Last night, the first debate of the Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill happened in the House of Commons. The Bill, if passed, will remove the remaining 92 Peers who sit in our House of Lords purely on the basis of their birthright.

It would be a landmark occasion, and the biggest change to the make-up of British political representation since the project to reform the Lords first began in 1999 under Tony Blair’s government.

With trust in politics so low, and getting ever lower, we hope that the Bill passes without difficulty as it would represent a big step forward in bringing our politics into the 21^st century.

Why are the hereditary peers so bad?

Political power is not something that should be inherited. You wouldn’t accept a hereditary lawyer or dentist, so why a hereditary legislator?

Being drawn from a small group of aristocratic families, and whittled down by archaic inheritance rules, the hereditary peers are nothing like the people who have to follow the laws they vote on.

The current Hereditary Peers are all male, and all white. Due to male primogeniture, we essentially have reserved seats for men in our parliament.

Within the pool of aristocrats who have said they would be willing to stand in a by-election to become a hereditary peer in the Lords, there are only two women. However, a point that was frequently made in the debate yesterday is that when an all-male group of Hereditary Peers are presented with electing either a woman or a man, they’re likely to pick the man. Overall, the House of Lords has only reached a 29% representation of women. Far lower than the Australian and Mexican second chambers, which are directly elected, and have achieved parity.

Additionally, whilst being incredibly skewed towards men, the House of Lords, and particularly its Hereditary Peers, are also highly skewed towards London and the Southeast. Whilst not all of them declare their residence amongst those who do in the Hereditary bloc, 35% live in London and the Southeast. There are none who are registered as living in the Northeast, Wales, or the West Midlands.

We need a broad set of experiences in parliament, to ensure our laws are the best they can be

The right place to start to get House of Lords numbers down

The House of Lords, with almost 800 members, is currently the second largest secondary chamber in the world. The first is China’s National People’s Congress – an appropriate bedfellow for ‘the Mother of all parliaments’?

By removing 92 Peers in one fell swoop, the House will be reduced by almost 10%. Bringing it further in line with comparable European chambers; the French Senate hosts 348 members, for example. It is much more common in modern democracies for the second and first chambers to be roughly the same size.

MPs want House of Lords reform to go further

The debate lasted around six hours, and we at the ERS watched it all so you don’t have to. There were valuable contributions from all sides of the House. Encouragingly, many MPs were advocating for much further reform, as was promised in the Labour manifesto.

Steff Aquarone MP [North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat] made the point that the organisation of government must evolve to work within the 21^st century:

“The House of Lords is only one part of our broken system, which needs to see urgent, radical reform. The structure and organisation of government itself must evolve to be fit for the modern age”

Shaun Davies [Telford, Labour] argued that the UK was a world leader in many areas but this part of our democracy required urgent attention:

“There are many areas in which the UK is a world leader or aspires to be one – our education system, civil liberties, creative and business sectors and many more – but the House should agree to modernise and transform this area. It is right that the House of Lords be reformed.”

Gavin Williamson MP [Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, Conservative] argued for further reforms of the upper chamber:

“The government have a mandate to deliver change, but I encourage them to take more significant steps, whether on the removal of bishops, the retirement age or other reforms that will make the other place a better place.”

The main point being made by the opposition benches, is when exactly is the new government going to push forward with the wholesale reform of the House of Lords that was laid out in the Labour manifesto earlier this year?

Whilst this Bill represents a very good step in the right direction there is much more to still be done. Particularly given the amount of public support reorganisation of the House of Lords receives. Only two percent of the public have ‘a lot of confidence’ in the House of Lords. 46% of the public think that the House of Lords should be elected. Only 15% think that the Prime Minister should have the power to ennoble the life peers who vote on our legislation for the rest of their lives without election or accountability.

MPs voted by a large majority to move the Bill to the next stage. If it goes on to be fully enacted, it will be quite the moment for the British constitution. However, we can still go further. We will continue to push for an elected second chamber which represents the British public effectively, efficiently, and with a diversity of regions and nations represented.

This bill needs to pass, but it should just be the start – If you agree, add your name to an end to people inheriting seats in the House of Lords

Add your name to tell them to pass the bill

Just weeks after 70,000 people cast their votes to elect two new MPs in the Wakefield and Tiverton and Honiton by-elections, two hereditary peers were gifted the life-long right to make the laws we all live under with just 27 votes between them.

