Table of contents

Approximate read time: 35 minutes

1. What does the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 do?

The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 removes the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. Most hereditary peers were removed from the House of Lords by the House of Lords Act 1999, but that act enabled 92 ‘excepted’ hereditary peers to retain the right to sit in the House of Lords. Initially the plan was for all hereditary peers to be removed by the 1999 act. However, a compromise agreement made at the time, known as the ‘Weatherill amendment’, allowed for 92 to remain while long-term reforms were decided.[1] In its 2024 general election manifesto, the Labour Party said it would remove the right of these excepted hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords as part of reforms to modernise the House.[2]

The government introduced the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill to take forward this commitment by repealing section 2 of the 1999 act and removing the exemption under which hereditary peers have membership of the House. The bill was not amended during its initial stages in the House of Commons, but the House of Lords made four groups of amendments. These covered changing the way in which excepted hereditary peers would be removed from the House so it would happen over time rather than all at once, preventing unsalaried ministers in the House of Lords, enabling the creation of new life peers without a seat in the House of Lords, and establishing a statutory basis for someone to submit a notice of resignation from the House of Lords on behalf of a peer who lacked capacity.

The only Lords amendments that the House of Commons accepted during the bill’s ping pong stages were to do with the resignation of peers who lack capacity. The Commons rejected all the other amendments, and the House of Lords did not insist on them. In response to the Lords amendments, the government subsequently introduced another bill that would enable a greater number of Lords ministers to receive a salary (see section 5.2 of this briefing for further details).

The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act received royal assent on 18 March 2026. The provisions on resignation on behalf of peers who lack capacity came into force immediately. The provisions to end the right of excepted hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords are due to come into force at the end of the current parliamentary session. The date for this has not yet been formally announced, but the state opening of Parliament marking the start of the next parliamentary session will take place on 13 May 2026.[3]

Some current excepted hereditary peers will remain in the House of Lords as life peers. The Liberal Democrats nominated two of their excepted hereditary peers, Lord Addington and Earl Russell, for life peerages in the December 2025 list of political peerages.[4] The Earl of Kinnoull, convenor of the Crossbench peers, also received a life peerage in this list. Further life peerages for some of the excepted hereditary peers are expected—see section 4 of this briefing for more information. On the other hand, several excepted hereditary peers have already retired from the House in advance of the act coming fully into force.[5] The Duke of Norfolk and Lord Carrington, who hold the offices of earl marshal and lord great chamberlain respectively, are expected to keep their parliamentary passes to enable them to carry out their ceremonial roles.[6]

This briefing provides further detail on the amendments the House of Lords made to the bill at report and third reading, and what then happened during the bill’s ping pong stages.

2. How did the House of Lords amend the bill?

2.1 Lords amendments: Overview

Table 1 summarises all the amendments the House of Lords made to the bill at report and third reading. Sections 2.2 to 2.5 of this briefing provide further detail on each of the four groups of amendments.

Table 1. Changes to the bill in the House of Lords at report and third reading

Topic Amendments agreed Moved by Effect Amended the bill by Retained in the act?
Exclusion of hereditary peers and abolition of by-elections for hereditary peers Report stage amendment 2, agreed to on division. Contents 280; Not-contents 243.

Third reading amendment 5, agreed to without division.

 Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative) No further by-elections would be held to replace excepted hereditary peers as they died, retired, resigned or were expelled from the House of Lords. This would mean the existing hereditary peers would leave the House over time rather than all being removed at once at the end of the session as the bill originally proposed. Removing the original wording of clause 1 and replacing it with new wording. No
Unsalaried ministers Report stage amendment 13A (to amendment 13) agreed to on division. Contents 284; Not-contents 239.

Report stage amendment 13 (as amended by amendment 13A) agreed to without division.

 Lord True (shadow leader of the House of Lords) Ministers would not be eligible for membership of the House of Lords unless they received or had been offered a salary. This would not apply to ministers appointed before this provision came into force. Inserting a new clause (clause 2 in HL Bill 122). No
Rights of life peers to sit in the House of Lords Report stage amendment 17 agreed to on division. Contents 265; Not-contents 247. Lord True (shadow leader of the House of Lords) There would be a statutory basis for creating a life peerage under the Life Peerages Act 1958 without membership of the House of Lords. Inserting a new clause (clause 3 in HL Bill 122) that would amend the Life Peerages Act 1958. No
Resignation or retirement from the House of Lords on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity Third reading amendments 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, all agreed without division. Baroness Smith of Basildon (leader of the House of Lords) There would be a statutory basis for someone to submit a notice of resignation or retirement from the House of Lords on behalf of a peer who lacked capacity. The notice would have to be given in accordance with arrangements set out in the standing orders. Inserting a new clause that would amend the House of Lords Reform Act 2014.

