975)

Gregory Phillips, The Diehards (1979)

Donald Shell, The House of Lords (2007)