The House of Lords announced yesterday, the 6th July, that Conservatives Lord Remnant and Lord Wrottesley have been elected to the second chamber in a by-election held to fill the vacancies created by the retirement of Lord Brabazon of Tara and the death of Lord Swinfen.

The people of this country should be the only ones who decide who makes the laws we all live under. But these ‘by-elections’ saw a small band of aristocrats decide amongst themselves who has the right to make laws for life – with absolutely no accountability to the public. A situation that is more suited to a private members’ club than our national parliament.

Hereditary peer by-elections

When a hereditary peer dies or retires, fellow hereditary peers from their party or group are allowed to replace them by voting on candidates from a closed list of former hereditary peers or new ones who have inherited their title since the 1999 reforms. Today’s vote saw 12 candidates voted on by an electorate of 45 Conservative peers, with a turnout of 41.

While the government recently abandoned fairer, preferential voting for Mayoral contests, the fairest system around is used for hereditary peer by-elections, the Single Transferable Vote.

Lord Remnant, who was elected with 22 first-preference votes, is a director of Northern Rock whose main interest is in ‘countryside matters’. In his application for the seat, he commented that “with reducing business interests, [he] would commit enthusiastically to the Lords”.

Meanwhile, Lord Wrottesley, a former Winter Olympian in men’s skeleton and self-described “closet tree-hugger”, received five first-preference votes and was elected following five stages where other candidates were eliminated.

Around 10% of seats are effectively reserved for men

The latest by-election means that all of the 92 hereditary peers sitting in the Lords remain men.

While the two new MPs elected in last month’s Tiverton and Honiton and Wakefield by-elections will have to face the electorate again within the next two years, these two new hereditary peers now have a life-long right to vote on our laws.

We need to end this unjust and unfair farce, which means the UK is the only country in the world, apart from the African kingdom of Lesotho, who still picks legislators by the circumstances of their birth.

The House of Lords needs to be urgently reformed, starting with scrapping the 92 hereditary peers. This would, at a stroke, slim down our bloated upper chamber which is costing the taxpayer an excessive amount with over 800 unelected peers able to claim £323 a day.

It’s time to end this grotesque charade and for urgent reform to the upper chamber to make it accountable as well as open to the British public. The Lords needs to be made accountable to the public who pay for it and who have to abide by the laws it creates.

Add your name to our call for a democratic second chamber

There is overwhelming support for reform but Friday once again showed there is little chance of it succeeding.

On Friday 3rd December, for the fourth time in just five years, Labour peer Lord Bruce Grocott put forward his bill to end the bizarre practice of hereditary by-elections and in turn begin the process of ending guaranteed aristocratic representation in the House of Lords.

In recent years Lord Grocott has waged a personal war to end these “beyond satire” by-elections. But each time his bill has made it to the floor his attempts have been consistently thwarted by hereditary peers. In 2019, Lord Trefgarne and the Earl of Caithness laid more than 50 wrecking amendments in order to ensure that the debate exceeded three-and-a-half hours, and the bill failed.

This latest second reading debate meant that amendments could not be tabled but the same old arguments came up again with many peers calling the bill little more than ‘nibbling at the edges’ when it comes to Lords reform.

Lord Trefgarne made his well-known objections to the proposals noting: “I accept that the present size of your Lordships’ House is excessive but the problem is too many life Peers, not too many hereditary Peers.”

Lord Moylan rejected the suggestion that there was widespread public opposition to the existence of hereditary peers arguing (without irony) that as unelected hereditary peers that “If we are accountable to anybody, it is to the public for whom we legislate.”

But despite these few committed voices of opposition support for this reform spans the whole house, peers of all parties and none both appointed and hereditary agree it’s time to change the system. But until the government backs reform it stands no chance of being passed in the upper house.

The government remains opposed to Grocott’s proposals or, as government spokesperson Lord True put it during the debate: “governments reservations of his proposals remain” – on the basis that the hereditary questions should not be addressed until a full proposal of reforms is agreed that cover all of the house, not just a small group within it.

But when it comes to Lords reform the great cannot be the enemy of the good. We need wholesale reform of our outdated second chamber but ending these farcical hereditary peer by-elections would be a small step in the right direction.

