Will Labour usher in a new era for the House of Lords (Part Two)

This second blog on Labour’s reform proposals for the House of Lords concentrates on the 2024 manifesto commitments which have not yet been introduced. Most of the political commentary on these measures has focused on Labour’s intention to introduce mandatory retirement for peers at 80 and an alternative second chamber (based on recommendations announced in 2022). Here, we will look at both proposals to assess the likely impact of mandatory retirement for peers on the Lords by 2029 and the obstacles likely to lie ahead if Labour attempts to implement fundamental reform by replacing the upper house with a new second chamber.

Mandatory retirement at the age of 80

A key 2024 Labour election manifesto commitment was the pledge to introduce a mandatory retirement age for peers. This proposal will require members of the Lords to retire at the end of the parliament in which they reach the age of 80. In July 2024 Starmer indicated that the main reason for this pledge was the ‘massive’ size of the upper house. The bishops in the Lords will be unaffected by any such change as they already have a retirement age set at 70. According to figures from November 2024, 189 of the total upper house membership of 829 were 80 or older, with 177 (24.8 per cent) of the 715 life peers in this upper age cohort. The House of Lords library estimates that at the end of the current parliament (July 2029) some 301 (42.1 per cent) of the 715 life peers will be 80 or over. As a result, the number of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Crossbench life peers would drop by about 50 per cent and roughly one-third of those sitting as Conservative life peers would also go. The overall projected changes are shown in the table below but it is important to recognize these estimates cannot take into account how the composition of the upper chamber will be affected by shifts of affiliation, new arrivals and peers departing in the period up to mid-2029.

This mandatory retirement proposal for peers has been welcomed on the grounds that it would (1) broadly align members of the upper house with judges and bishops who have set retirement ages of 75 and 70 respectively (2) permit peers to plan ahead with certainty (3) respond positively to public and media perceptions that the age profile of the upper chamber is too high. Conversely, critics have argued that such a measure fails to recognize that society generally is moving away from defined retirement ages, may generate a ‘perverse’ incentive to appoint very young peers, deprive the Lords of older members who are both active and experienced, and appears to endorse ageism.

Other manifesto proposals

The other Labour manifesto proposals (see the first blog) affecting the upper chamber lack detail at present. It is not known, for example, what criteria will apply to any participation requirement that may be introduced in the future or how the appointments process may be changed but both are expected to be subject to consultation. In October 2024, the Times reported that the Labour government was considering a plan to require a public citation for all future nominations to the Lords which would set out ‘the experience the candidate would bring to the role.’

An alternative second chamber

Labour’s long-term manifesto reform aim is to replace the Lords with an alternative second chamber ‘that is more representative of the regions and nations’. In December 2022, a Labour Party Commission, headed by former PM Gordon Brown, recommended that the upper house should be replaced with an ‘Assembly of Nations and Regions’ to ‘give voice explicitly to the different nations and regions of the UK’. According to the commission, this new body would be smaller and democratically elected (separate from the Commons electoral cycle) with the composition and electoral system of the assembly to be decided after further consultation. When the commission’s report appeared, Starmer indicated that planning was underway to deliver this new second chamber within the first five years of the next Labour government. For a variety of reasons, however, such a root and branch constitutional reform is likely to be politically difficult to achieve (see below) and so the wholesale removal of the Lords remains unlikely – at least in the short term.

Conclusion: Labour’s reform programme for the Lords

In November 2024, the Institute for Government noted that previous attempts to achieve large-scale reform of the Lords had invariably failed because (1) successful incremental and piecemeal reforms have reduced the momentum for bigger changes to the upper house (2) attempts to introduce more substantive reforms (e.g. in 2008 and 2012) have led to disagreements and divisions within the governing party about the end goal (3) it is difficult to obtain cross-party support for Lords reform because proposed changes will almost inevitably advantage one party over another (4) resistance is always likely in the Lords when peers are effectively being asked to vote themselves out of a job. All of this means that Labour will need a strong political will to implement its proposed changes and it is virtually certain that there will be political trade-offs in this area to ensure that other manifesto promises are delivered and the government’s overall policy agenda stays on track. Starmer’s government, it would seem, has recognized the problems associated with large-scale Lords reform and has opted for the incremental approach, starting with the removal of hereditary peers. In short, Labour wants to achieve some change regarding the upper house but, at the moment, the government seems unwilling to invest the political capital needed to bring about fundamental reform of the Lords.