Sometimes change arrives with fanfare. Sometimes it arrives quietly, after years of argument, delay and unfinished business.
This week, the final hereditary peers lost their automatic right to sit and vote in the House of Lords, bringing an end to one of the most indefensible features of the UK constitution. Around 92 hereditary peers had remained in the chamber since the partial reforms of 1999, when hundreds more were removed, but a temporary compromise left a rump in place. That temporary measure lasted more than a quarter of a century.
Yet another compromise was required to finally finish the job. 15 Conservative hereditary peers and some crossbenchers will be waltzing back into the chamber with newly printed Life Peer passes.
A seat in Parliament should not be inherited
No one should have a role in making our laws because of who their parents were. In a modern democracy, the right to sit in parliament should come from the public. It should not be passed down like a family heirloom.
Yet for decades, the House of Lords retained exactly that logic. Some people could sit in Parliament not because voters chose them, nor because they were independently selected, but because they inherited a title, and were ‘elected’ by aristocrats with the same political party membership. That system belonged to another age.
The Electoral Reform Society has long campaigned for this moment
The Electoral Reform Society has argued for years that hereditary legislators have no place in a democratic system.
We said it when reform stalled. We said it when governments kicked the issue into the long grass. And we said it when defenders of the status quo insisted that an outdated compromise was good enough.
They were wrong.
Ending hereditary peers’ political power is not radical. It removes a glaring symbol of privilege from the heart of Parliament.
This is progress, but not the finish line
We should celebrate this step. But we should also be honest about what it does and does not solve.
Removing hereditary peers does not make the House of Lords democratic. It remains an unelected chamber dominated by political appointments, dodgy donors and pals of past prime ministers. Prime ministers still wield huge influence over who gets a seat, and the public still get no direct say over who scrutinises legislation in their name. We’ve seen that brought to life in the Mandelson scandal. One indefensible route into the Lords has closed. Others remain deeply flawed.
What comes next for the House of Lords
Now the obvious question follows: if hereditary peers are gone, what should replace the system that remains?
The Electoral Reform Society’s answer has long been clear. We need a second chamber that is smaller, more representative, and democratically legitimate. That means moving away from patronage and towards a system where the public have a meaningful voice.
There are different ways to design that chamber. But all of them would be better than clinging to an appointments system swollen by political favour.
Back in 1999, the removal of most hereditary peers was presented as the first stage of wider reform. Instead, the country was left with a half-finished settlement for decades.
This week closes that chapter.
It is welcome progress, and those who campaigned for years to make it happen should feel vindicated. But if we stop here, we risk repeating the same mistake: treating one reform as if it were the final destination. The government have promised a second stage to their programme of reform in the House of Lords, they can’t abandon that pledge.
Now let us build a House of Lords worthy of a modern democracy.
Add your name to our call on the government to finish the job
Add your name