This bill should be uncontroversial – a small and common-sense reform that would end these ridiculous by-elections, slowly reducing the number of hereditary peers. No radical overhaul or disruptive upheaval. In fact, in 2020 these by-elections were temporarily suspended due to the coronavirus pandemic and the House of Lords continued to function without issue.

Since they returned we’ve seen seven new hereditary peers join this chamber, each one taking a seat for live to vote on our laws down solely to the circumstances of their birth. One peer, Labour’s Viscount Stansgate (ironically the son of Tony Benn, who famously rejected his hereditary peerage) was ‘elected’ unopposed to his seat. You could be forgiven for laughing it wasn’t so serious.

The last by-election was held last month, with Labour scrambling to fill the Labour-allocated seat. The winning candidate, Lord Hacking, won with a short 75-word manifesto that simply promised to adopt “social democratic policies”.

The bill is now at the committee stage, where every clause of the Bill has to be agreed with and votes on amendments take place. Any peer can suggest amendments and it’s expected that many will in an attempt to block the bill.

This Friday in the Commons Labour MP John Speller is putting forward a similar bill, we can only hope it won’t meet the same fate as this one because this spectacle cannot be allowed to continue.

Sign our petition for a fairly elected second chamber.

On the 9th and 10th November, the House of Lords will be hosting their fifth hereditary peer by-election this year.

The House of Lords Act 1999 led to the removal of all but 90 hereditary peers, plus the holders of the offices of Earl Marshall and Lord Great Chamberlain – in total, 92 hereditary peers remain in the chamber, though only 90 are replaced via by-elections.

Most by-elections take place within party groups, so when a Conservative hereditary peer retires, the remaining Conservative hereditary peers vote on who should take their place. These party groups reflected the proportion of party affiliation at the time of the 1999 reforms of the House of Lords.

The recent vacancy comes after the death of Viscount Simon, one of a group of 15 hereditary peers who were elected by the whole House in 1999. These 15 peers were originally expected to serve as Deputy Speakers or hold other offices in the chamber, but they are no longer expected to.

Under the terms of an informal agreement in the House of Lords, it is expected that this vacancy will be filled by a hereditary peer who will sit as a Labour member of the House. But while Conservative and crossbench by-elections are typically competitive, Keir Starmer’s party have been struggling to find a suitable candidate, with there being a limited number of Labour-supporting aristocrats eligible to stand. 

This lack of candidates makes a mockery of the already absurd system that sees these seats held back for aristocrats to choose one of their own to make our laws for life.

The Labour party have finally found a candidate in David Hacking, 3rd Baron Hacking, who is willing to take up the Labour-allocated seat and take home a handsome £305 a day for the privilege. The 83-year-old barrister was previously a Conservative peer before switching his support to Blair in 1998. 

To add to the confusion, it is only an informal agreement that states the winner should sit as a labour member. Hacking faces slim competition for the seat as he is running against just two other candidates: Thoby Kennet, 3rd Baron Kennet and Anthony Biddulph, 5th Baron Biddulph. Baron Kennet, who runs a PR agency promoting industrial hemp and has consistently tried to be elected as a Liberal Democrat despite claiming a long term allegiance to the Labour Party, while, Baron Biddulph, a former interior designer, is running for the Labour-allocated seat as a Conservative. 

The three candidates have provided short manifestos, with Lord Biddulph submitting a measly 14 words, including that he is “happy to serve if requested”  and Lord Kennet promised to tackle climate change in his wordier pitch of 73 words. Lord Hacking, stated he will help the Labour party adopt “social democratic policies”. 

These manifestos are a joke to our democracy, with the candidates essentially running on empty platforms that do not represent the interests of the public. 

The absurd election simply encourages desperate aristocrats to adopt party allegiances in order to get back into the House of Lords, with Lord Hacking repeatedly attempting to be elected as a crossbencher over the past two decades. The lack of an appropriate candidate for the Labour-allocated seat has provided a perfecting opportunity for Lord Hacking, convincing him to now support Starmer’s party. 

The last by-election for a Labour seat resulted in Stephen Benn, 3rd Viscount Stansgate, running unopposed. Ironically, he is the son of Tony Benn, who avidly campaigned to get rid of hereditary peerages and was the first peer to give up his title under the Peerages Act of 1963. 

The Labour party have been particularly quiet about the by-elections, with the continued existence of hereditary peers providing some embarrassment and directly contradicting Starmer’s 10 Pledges, which advocates for the abolishment of the House of Lords. 

