The House of Lords has been accused of talking about itself “to destruction” as it debates a proposed law to abolish hereditary peerages, with campaigners urging peers to move faster in scrutinising the legislation.
Labour peer Lord Grocott, a long-time advocate for ending birthright membership in the upper chamber, criticised the slow progress of discussions on the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, a five-clause piece of legislation that seeks to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the Lords.
Slow progress and self-indulgence
Addressing the House, Lord Grocott remarked, “Everyone knows that no organisation is happier than when it’s talking about itself, and we’re demonstrating this, I think testing it to destruction, during the debate on this Bill so far. A simple five-clause Bill would not normally have an attendance like this.”
Peers have been engaged in line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, now in its third committee stage day. Lord Grocott pointed out that only 10 groups of amendments had been debated so far, with 32 remaining. “At this rate of progress, we shall be debating this for committee day after committee day after committee day,” he warned. “Some of us no doubt enjoying ourselves. We all like talking about our own organisation and how we work.”
He added that spending another six to eight days on repeated arguments, most of which are unrelated to the Bill itself, risked making the Lords seem irrelevant to the public. “We really do need to do better today if we want to be seen as relevant,” he insisted.
Calls for focus and relevance
Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Sentamu echoed Lord Grocott’s frustration. “I am not a prophet, nor a prophet’s son, but I would like to have a healthy check. None of the amendments you put are going to end up in this Bill,” he stated, criticising peers for “luxuriating” in discussions about broader reforms that are not directly relevant.
However, Conservative hereditary peer Lord Strathclyde denied any deliberate attempt to filibuster the debate. “There is no attempt to try and filibuster this debate,” he asserted.
One of the most extended discussions in the latest session revolved around whether the Bill should include a requirement for Lords members to meet an attendance or participation threshold. Several peers pointed out that such a requirement was mentioned in Labour’s election manifesto, alongside the abolition of hereditary peerages.
Debate on participation requirements
During the debate, peers explored various proposals for setting participation thresholds. Some suggested that members should attend a set percentage of sitting days, with figures ranging from 1% to 15% being discussed.
Concerns were raised that such a requirement might inadvertently exclude “low-frequency, high-impact” members—experts who contribute occasionally but meaningfully. Others worried that it could encourage peers to attend purely to meet the quota without making substantive contributions.
An alternative proposal was to require not only attendance but active participation, such as speaking in debates, serving on committees, asking oral or written questions, or joining official delegations. While some believed this would eliminate “clock in and disappear” peers, critics warned it could create a “perverse incentive” where members take part solely to fulfil the requirement rather than out of genuine engagement.
More Read
Lack of consensus on reform
Attorney General Lord Hermer acknowledged the widespread agreement that peers should be required to participate actively. However, he noted that there was no consensus on how this should be measured or enforced.
“As the amendments and the debate today have demonstrated, there is as yet no measure of agreement as to what the requisite participation levels should be, what the metrics will be,” he stated. “Participation in this house can take many different forms, but specifying which should be the metrics applied to requisite participation is a complicated and nuanced matter.”
Lord Hermer also revealed that Lords leader Baroness Smith of Basildon had engaged in over 60 discussions with peers on how to advance broader Lords reform following the passage of the current Bill.
He concluded, “The Government is committed to moving forward, hopefully through consensus, to push to the next level of reform, at which participation will be key.”
As the debate drags on, frustrations continue to mount among those pushing for reform. While the Bill remains under scrutiny, the wider discussion on Lords participation and relevance in the modern political landscape appears far from settled.