Amending the clause of the bill that sets out extent and commencement (clause 4 in HL Bill 49 as brought from the Commons; clause 6 in HL Bill 122 as amended on report) to provide for the new clause’s extent and commencement.

Amending the bill’s long title to include a reference to resignation from the House of Lords.

 Yes

2.2 Exclusion of hereditary peers and abolition of by-elections for hereditary peers

Section 1 of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 ends membership of the House of Lords for the members who currently sit by virtue of a hereditary peerage, to take effect at the end of the 2024–26 parliamentary session. It does this by repealing section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999. Section 2 has allowed 90 hereditary peers and the earl marshal and lord great chamberlain to be excepted from the provisions of section 1 of the 1999 act, according to which “no-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage”. Section 2 of the 1999 act also provided for vacancies among the 90 excepted hereditary peers to be filled by holding by-elections. The House of Lords agreed in July 2024 to pause hereditary by-elections while it was considering the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill.[7]

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay’s amendment removed the original version of clause 1 from the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill and replaced it with a new version. The new version would have amended section 2 of the 1999 act so that:

  • no more than 87 people at any one time could be excepted from section 1 of the 1999 act
  • any vacancy resulting from the death, retirement, resignation or expulsion of an excepted person after the bill had come into force could not be filled by excepting another hereditary peer

This would have enabled the existing excepted hereditary members of the House to remain as members but would have prevented any new excepted hereditary members from joining and would have permanently ended the system of by-elections to fill vacancies.

Lord Parkinson said his amendment would fulfil the government’s manifesto pledge to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords but in a “kinder” way.[8] He argued allowing the existing excepted hereditary peers to remain in the House until they retired or died would ensure they were treated equally to life peers.[9]

He pointed out that the compromise reached through the Weatherill amendment in 1999 was meant to be a guarantee that “stage two” of the reform of the House of Lords would take place.[10] As this had never happened, Lord Parkinson argued it was false to claim the hereditary by-elections had continued for too long. Since 2003, various bills sought to end the holding of hereditary by-elections, including a succession of private member’s bills introduced by Lord Grocott (Labour). Lord Parkinson contended such attempts had “always faltered” because they were not accompanied by the other half of the guarantee.[11] However, he suggested that it was not “too late to embrace this solution”. He noted that Lord Grocott’s bills had “generally been supported” in the House of Lords, and that 160 new members had joined since the last time one of Lord Grocott’s bills had been debated.[12] Lord Parkinson therefore proposed his amendment would allow those who had previously supported ending by-elections the chance to do so again, and those who had not yet had the opportunity of expressing their view on it to do so.

Lord Grocott said he supported the government’s bill (in other words, removing all the excepted hereditary peers in one go) because it “does the job more effectively” of removing the hereditary principle as a mechanism for membership of the Lords.[13] He believed this was “long, long, long overdue”.

Lord Newby, then leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Lords, made a similar argument. He said his party had supported Lord Grocott’s bills in the past as “the best that was on offer”, but the Liberal Democrats believed the government’s proposal was preferable.[14] He also argued that accepting the amendment would “maintain over a considerable number of years […] a significant Conservative plurality over the Labour benches” unless the government “bloated” the size of the House further by creating new life peers.

Lord True, shadow leader of the House, described Lord Parkinson’s amendment as “the right and balanced way forward” which would end the hereditary principle as a route for entering the House of Lords without hurting existing members.[15] He said the Conservatives recognised Labour had a mandate to end the hereditary principle and nobody would enter the House through a by-election again. He argued that the sole issue left for the House to decide was “not who comes here in future, but who goes now”.

Baroness Smith of Basildon, leader of the House of Lords, said it had been established 25 years ago “that the hereditary principle would not be a route into your Lordships’ House” although that was not to “decry any individual member who has arrived by that route”.[16] She suggested Lord Parkinson’s amendment would not fulfil Labour’s manifesto pledge to end the right of hereditary peers to sit in the Lords, as it would allow the existing excepted hereditary peers to remain.[17]

The House voted in favour of Lord Parkinson’s amendment.[18]

At third reading, the House agreed a consequential amendment also tabled by Lord Parkinson, this time without a vote (amendment 5).[19] This amendment removed wording from the bill that would have meant any writ of summons issued for the present Parliament in right of a hereditary peerage would have expired at the end of the session in which the bill was passed (that is, at the point when the original version of clause 1 would take effect and end the membership of existing excepted hereditary peers).