It is time to get rid of the archaic by-elections and scrap the undemocratic House of Lords altogether. Blair’s reshaping of the Lords in 1999 was supposed to be the first phase of reform. The by-elections were a compromise, where a vacancy caused by the death, resignation or retirement of a hereditary peer, is filled with a member of an official ‘register’ of hereditary aristocrats, sorted by their party – but 22 years later nothing has changed. 

The next phase of reforms is now long overdue. However, despite many attempts to scrap these ridiculous elections, hereditary peers have blocked these motions through filibustering, showing how unelected peers have an active role in shaping our democracy. 

The calls for change are even coming from the Lords itself – even the Lord Speaker agrees it is time for the hereditary peers to go, with the House of Lords spiralling out of control to over 800 members.

We’ve long argued for the end of these sham by-elections and to finally replace the House of Lords with an elected body. How long can these so-called elections continue to make a mockery to our democracy – its time people had a say on who makes our laws, not just a handful of unelected peers.

Sign our petition to place power rightfully back in the hands of the people

While the Conservatives’ shock loss in the Chesham and Amersham by-election might dominate the headlines, Liberal Democrat Sarah Green MP will not be the only parliamentarian to join Westminster this week.

The results of two sets of Hereditary Peer by-elections were also announced on Thursday, as four new legislators-for-life took their seats in the Lords.

Lord Sandhurst, the Earl of Leicester and Lord Altrincham were selected as three new Conservative peers, in an election which saw just 36 voters – all-male aristocrats – get to decide who will rule over our laws for decades to come.

Meanwhile Lord Londesborough was elected as a Crossbencher to replace the Countess of Mar in an election which replaced the only female hereditary peer in the House. Now every one of the Lords 92 hereditaries will be a man.

All four can now vote on our laws and claim £323 per day, after securing fewer than 200 votes between them. It’s a bad parody of democracy, and voters are the butt of the joke.

Why? The end of hereditary by-elections is a long time coming. The 1999 House of Lords Act removed all but 92 of these aristocrats from the house. In one go 667, hereditary peers lost the right to vote on our laws.

The compromise – meant to be the first phase of reform – meant that when a hereditary peer dies, retires or resigns from the house, the vacancy is filled with a member of an official ‘register’ of hereditary aristocrats, sorted by their party.

Meanwhile, in Chesham and Amersham over 38,000 voters took to the polls to elect just one MP. In the Lords, 36 Conservative peers selected three. How is it that a few dozen aristocrats can still – in 2021 – have more sway than thousands of voters?

There is nothing democratic about these so-called elections in the Lords.

Each election sees a tiny clique, sometimes fewer than the number of candidates themselves, getting to decide which aristocrat remains in parliament with a lifetime appointment to vote on our laws.

It’s time for them to go.

There have been many attempts to scrap these sham elections, with bills debated to end the absurd spectacle. Even the Lord Speaker agrees their time is up, with a need to slim down the ever-increasing chamber – which now stands at over 800 members.

But these moves have always been blocked by hereditary peers who have repeatedly filibustered – talked out – attempts to end the practice. It’s a real example of how these roles are not merely for show – they have real sway over the shape of our democracy.

It is simply untenable that the Lords claim to oppose new appointments to the upper house while refusing to scrap this nonsensical process.

We urgently need to modernise this private member’s club. Peers make sure these so-called elections are the last and scrap hereditary peerages for good.

It’s time we ended these mock elections and had full reform of the Lords, so every seat is elected, by the people, not the peers.

Sign our petition so the public, not aristocrats, elect the House of Lords

Six aristocrats will join the House of Lords over the next month, following the announcement of candidates for Britain’s most warped election.

Just a few dozen aristocrats will decide who can sit in the House of Lords – voting on legislation for the rest of their lives, if they choose to do so.

It’s nice work if you can get it, and the application process is easy. You just need to submit a manifesto of less than 75 words and schmooze a few voters. You must also be on the official register of aristocrats. Oh, and the voters you must schmooze are a handful of hereditary peers.

The new Lord Speaker – Lord McFall – has expressed his opposition to these by-elections, but peers recently opted to restart them. It seems a case of slightly odd priorities, when we were still in the midst of a global pandemic.

One of the themes of this weekend’s G7 gathering will be ‘taking action against democratic threats’. It is not clear how a tenth of the UK’s revising chamber being selected on the basis of bloodline tallies with this. Democracy in Westminster is a case of ‘do as I say, not as I do’.

