The Guardian view on the House of Lords: end of the peer | Editorial

Sixty years since life peerages changed the all-hereditary upper house, it is time for a more radical reform

The House of Lords and radical change are not words that often appear in the same sentence, least of all on May Day. Yet the Life Peerages Act 1958, which became law 60 years ago this week, was arguably the most radical change in the British parliamentary system of the postwar era. Until it came into force, the House of Lords was an overwhelmingly hereditary body. Sixty years later, the Lords has in one sense been utterly transformed. Today there are 784 members of the Lords, of whom nearly 670 are the beneficiaries of the 1958 act.

The 1958 bill was strongly opposed by Labour. Its then leader, Hugh Gaitskell, objected to the legislation on the grounds that life peerages might enhance the prestige of the then predominantly hereditary upper house. As things have turned out, Gaitskell was largely right. Life peerages have saved the House of Lords, though not in the way Gaitskell perhaps expected. Since 1999, the number of hereditaries has been frozen at 92, and there are 26 Anglican bishops. More significantly, 60 years on, Lords reform has ground to an absolute halt.

It is hardly surprising that the current House of Lords is seeking to accentuate the positive, stressing that this is also the 60th anniversary of women winning the right to sit in the House of Lords at all. Until 1958, no woman could do so. But the Life Peerages Act applied to women, and in that year the sociologist Barbara Wootton became the first appointee to break the ban. Today she has 204 successors. It was not until 1963 that female hereditary peers – who continued to be excluded after 1958 – were able to join the female life peers. As progressive reforms go, though, this is hardly a breakthrough on a par with women winning the right to vote or to stand as MPs.

It remains a ludicrous anachronism for any democracy that its upper house is wholly unelected. It is an open question whether it is any better that the Lords is now almost wholly appointed rather than wholly hereditary. In some ways it is worse and more corrupt. The appointment system is too often a way of rewarding political time servers and donors. It gives prime ministers a huge power of patronage. Peerages for former MPs who lose their seats in an election are particularly unsavoury.

Since 1999 there has been intermittent talk of more reform. In the event, nothing significant has changed in nearly 20 years, except that the number of peers has escalated. Britain now has 1,434 parliamentarians, the most in our modern history, and this at a time when significant powers have been devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Attempts to democratise the upper house in 2007 and 2012 were both frustrated. Since then, there has been silence. If she had more authority, Theresa May would doubtless like to pack the Lords with even more pro-Brexit Conservatives, in order to stem the defeats that her government has been suffering there. But the truth is that nothing but a wholesale democratic reform of the upper house on a federal basis will suffice now.

Contributor

Editorial

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
The Guardian view on Brexit and devolution: wanted – joined-up thinking | Editorial
Editorial: Brexit is not only about the hard/soft argument. It is also about who gets the last word in the different nations of Britain

Editorial

15, May, 2018 @5:42 PM

Article image
The Guardian view on the parties’ Brexit talks: to agree is to split | Editorial
Editorial: A plumbing failure at Westminster brought a soggy end to proceedings. Everything else is getting harder

Editorial

04, Apr, 2019 @5:25 PM

Article image
The Guardian view on moving the Lords: northern power house | Editorial
Editorial: Relocating the upper chamber to York could be good for Britain – but only if its composition and role are radically rethought

Editorial

24, Jan, 2020 @6:30 PM

Article image
The Guardian view on the Brexit bill in the Lords: keep it constitutional | Editorial
Editorial: Theresa May’s leadership is in trouble. She must not try to escape by blaming the Lords

Editorial

29, Jan, 2018 @6:59 AM

Article image
The Guardian view on Labour’s Brexit: pragmatic not revolutionary politics | Editorial
Editorial: A softer Brexit would be good for Britain but Labour’s leader is unlikely to win an election with that as his policy

Editorial

04, Jul, 2022 @5:36 PM

Article image
The Guardian view on May’s Brexit: needs parliament’s support | Editorial
Editorial: The prime minister has once again seen off the Tory rebels. She now has to do the same to ‘hard Brexit’ cabinet colleagues.

Editorial

21, Jun, 2018 @5:42 PM

Article image
The Guardian view on Corbynomics: more creativity please | Editorial
Editorial: the Labour party should be congratulated for its progressive economic ideas. But as Tory MPs prepare to drop austerity and start spending, the opposition needs to be bolder

Editorial

27, May, 2018 @4:00 PM

Article image
The Guardian view on the 2018 local elections: speaking for England? | Editorial
Editorial: Voters across England go to the polls on 3 May. But there are many Englands and many voices

Editorial

02, Apr, 2018 @5:06 PM

Article image
The Guardian view on Boris Johnson and Brexit: crazy is as crazy does | Editorial
Editorial: Ministers are fighting among themselves over unrealistic customs union options. In doing so they increase the likelihood that MPs will vote for a soft Brexit alternative

Editorial

08, May, 2018 @5:41 PM

Article image
The Guardian view on Tory divisions: deeper than Brexit | Editorial
Editorial: Cabinet rows over a customs union are the proxy for a more profound ideological battle that Theresa May is desperately trying to defer

Editorial

02, May, 2018 @5:22 PM