Read more

2.3 Unsalaried ministers

The Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 currently limits the total number of paid ministerial posts to 109. The act also sets limits broken down by categories of post, such as secretaries of state, more junior ranking ministers, law officers and whips. The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 limits the number of ministerial posts, including whips, in the House of Commons to 95. There is no equivalent statutory limit on the number of ministerial posts in the House of Lords. If the full number of ministers were appointed in the House of Commons and they were all paid, there could be only 14 paid ministers in the Lords.

There are currently 29 ministers (including whips) in the House of Lords, of whom 11 are unpaid.[20]

Lord True, shadow leader of the House of Lords, tabled amendment 13 at report stage to prevent the appointment of unpaid ministers in the House of Lords. His amendment inserted a new clause requiring that ministers could be eligible for membership of the House of Lords only if they were in receipt of, or had been offered, a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. He also tabled amendment 13A (an amendment to his own amendment) which made clear that this would not apply to ministers who had been appointed before the new provision came into force.

Lord True said the purpose of his amendments was to send a “clear message” to the House of Commons and to all governments that service as a minister in the House of Lords should be “properly remunerated”.[21] He argued this would reflect three important principles: a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, equal treatment of ministers in both Houses, and that nobody should be prevented from serving as a minister for the lack of private means.

Baroness Smith of Basildon agreed the principle of ministers being paid was “an absolutely sound one”.[22] However, she did not support the amendment, arguing it “would not mean that any currently unpaid Lords ministers would receive a salary”. She suggested that since it did not increase the maximum number of paid ministers or the number of salaries available for Lords ministers, it would “put limits on the ability of the prime minister to choose the ministers he or she seeks to choose” and was therefore “not a practical solution to what we all agree is a problem”.[23] She proposed a better way forward would be a separate bill to increase the overall number of ministerial salaries available or to ring-fence the number of Lords ministers within the total number of ministers.[24]

Amendment 13A was agreed to on division. Amendment 13, incorporating amendment 13A, was then added to the bill without division.

Read more

2.4 Rights of life peers to sit in the House of Lords

The Life Peerages Act 1958 provided the monarch with a statutory power to create life peerages with a seat in the House of Lords. The act specifies that the crown shall have the power to grant by letters patent to any person a “peerage for life”, and that person shall for his or her life rank as a baron or baroness and receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and to sit and vote in it.

The monarch has conferred a peerage for life outside this statutory power: in 2023, King Charles III conferred the Dukedom of Edinburgh on his brother, Prince Edward, for the prince’s lifetime.[25] Thereafter, the title will revert to the crown.[26]

In 2017, the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House suggested the creation of life peerages without the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords should be considered as one way of preventing the House increasing in size. The committee said:

While this report is not the place to set out how this might happen, we have been advised that the monarch is empowered to appoint life peers other than under the Life Peerages Act 1958. Peers appointed in this way would not be entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. We would encourage the government to pursue this option in tandem with our main proposals.[27]

At report stage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, Lord True moved an amendment to create a statutory basis for conferring life peerages of the rank of baron or baroness without automatic membership of the House of Lords. The amendment inserted a new clause into the bill that would have amended the 1958 act. It would have meant a life peerage conferred under the 1958 act would come with the right to attend, sit in and vote in the House of Lords only if this right were specified in the letters patent creating the peerage.

Lord True said his amendment would “place absolutely beyond doubt what I and many others consider probably is beyond doubt: the absolute untrammelled power of the crown to create a peerage that does not bring with it a summons to attend your Lordships’ House”.[28] He argued it would be “helpful to prime ministers who wish to honour distinguished men and women but not necessarily to swell the ranks of this House”.[29]

Responding for the government, Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent argued there was already an “extensive, comprehensive and long-standing” honours system to recognise outstanding contributions to society.[30] She said the government did not support “decoupling” a life peerage conferred under the 1958 act from membership of the House of Lords. She did not believe “creating another layer to the system, to provide for the creation of non-active peers” was “in keeping with the mood of the House” or Labour’s manifesto commitment to introduce a participation requirement for members of the Lords. She also suggested it would “exacerbate the confusion that already exists amongst the public regarding the difference between honours and peerages”.

However, Lord True argued his amendment would not create a new category of peer, since retired life peers already constituted a category of life peers who are not members of the House of Lords.[31]

Lord Wallace of Saltaire, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, said his party favoured “thoroughgoing reform” in which peerages would be separated from membership of the House of Lords and a “working second chamber” would not be “muddled with the honours system”.[32]

Lord True’s amendment was agreed to on division.