But the fact that in 2021, hereditary aristocrats are still guaranteed a hold over in our parliament is beyond baffling.

How did we get here? The 1999 House of Lords Act removed all but 92 hereditary peers, in what was intended to be a temporary compromise. Subsequently, vacancies that result from death or – since minor changes in 2014 and 2015, retirement, resignation or exclusion – are filled through a so-called by-election.

These aristocrats are chosen by party groups of current hereditary peers, from an official list of aristocrats. There are no female hereditary peers, and just one woman eligible to stand. And several of these so-called by-elections have had turnouts of just three voters.

The continuation of hereditary peer by-elections means that around 12% of the second chamber’s lawmakers are there purely down to the circumstance of their birth, eternally locked to the percentage party make-up of hereditary peers when many of them were booted out in the 1990s.

Ministers and peers need to back legislation – which is ready to go – to end this absurd practice. At the moment, a handful of aristocrats are picking who can vote on our laws and claim expenses for life, on the basis of birth-right.

It is ignoring a simple principle accepted across the world: voters should decide who votes on our laws, with a fair, proportional voting system.

Instead, the Lords are making a mockery of voters. Take for example, the fact that hereditary peers have repeatedly filibustered – literally talked out of time – attempts to end the practice. It proves the point that these positions aren’t just constitutional baubles: they are powerful roles that can powerfully shape and change legislation in the UK.

Ending these absurd by-elections must be a first step towards ensuring we have real democracy here  – with a revising chamber that is fit for purpose, and accountable to the public.

Read the ERS’ latest briefing on hereditary peers.

Sign our petition so the public, not aristocrats, elect the House of Lords

These are difficult and uncertain times, with the coronavirus pandemic shutting down most normal activity in politics and across the country this month.

Despite the disruption, we’ve been campaigning the most democratic and safe Parliamentary response: allowing representatives to speak up for voter remotely. In this time of crisis, it is more important than ever that these life-changing decisions and legislation is held to account.

2019 General Election report

March saw the launch of our report on the 2019 General Election: ‘Voters Left Voiceless’. It found that 22.6 million voters’ ballots had no impact on the election result – an absolute negation of democracy.

Dr Jess Garland appeared on Sky News, with host Adam Boulton highlighting the disproportionate nature of the election results – and Jess noting the need for proportional representation in Westminster to ensure voters are finally heard in Parliament.

Willie Sullivan wrote a powerful piece for politics.co.uk, calling for real reform. The report and its findings were covered in the Independent as well as prominently in Scotland and Wales – where voters are used to being heard through PR – in the Evening Express, Holyrood magazine and the National.

Following the launch of our general election report we released new exclusive polling that highlighted the extent of tactical voting in December’s poll. The polling found that 32% of people voted tactically was again picked up in the Independent, PoliticsHome and in the Yorkshire Post, with Dr Jess Garland calling arguing that it’s time Westminster caught up with the rest of the UK, and ‘ensures seats in parliament reflect how people actually want to vote.’

Coronavirus and Parliament

In the last few weeks, we’ve led the call for parliament to respond to the pandemic not by shutting down, but by joining the 21^st century. Westminster must allow MPs to vote remotely from isolation, and use video technology so representatives can continue their work during the coronavirus crisis.

With MPs urged to stay away from Westminster we’ve argued that ‘the current crisis should not be used to “entrench” the centralisation of the UK’s democracy’.

As Willie Sullivan noted in the Independent: “At times of national crisis, the need for scrutiny increases, not decreases”. Our research officer Ian Simpson delved into the findings for Democratic Audit, noting the election was a ‘postcode lottery’ for voters.

Our calls for change were picked up widely, including by the BBC, the Metro, Mirror and the Evening Standard, as well as in Wales where the Senedd is now leading the way through digital meetings. Our proposals for digital Select Committees were heeded: the Commons’ rules were changed after we wrote to the Speaker, meaning ministers will still be held to account during recess. It marked a real win in ensuring MPs and their staff are protected and able to engage in scrutiny remotely during the crisis.

Following calls from 100 MPs to establish a ‘virtual Commons’ we again pushed the government to ensure proper legislative scrutiny during coronavirus. As ERS Chief Executive Darren Hughes argued in the Guardian: “Ministers and public officials must be held to account by those with a full suite of powers to call evidence, witnesses and use the full clout of parliament.”

