The Guardian view on the House of Lords: ending inherited power is the right thing to do | Editorial

Britain and Lesotho share the unenviable distinction of being the only two countries where hereditary chieftains still retain the right to pass laws for the rest of the nation. By next summer, this country will join the modern world by rescinding the right of peers to take their seats in the House of Lords by virtue of paternal lineage. This is unfinished business for Labour, which in 1999 revoked a 700-year-old right for all hereditary peers to sit on and vote from the red benches, but left a rump of 92 to be elected from the whole group of 759.

It will have taken a few hundred years for Britain to get rid of the hereditary legislative principle. A case perhaps of better late than never. Some of the 92 have resorted to hyperbole to defend the indefensible. It is absurd to claim that losing such lawmakers from the upper house would be a “ complete disaster ” and upend the UK’s constitution. Some hereditary peers may be admirable individuals, but the system has entrenched inherited privilege. All of the 92 are men, thanks to titles that can be passed only to male heirs, all are white and most are over 70. Such an arrangement is nothing less than a source of shame to a 21st-century legislature.

House of Lords reform is often regarded as being of interest only to constitutional experts and having little appeal to the wider public. That is likely to change with Labour. The UK’s upper house is the second largest legislative chamber in the world after China’s (essentially rubber stamp) National People’s Congress . With about 800 members, the Lords has more lawmakers than the Commons. The difference is that the latter are elected whereas the upper house is entirely unelected and peers can serve for life. That means its powers are limited. For example, peers can delay a piece of legislation passed by the Commons for up to one year, but cannot block a bill altogether.

Labour has recognised that the second chamber is too big. Since 2010, more than 200 Conservative and about 80 Labour peers (plus around 130 others) have been appointed to the upper house. A substantial number of crossbenchers means that while the Tories are the largest grouping, no party has a majority. The removal of the 92 hereditary peers will reduce the size of the chamber and boost Labour’s strength, as the Conservatives outnumber other parties in this group.

Ministers promise to further reduce the size of the Lords by setting a retirement age. However, these reforms will be introduced only after a consultation later in Labour’s term of office. Meanwhile, Downing Street’s unlimited power of patronage – which was increasingly abused to reward unworthy donors, cronies and time-servers under the Tories – will be a temptation for a Labour prime minister seeking to rebalance the upper house through additional appointments.

Labour’s manifesto commitment was to replace the Lords, after a public consultation, with an “alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”. This falls short of the elected body suggested in 2022 by the democracy commission established by Sir Keir Starmer and headed by Gordon Brown. That would have been a good start. It is disappointing that a substantive decision on what an upper house should look like, and by when, has been kicked into the long grass.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here .