Read more

2.5 Resignation from the House of Lords on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity

Peers can retire or resign from the House of Lords by giving written notice to the clerk of the parliaments. The peer and a witness must sign the notice. These requirements are set out in section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. The 2014 act does not explicitly provide for someone else to give notice on behalf of a peer who lacks mental capacity.

In the past, the clerk of the parliaments has followed the practice that even someone who holds power of attorney for a member cannot give notice on their behalf; instead it has been suggested in such circumstances that the member take leave of absence.[33] When she became leader of the House in July 2024, Baroness Smith of Basildon sought government legal advice on this question.[34] Following further discussion, the clerk of the parliaments informed the House of Lords Procedure and Privileges Committee that having reviewed the legal advice available to him and his predecessors, subject to certain safeguards he would be willing to accept a notice of resignation submitted on behalf of a peer who has lost capacity by a person holding either:

  • a lasting power of attorney covering property and affairs executed under section 9(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005
  • an enduring power of attorney made prior to the coming into force of the 2005 act[35]

The committee reported this to the House for information in June 2025 and said a footnote to explain the operation of section 1 of the 2014 act in such cases would be added to the ‘Companion to the standing orders and guide to the proceedings of the House of Lords’.

During the passage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act, there was widespread agreement that a solution to this issue was needed, but some members argued it must be on a statutory basis. At report stage (after publication of the Procedure and Privileges Committee report), Lord Ashton of Hyde (non-affiliated at the time; now a Crossbencher) tabled an amendment seeking to amend the 2014 act to make it explicit that someone holding lasting power of attorney for a peer could submit notice of retirement or resignation on their behalf.[36] He argued the clerk of the parliaments should not “bear the risk” of there being any legal uncertainty about accepting resignations from an attorney. He also suggested a statutory solution would prevent a clerk of the parliaments taking a different position in future. Several members who are lawyers also questioned why the government was asking the House to rely on legal advice that members had not seen.[37] Baroness Smith said she was open to further discussions on the issue, and Lord Ashton withdrew his amendment.[38]

The government brought back its own amendments at third reading, which were agreed without division. Amendment 1 amends the 2014 act to make explicit that:

  • a notice of retirement or resignation may be given and signed by a person acting on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity
  • such a notice must be given and signed in accordance with standing orders of the House

Baroness Smith explained it would then be for the standing orders and any associated guidance in the ‘Companion’ to set out how the arrangements would operate in practice.[39] This would be subject to the approval of the Procedure and Privileges Committee and the House. She said this approach would provide legal certainty while giving the House ownership of the arrangements and the ability to modify them as required. The other government amendments ensured this provision came into force when the bill received royal assent, while the bill’s other substantive provisions will not come into force until the end of the 2024–26 parliamentary session.

Lord Ashton described this as an “elegant solution […] to the problem that faced all parties and groups in the House”.[40]

Baroness Smith said there would be further work over the 2025 summer recess so the standing orders and guidance could be put in place as soon as possible.[41] She expected this to include details of the sorts of legal instruments under which the clerk of the parliaments could accept a notice of resignation, the requirements on a person submitting such a notice on behalf of a peer, and the steps to be taken when the notice was received.

Read more

3. How did the House of Commons respond to the Lords amendments?

The Lords amendments summarised in the previous section were debated by the House of Commons on 4 September 2025.[42]

Of the four groups of amendments set out in table 1, only one group was agreed by the House of Commons: resignation or retirement from the House of Lords on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity. The other three groups were rejected by the Commons on division.

3.1 Agreed: Resignation or retirement from the House of Lords on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity

The amendments to the bill allowing someone to submit a notice of resignation or retirement on behalf of a member lacking capacity (the amendments were numbered 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 in the House of Commons) were agreed by MPs without division.

Speaking for the government, Nick Thomas-Symonds described the process for this group of amendments being made to the bill in the House of Lords and the general consensus for the change. He continued:

The amendments relating to resignation would come into force on royal assent to ensure that families who wish to avail themselves of these new arrangements do not have to wait until the end of a parliamentary session to do so. It seeks to provide certainty to peers who have raised this issue. It is a solution that has received unanimous cross-party support in the other place, and I hope that the shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster [Alex Burghart] will confirm the support for that amendment.[43]

The changes were backed by the other parties, with shadow minister Alex Burghart calling it a “sensible” move and the then Liberal Democrat Cabinet Office spokesperson, Sarah Olney, describing them as “modest but important changes”.[44]

3.2 Rejected: Exclusion of hereditary peers and abolition of by-elections for hereditary peers

The amendments (numbered 1 and 8 in the Commons) that would have retained the current cohort of excepted hereditary peers but would have stopped any new or replacement excepted hereditary peers joining the House of Lords were rejected on division.