Boundary changes scrapped

In March month the government quietly scrapped long held plans to cut the number of MPs in Westminster from 650 to 600 as part of a review into constituency boundaries. We led the charge against these plans when they were first proposed back in 2010 and welcomed the move this month.

This welcome u-turn by the government should be followed by a comprehensive overhaul of the bloated and unelected House of Lords. We were featured in on the BBCpolitics homepage, as well as ITV Wales, the Mirror, the New European, and across regional press such as the Express and Star.

Wider political reform

In Wales, ERS Cymru Director Jess Blair was quoted on the BBC calling for political education for young voters, ahead of the expansion of the franchise next year in Wales to allow 16- and 17-year olds to vote in Senedd elections.

We also kept up the pressure on overhauling the House of Lords. Hereditary peer ‘by-elections’ – which guarantee aristocrats seats for life in our Parliament – have now been rightly delayed for six months. Why not make it permanent?  The government can shelve their dangerous and undemocratic mandatory voter ID plans while they’re at it, as we noted in the Independent.

The pandemic means we will be shifting our focus in the coming months. But we’ll continue to stand up for voters – during the crisis and beyond.

Even in today’s climate, hereditary peer by-elections are among the more absurd aspects of British politics. Following the retirement of the Earl of Selborne from the House of Lords after almost 50 years in office, another one of these elections is now due.

However, joining the Olympics, the Premier League and Glastonbury festival, this is set to be postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. After a debate in parliament this week, this was agreed until 8^th September, just over six months away, with the bill receiving almost unanimous support in the Lords.

If we can afford to delay this hereditary by-election for six months, why not make it permanent? While a by-election may sound like it makes the House of Lords slightly more representative and democratic than the male, pale and stale establishment it currently is, only hereditary peers (totally around 216 on the current Register) are allowed to vote.

In the last by-election, only 28 votes were cast for a peer now eligible to sit in the House of Lords for the rest of his life and claim up to £323 a day for doing so. This compares to an average House of Commons by-election which sees over 1000 times that at 28,825.

Just like their by-elections, hereditary peers are a testament to the House of Lords being a private members’ club for an elite few. Removing these by-elections would be the first step in a list of reforms desperately needed to be made by the House of Lords.

Just like their by-elections, hereditary peers are a testament to the House of Lords being a private members’ club for an elite few. Click To Tweet

Second only to China as the world’s largest legislative body, the House of Lords as it stands is an outdated, unelected institution that is totally unrepresentative of modern British society. It is time that these bizarre, undemocratic by-elections were finally postponed for good. There is something fundamentally wrong with a chamber making laws that affect voters’ lives when many members who sit in it do so on the basis of conspicuous wealth, elected in by their equally wealthy chums.

As shown by events this week, hereditary peer by-elections are neither an essential nor indeed desirable element of British politics. This global pandemic has resulted in unprecedented times for the government and its people; it is now time for this to extend to reforms of the House of Lords.

A Bill to phase out one of Parliament’s more absurd procedures is making some progress, after being talked out of time by Lords last year.

Lord Grocott’s Hereditary Peers (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill underwent its Second Reading last Friday. This is the third time that Lord Grocott’s Bill has been put forward.

Currently, there are 90 hereditary peers in the House of Lords, and if one retires or dies, they are replaced through a so-called ‘by-election’.

There are 90 hereditary peers in the House of Lords, and if one retires or dies, they are replaced through a so-called ‘by-election’ – but only hereditary peers are able to stand in these elections Click To Tweet

Only hereditary peers are able to stand in these elections, from the 216 names on the current Register of Hereditary peers. There is only one woman eligible to stand. And the voters? A handful of current hereditary Lords, from whichever party group the deceased/retired/booted-out peer sat with.

In 1999, the allegedly ‘temporary’ compromise of electing hereditary peers in a by-election was introduced. It is still in operation over two decades later – in large part due to opposition to change from aristocrats.

Despite widespread support, Lord Grocott’s two previous attempts at reform have both ran out of time as a result of dozens of ‘wrecking’ amendments by less than a handful of peers. Another sign that the House of Lords is a private members’ club for an elite few.

