Original essay question / assignment brief
On 19th November 2022, in an exclusive interview with the Guardian, former Prime Minister Keir Starmer had pledged to "abolish the House of Lords" as part of his leadership campaign and "replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations" in order to "rebuild trust in politics". He wanted to strip politicians of the power to make appointments to the House of Lords.
On 18th March 2026, the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 received Royal Assent.
Through this legislation, Keir Starmer's government successfully put an end to the membership of the last 92 Hereditary Peers at the House of Lords.
However, the Guardian reported on 30th April 2026 that 26 Hereditary Peers ousted under the 2026 Act were later reinstated as Life Peers and their presence in the House of Lords
was restored through a concession by Keir Starmer to quell opposition by the House of Lords and to put to rest demands for compensation for removed Hereditary Peers.
At present, the House of Lords remains a largely appointed upper chamber of the Westminster Parliament.
Does the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 represent conclusive reform for the House of Lords, or has it accelerated the constitutional momentum towards a fully-elected second chamber?
When discussing the importance, powers and role of the House of Lords, consider whether the current government should indeed abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected chamber.
# The Reform of the House of Lords: An Unfinished Chapter
## Introduction
The composition and role of the House of Lords have been a subject of constitutional debate in the United Kingdom for over a century. As an unelected second chamber in a modern democracy, its legitimacy is frequently questioned. The hypothetical scenario presented, involving the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026, depicts the latest chapter in a long story of piecemeal reform. This essay will argue that the 2026 Act does not represent conclusive reform for the House of Lords. Instead, by removing the last vestiges of the hereditary principle, it sharpens the focus on the undemocratic nature of the remaining appointed chamber, thereby accelerating the constitutional momentum towards a fully-elected second chamber. This essay will first analyse the impact of the 2026 Act in the context of previous reforms before evaluating the arguments surrounding the replacement of the current House with an elected body.
## A History of Incremental Reform
The powers and composition of the House of Lords have been progressively altered, not through a single, radical overhaul, but through a series of incremental changes. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 significantly curtailed the Lords’ power, removing their ability to veto legislation and replacing it with a power to delay. This established the legislative primacy of the elected House of Commons. The next major change was the Life Peerages Act 1958, which introduced life peers appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister, diversifying the membership beyond the hereditary aristocracy.
The most significant recent precedent for the hypothetical 2026 Act is the House of Lords Act 1999. This legislation, enacted by Tony Blair’s Labour government, removed the right of most hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House. However, as a result of political compromise, 92 hereditary peers were permitted to remain (Wakeham, 2000). This was widely seen as ‘stage one’ of a two-stage reform process, with ‘stage two’ intended to address the long-term composition of the chamber. This history demonstrates a consistent pattern: reform is often partial and driven by political pragmatism rather than constitutional principle.
## The 2026 Act: Inconclusive Reform or a Catalyst for Change?
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026, by removing the remaining 92 hereditary peers, completes the ‘unfinished business’ of the 1999 Act. On the surface, this could be seen as a conclusive step, finally severing the link between legislative power and inherited titles. However, this view is unconvincing for two main reasons.
First, the fundamental issue of democratic legitimacy remains unresolved. While the hereditary principle has been abolished, the House of Lords is now a wholly appointed chamber. Members are chosen by the Prime Minister and other party leaders through a system of patronage, with a House of Lords Appointments Commission providing only limited independent oversight for non-party peers. As long as legislators are not chosen by the people, the chamber’s democratic deficit persists. The 2026 Act simply tidies an anachronism without addressing this core problem.
Second, the reported reinstatement of 26 ousted hereditary peers as new life peers demonstrates that the reform is not a principled conclusion but another political compromise. This “concession by Keir Starmer” shows that even a reforming government can be forced to use the very system of patronage it critiques in order to manage political opposition. This undermines the spirit of the reform and reinforces the perception of the House of Lords as an institution shaped by political deals rather than democratic principles. Therefore, the 2026 Act is not a final settlement.
By removing the hereditary peers, the Act arguably accelerates the momentum for an elected chamber. The hereditary element was often defended as an anomaly, but its removal leaves the appointed nature of the house as the sole basis for its composition. This makes the argument against an unelected chamber simpler and more powerful. The question is no longer about ancient rights but about modern patronage. The Act, therefore, clears the way for a more focused debate on the fundamental question: should a 21st-century legislature be appointed or elected?
## Abolition and Replacement: The Case For and Against an Elected Chamber
The proposal to abolish the current House of Lords and replace it with an elected chamber is the logical endpoint of the reform debate. However, there are significant arguments both for and against such a move.
The principal argument for an elected chamber is democratic legitimacy. It is a cornerstone of modern democratic theory that those who make the law should be accountable to the people they govern (Ekins, 2017). An appointed house, whose members hold their seats for life without fear of being removed by voters, is fundamentally unaccountable. An elected chamber would provide this accountability and ensure that the second chamber has a democratic mandate for its work. Furthermore, as suggested in Keir Starmer’s pledge, an elected chamber could be structured to represent the “regions and nations,” offering a different form of representation from the constituency-based House of Commons and strengthening the Union.
However, proponents of an appointed chamber argue that it possesses unique strengths that an elected house would lack. The primary advantage is expertise. The current system allows for the appointment of distinguished former professionals from fields such as medicine, law, business, and the armed forces, who bring specialist knowledge to the legislative process (Norton, 2011). This expertise is crucial for the Lords’ main function: legislative scrutiny. Bills are often improved by detailed, expert-led revision in the Lords. It is argued that an elected chamber would likely be filled with career politicians, duplicating the skillset of the Commons and losing this valuable diversity of experience.
Furthermore, the Lords’ unelected nature means it does not compete with the House of Commons. Its limited powers and conventions, such as the Salisbury Convention (whereby the Lords does not block legislation that was in the governing party’s manifesto), ensure the primacy of the elected house is respected. An elected second chamber, especially if elected by a different system, would have its own democratic mandate. This could lead to constitutional gridlock if the two houses, controlled by different parties, were to disagree on major legislation (Russell, 2013). This would challenge the established constitutional hierarchy where the will of the Commons ultimately prevails.
## Conclusion
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026, while significant in ending the hereditary principle, does not represent a conclusive reform of the House of Lords. It is another incremental step in a long process, characteristic of the UK’s evolving constitution. By removing the distraction of the hereditary peers, the Act exposes the central and unresolved issue of the democratic legitimacy of a fully appointed chamber. The political compromise involved in its passage further highlights the problems of patronage.
For this reason, the Act is likely to accelerate, not conclude, the momentum for further change. The debate must now squarely face the arguments for and against a fully elected second chamber. While the current House of Lords provides valuable expertise and plays a complementary role to the Commons, the argument for democratic legitimacy in the 21st century is powerful. The challenge for future reformers is not simply to abolish the Lords, but to design an elected replacement that can enhance democracy and representation without creating a rival to the House of Commons that would lead to constitutional paralysis. The 2026 Act has made addressing that challenge more urgent.
## References
- Ekins, R. (2017) The Principles of Legislative Procedure. The Constitution Society.
- Norton, P. (2011) A Century of Constitutional Reform. The Constitution Society.
- Russell, M. (2013) The Contemporary House of Lords: Westminster Bicameralism Revived. Oxford University Press.
- Wakeham, L. (2000) A House for the Future, Report of the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords. Cm 4534. The Stationery Office.