Mr Thomas-Symonds argued against the amendments, claiming they undermined the government’s intent of implementing immediate reform to the Lords:

The government cannot endorse those amendments, which fundamentally undermine the core purpose of the bill. The government have a manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Lords amendment 1 would allow existing hereditary peers, the youngest of whom is 39, to remain in the other place for decades to come. That therefore blocks an immediate reform.[45]

For the Liberal Democrats, Ms Olney also argued against the group of amendments on the basis that it would allow hereditary peers to continue to sit in the Lords “for many years to come”. She therefore claimed it undermined the purpose of the bill.[46]

However, the Conservatives spoke in favour of the amendments. Alex Burghart said hereditary peers contribute to the House’s activity and scrutiny, and their immediate removal “belittles” their contribution. He instead claimed the government was pushing for the move due to the party profile of hereditary peers not being in its favour:

I do not think anybody here believes that will improve scrutiny. It is just a numbers game. It is simply an attempt to give the government a more compliant majority in the House of Lords, which they do not need. The government will be able to get their business through the House of Lords anyway, so this is an unnecessary change that, despite the comments of the paymaster general [Mr Thomas-Symonds], belittles the contribution of the peers who already sit. It belittles their service, and it does not need to be done.[47]

He also claimed the move went against the Weatherill amendment compromise: “the Labour Party has reneged on the deal that it struck in the late ’90s that was going to keep a small number of hereditary peers in place until such a time as it brought forward a comprehensive constitutional reform package, which this clearly is not”.[48]

The opposition therefore voted in favour of keeping this group of Lords amendments.

However, the proposed changes were defeated on division by 337 votes to 77.[49]

3.3 Rejected: Unsalaried ministers

The Lords amendment (numbered 2 in the Commons) that would have precluded ministers being appointed to the House of Lords unless they received or had been offered a salary was defeated on division.

Speaking against the amendment, Mr Thomas-Symonds argued it would only reduce the number of ministers in the Lords and limit prime ministerial prerogative powers. On the latter point, he stated:

It is for the prime minister of the day to advise the sovereign on the appointment, dismissal and acceptance of resignation of other ministers in line with those legislative limits. The amendment would therefore have the effect of placing a further restriction on that prerogative power and reducing the ability of the prime minister to choose the best people to serve in their government.[50]

He said the act should not be used for this purpose, or for pursuing changes to the legislation governing ministerial appointments and salaries.

Although seeing some benefits of the suggested change, Ms Olney also argued the bill should not be used for this purpose. She instead called for wider reforms to the House of Lords to be supported:

Liberal Democrats believe that the solution to the issue of democratic accountability and proper remuneration of our ministers does not lie in this poorly drafted amendment. Instead, we must push for wholesale reform of the House of Lords and our democratic system more widely […][51]

Mr Burghart argued for keeping the Lords amendment. He said ministers should be paid and that having unsalaried positions may mean that only people “already of considerable means” could take the posts.[52]

The Conservatives voted in favour of keeping the change, but the Lords amendment on unsalaried ministers was rejected by 331 votes to 73.

3.4 Rejected: Rights of life peers to sit in the House of Lords

The Lords amendment (numbered 3 in the Commons) to create a statutory basis for creating certain life peers with no right to sit in the House of Lords was also rejected on division.

Mr Thomas-Symonds said the change would introduce an additional unnecessary complexity, given the UK already has an “extensive” honours system.[53] He also said the issue of peers needing to contribute to the House of Lords would be looked at in the context of Labour’s manifesto commitment to introduce a participation requirement.

Ms Olney also argued against the amendment, calling it “an unnecessary amendment that does nothing to strengthen democracy or transparency”.[54]

However, arguing in favour of the amendment, Mr Burghart described peerages as one of the highest recognitions available, but said some people in their later years may not want the responsibility of attending the House of Lords attached to it.[55] He also referenced retired members as a current example of people that have a life peerage but are unable to participate in House business. He continued:

We [therefore] already have peerages that work the other way round. We are suggesting that it ought to be possible for somebody who is perhaps in advanced years or not well to accept a peerage without feeling that they are under an obligation to go and sit on the red benches. That is a perfectly reasonable request.[56]

The House voted against the Lords amendment by 338 votes to 74.

4. What happened when the bill returned to the House of Lords?

After a pause of six months, the bill returned to the House of Lords on 10 March 2026.[57] The Lords did not insist on any of the amendments that the Commons had rejected.