Indeed, this club continues to grow in size and cost as from April, peers will see their daily pay rise by over 3% to £323. As the world’s second-largest legislative body – surpassed only by China’s National People’s Congress – the taxpayer is footing the bill for an outdated, unelected institution that is totally unrepresentative of modern British society.

The bizarre by-elections of hereditary peers are yet another reflection of this elitist club. In the last by-election, as the ERS reported, just 28 votes were cast. Compare this to a House of Commons by-election which sees an average of more than a thousand times this of around 29,000 votes.

The bizarre by-elections of hereditary peers are yet another reflection of an elitist club. Click To Tweet

‘Talking out’ bills is not an example of effective policymaking: it is an act of democratic sabotage, when it rewards an aristocratic elite at the expense of voters and democracy. Removing by-elections and hereditary peers themselves is therefore just one small step to ensure that the UK’s upper chamber is fit for purpose.

It is long past time to overhaul the bloated House of Lords and replace it with a fairly elected upper chamber – one which reflects the whole of the United Kingdom. Voters deserve a modern revising chamber, not this semi-feudal farce. We need to sort out this ridiculous relic at last. Voters should decide who influences our laws.

This could start with ending the absurd elections of hereditary peers. Whether this Bill will succeed is unclear. One thing is though: the need to scrap and replace the UK’s second chamber at last.

Megan Collins is a placement student at the ERS from the University of Nottingham. 

Sign our petition for a fairly elected House of Lords

Last week’s government reshuffle saw some strange moves. Boris Johnson appointed a former speechwriter to John Major, Lord True, as a minister overseeing constitutional reform. A strange move because Lord True is one of just a few in politics today who has defended the role of hereditary peers.

It’s an appointment which completely undermines No. 10’s promise to deliver “the people’s government” and consider the “broader aspects” of the constitution.

As reported in The Times this week, Lord True has repeatedly defended both the bloated size of the House of Lords and its hereditary peers. While the House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of most of the hereditary peers to sit and vote in the chamber, there are still 92 peers who are replaced in a so-called ‘by-election’ when one retires, dies or is excluded – an election which only people (almost entirely men) from only a couple of hundred aristocratic families are allowed to stand in.

In 35 hereditary by-elections, the average number of voters has been a whopping…28 aristocrats. Only those who are current hereditary peers from the deceased/resigned Lord’s political group can vote.

Speaking in a 2018 debate, Lord True revealed his opposition to reform stems from concerns that Conservative representation would be reduced, while the Liberal Democrats are ‘grossly over-represented’. In fact, the Liberal Democrats have around 12% of the Lords and got 12% in the 2019 General Election. If the concern is about ensuring fair representation for all parties, one way to do that would, of course, be to elect the second chamber with proportional representation.

For a handful of peers, the idea of democratic accountability in our revising chamber is heresy, while guaranteeing the representation of a tiny aristocratic clique is perfectly normal. Another sign that the House of Lords is a private members’ club for an elite and privileged few.

Another sign that the House of Lords is a private members’ club for an elite and privileged few. Click To Tweet

Ending the automatic representation of hereditary peers is a tiny but vital step in both reducing the unsustainable size of the chamber and starting to bring it into the modern era.

At around 800 members, the House of Lords is the second largest upper chamber in the world – surpassed only by China’s National People’s Congress – and costs the taxpayer millions each year. With peers seeing their daily pay rise to £323 per day when they sign in from April, this cost is only set to increase.

If Lord True’s appointment is anything to go by, the Lords looks set to be locked in a feudal era: a super-sized house of super-sized expense claims… and no way of kicking them out.

The Lords looks set to be locked in a feudal era: a super-sized house of super-sized expense claims… and no way of kicking them out. Click To Tweet

All of which throws doubt on the motives for the government’s supposed reason for wanting to move the House of Lords up North. An unelected house of hereditary aristocrats that happens to be up North is little better than one in London.

An unelected house of hereditary aristocrats that happens to be up North is little better than one in London. Click To Tweet

Voters are sick of the inaction. It’s no wonder nearly 200,000 people have signed an ERS petition launched in December calling for abolition and replacement of the House of Lords. It’s time for ministers to listen.

We’ve long campaigned to scrap the bloated House of Lords and replace it with a fairly elected upper chamber – one which reflects the whole of the United Kingdom. Then we can finally move power from unelected aristocrats to voters across the country.

Megan Collins is a placement student at the ERS from the University of Nottingham. 

Sign our petition for elections to the Lords