Baroness Smith of Basildon said she was pleased the Commons had accepted the amendments on powers of attorney to allow for dignified retirement in certain circumstances.[58] She said the associated changes to the standing orders would be presented to the House for approval. Lord True welcomed this.[59]

Baroness Smith said she was also pleased to report that the government had introduced the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill in the House of Commons to address the issue of unpaid ministers.[60] She said the government had opposed Lord True’s amendment on unpaid ministers because it was “not relevant” to its bill on removing hereditary peers, but the government did agree the amendment raised an important principle.[61] She said the new bill on ministerial salaries would guarantee a minimum of 25 salaries available for ministers in the House of Lords, which would be a “significantly better position for this House, recognising the important work of our ministers”.[62] Lord True welcomed the new bill.[63]

Baroness Smith reiterated that the government was committed to removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, as set out in its manifesto.[64] She said she had been “consistently clear that this has never been about hampering the ability of the opposition to scrutinise the government”. She appreciated the case made by the Conservatives during discussions about the passage of the bill that they relied significantly on the experience of hereditary peers in frontbench and select committee roles. She therefore said that an agreed number of life peerages would be allocated to the Conservatives, and to the Crossbenchers, who were in a similar position. She said it would be for the Conservatives to decide who to nominate, subject to vetting by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.[65] She said the arrangement was “an agreement made in good faith for the proper functioning of the House and the official opposition”.

Baroness Smith did not state how many life peerages been agreed for the Conservatives and Crossbenchers, but press reports have suggested it will be 15 for the Conservatives and 25 overall.[66]

Lord True said this was a “positive arrangement […] to avoid an absolute cliff edge that would otherwise result” from “a total cull of some of the most hard-working members of this House”.[67] However, he said it would involve “many difficult decisions” for the Conservatives and the Crossbenchers and was a compromise that “does not give complete satisfaction to anyone”.

While Lord True welcomed many of the actions that Baroness Smith set out, he said he still believed that “expulsion of sitting members from a sitting Parliament was unreasonable and sets a dangerous precedent”.[68] He maintained that ending hereditary by-elections would have been a better way to enact the government’s mandate of removing hereditary peers from the Lords. However, he also believed that the House “must dial down on eternal ping-pong”, so he said he had advised his members to accept the bill and not vote again on the Lords amendments. He paid tribute to the contribution of hereditary peers over many centuries, noting that “many thousands of peers served their nation here and thousands of improvements to law were made”.[69]

Baroness Smith agreed that this was “historic legislation” and that departing excepted hereditary members “should be thanked for their work and their service”.[70]

5. What happens next?

5.1 Resignation: House of Lords Procedure and Privileges Committee report

The House of Lords is due to consider a report from the Procedure and Privileges Committee on 14 April 2026 that recommends a new standing order to set out the procedure under which someone may give or sign notice of resignation on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity.[71]

Under the proposed new standing order, resignation on behalf of someone else would be permitted only if two conditions are met:[72]

  • the person applying has authority to act on behalf of the peer
  • the peer has lost and is unlikely to regain the capacity to give or sign a notice of resignation

The committee has explained that these could be demonstrated as follows:

The types of authority admitted under the standing order are set out in a non-exhaustive list. They are: a lasting power of attorney for property and financial affairs; a continuing power of attorney under Scots law; an enduring power of attorney established prior to 2017; another equivalent power of attorney; or acting as a property and financial affairs deputy appointed by the Court of Protection. It is possible that in exceptional circumstances some other form of authority (for instance, that of a close family member acting on behalf of a member who has not executed a power of attorney) could be accepted […]

The assessment of capacity will be based on medical evidence. The applicant will need to demonstrate not only that the peer lacks capacity to give or sign a notice of resignation, but that they are unlikely to regain that capacity. They will need to show that in assessing whether this condition has been met, they have sought professional medical advice; where appropriate, family members and carers may also be consulted.[73]

The committee said that the new procedure “seeks to balance a straightforward set of requirements […] with the necessary safeguards to ensure that the significant and irrevocable step of resigning from the House is undertaken appropriately”.[74]

If approved by the House, the scheme would be overseen by the Leave of Absence Sub-Committee of the Procedure and Privileges Committee. The sub-committee would be the final decision-maker on all applications. It would be advised by the clerk of the parliaments, who retains statutory responsibilities under the terms of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (the legislation that first provided for members to resign from the House).

5.2 Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

The House of Lords is also due to consider the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill (all stages) on 14 April 2026. The bill would increase the total number of ministerial salaries that could be paid from 109 to 120. It would mean that at least 25 salaries would be available to pay ministers in the House of Lords, an increase of 11 from the current level of 14.[75] The bill completed all its stages in the House of Commons on 17 March 2026, with no amendments being tabled. It has been certified as a money bill, which means it can become law with or without House of Lords approval.

The government has said the bill “largely ends the practice of unpaid ministers”.[76] However, unlike Lord True’s amendment, it does not require ministers to be offered a salary.

5.3 House of Lords Retirement and Participation Committee

The House of Lords appointed a Retirement and Participation Committee in December 2025.[77] The government proposed setting up this committee during debates on the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill.

Baroness Smith of Basildon said in July 2025 that during Lords committee stage of the bill, and in meetings with members, there had been discussion about reforms that were in Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto but not in the bill.[78] The manifesto contained commitments to introduce a mandatory retirement age and a participation requirement, tighten rules for removing “disgraced members”, reform the appointments process, improve national and regional representation, and consult on proposals to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber.[79] Baroness Smith said members were “seeking reassurance that the plans for the next stage of reforms will not flounder”.[80] She concluded a dedicated select committee would be the best way forward on retirement and participation, issues where she said members “have indicated they are keen to make progress”.[81] She hoped a committee could be set up within three months of the bill passing, allowing the House to consider its findings by July 2026.[82] The government reiterated this commitment in the House of Commons debate on 4 September 2025.[83]

The committee’s remit is to consider:[84]

  • the impact of a retirement age on the House, and in particular its size and functioning
  • the impact of a participation requirement on the House, and in particular its membership and functioning
  • options for the implementation of a retirement age and participation requirement, including without primary legislation, and transitional measures where appropriate

The committee must report by 31 July 2026.

5. Read more about the bill

An earlier version of this briefing was published in September 2025 following Commons consideration of Lords amendments. The briefing was updated on 13 April 2026 to reflect the fact the bill has now completed its passage through Parliament and received royal assent.

Image © House of Lords 2025 / photography by Roger Harris.

References

  1. For further information on the Weatherill amendment, see: House of Lords Library, ‘The Weatherill amendment: Elected hereditary peers’, 23 October 2009. Return to text
  2. Labour Party, ‘Labour Party manifesto 2024’, June 2024, p 108. Return to text
  3. HC Hansard, 26 March 2026, col 413. Return to text
  4. Prime Minister’s Office, ‘Political peerages December 2025’, 10 December 2025. Return to text
  5. House of Lords Library, ‘House of Lords reform: Hereditary members March 2026’, 13 March 2026. Return to text
  6. BBC News, ‘Two hereditary peers allowed to keep ceremonial roles’, 27 March 2026. Return to text
  7. HL Hansard, 25 July 2024, cols 624–7. Return to text
  8. HL Hansard, 2 July 2025, col 772. Return to text
  9. HL Hansard, 2 July 2025, col 749. Return to text
  10. HL Hansard, 2 July 2025, cols 749–50. Return to text
  11. HL Hansard, 2 July 2025, col 751. Return to text
  12. HL Hansard, 2 July 2025, col 752. Return to text
  13. HL Hansard, 2 July 2025, cols 759–60. Return to text
  14. HL Hansard, 2 July 2025, col 758. Return to text
  15. HL Hansard, 2 July 2025, col 766. Return to text
  16. HL Hansard, 2 July 2025, col 771. Return to text
  17. HL Hansard, 2 July 2025, col 772. Return to text
  18. HL Hansard, 2 July 2025, cols 774–6. Return to text
  19. HL Hansard, 21 July 2025, col 22. Return to text
  20. HM Government, ‘Ministers’, accessed 19 March 2026. Return to text
  21. HL Hansard, 9 July 2025, cols 1333–5. Return to text
  22. HL Hansard, 9 July 2025, col 1342. Return to text
  23. HL Hansard, 9 July 2025, col 1344. Return to text
  24. HL Hansard, 9 July 2025, col 1345. Return to text
  25. The Royal Household, ‘The King confers the Dukedom of Edinburgh upon the Prince Edward’, 10 March 2023. Return to text
  26. Debrett’s, ‘Peerages of other members of the royal family’, accessed 18 August 2025. Return to text
  27. Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House, ‘Report of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House’, 31 October 2017, para 25. Return to text
  28. HL Hansard, 9 July 2025, cols 1360–1. Return to text
  29. HL Hansard, 9 July 2025, col 1362. Return to text
  30. HL Hansard 9 July 2025, col 1366. Return to text
  31. HL Hansard, 9 July 2025, col 1363. Return to text
  32. HL Hansard, 9 July 2025, col 1365. Return to text
  33. HL Hansard, 9 July 2025, col 1356. Return to text
  34. HL Hansard, 9 July 2025, col 1356. Return to text
  35. House of Lords Procedure and Privileges Committee, ‘Questions for short debate; select committee report debate time limits; speakers’ list deadlines; explanatory statements for amendments; resignation and powers of attorneys’, 23 June 2025, HL Paper 144 of session 2024–26, p 5. Baroness Smith of Basildon later told the House that the safeguards would be that the clerk of the parliaments had seen the power of attorney, and if there was any doubt or concern, he would raise it with the whips (HL Hansard, 9 July 2025, col 1356). Return to text
  36. HL Hansard, 9 July 2025, cols 1351–2. Return to text
  37. HL Hansard, 9 July 2025, cols 1353–5. Return to text
  38. HL Hansard, 9 July 2025, cols 1358 and 1360. Return to text
  39. HL Hansard, 21 July 2025, col 18. Return to text
  40. HL Hansard, 21 July 2025, col 19. Return to text
  41. HL Hansard, 21 July 2025, col 18. Return to text
  42. HC Hansard, 4 September 2025, cols 501–57. Return to text
  43. HC Hansard, 4 September 2025, col 508. Return to text
  44. HC Hansard, 4 September 2025, cols 501–57. Return to text
  45. HC Hansard, 4 September 2025, col 502. Return to text
  46. HC Hansard, 4 September 2025, col 516. Return to text
  47. HC Hansard, 4 September 2025, col 512. Return to text
  48. HC Hansard, 4 September 2025, col 510. Return to text
  49. House of Commons, ‘Votes and proceedings Thursday 4 September 2025’, 4 September 2025. Return to text
  50. HC Hansard, 4 September 2025, col 507. Return to text
  51. HC Hansard, 4 September 2025, col 517. Return to text
  52. HC Hansard, 4 September 2025, col 512. Return to text
  53. HC Hansard, 4 September 2025, col 508. Return to text
  54. HC Hansard, 4 September 2025, col 517. Return to text
  55. HC Hansard, 4 September 2025, col 513. Return to text
  56. HC Hansard, 4 September 2025, col 513. Return to text
  57. HL Hansard, 10 March 2026, cols 249–64. Return to text
  58. HL Hansard, 10 March 2026, col 250. Return to text
  59. HL Hansard, 10 March 2026, col 253. Return to text
  60. HL Hansard, 10 March 2026, col 251. Return to text
  61. HL Hansard, 10 March 2026, col 250. Return to text
  62. HL Hansard, 10 March 2026, col 251. Return to text
  63. HL Hansard, 10 March 2026, col 254. Return to text
  64. HL Hansard, 10 March 2026, col 251. Return to text
  65. HL Hansard, 10 March 2026, cols 251–2. Return to text
  66. Aubrey Allegretti, ‘Hereditary peers to be removed from the House of Lords after deal struck’, Times (£), 10 March 2026; and Lucy Fisher, ‘Keir Starmer set to make Sadiq Khan a lord’, Financial Times (£), 27 March 2026. Return to text
  67. HL Hansard, 10 March 2026, col 253. Return to text
  68. HL Hansard, 10 March 2026, col 253. Return to text
  69. HL Hansard, 10 March 2026, col 254. Return to text
  70. HL Hansard, 10 March 2026, col 262. Return to text
  71. House of Lords Procedure and Privileges Committee, ‘Resignation: New standing order’, 19 March 2026, HL Paper 280 of session 2024–26. Return to text
  72. As above, p 1. Return to text
  73. As above, pp 1–2. Return to text
  74. As above, p 1. Return to text
  75. House of Lords Library, ‘Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill’, 26 March 2026, p 7. Return to text
  76. HC Hansard, 17 March 2026, col 818. Return to text
  77. HL Hansard, 18 December 2025, col 856. Return to text
  78. HL Hansard, 2 July 2025, col 745. Return to text
  79. Labour Party, ‘Labour Party manifesto 2024’, June 2024, p 108. Return to text
  80. HL Hansard, 2 July 2025, col 745. Return to text
  81. HL Hansard, 2 July 2025, col 745; and HL Hansard, 21 July 2025, col 22. Return to text
  82. HL Hansard, 2 July 2025, cols 745–6. Return to text
  83. HC Hansard, 4 September 2025, col 503. Return to text
  84. House of Lords Retirement and Participation Committee, ‘Inquiry launched on a retirement age and participation requirement for members of the House of Lords’, 22 January 2026. Return to text